Development and validation of a novel scoring system based on a nomogram for predicting inadequate bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation (BP) is crucial for the diagnosis of colorectal diseases. Identifying patients at risk of inadequate BP allows for targeted interventions and improved outcomes. We aimed to develop a model for predicting inadequate BP based on preparation-related factors. METHODS: Adult outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy between May 2022 and October 2022 were enrolled. One set (N = 913) was used to develop and internally validate the predictive model. The primary predictive model was displayed as a nomogram and then modified into a novel scoring system, which was externally validated in an independent set (N = 177). Inadequate BP was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparedness Scale (BBPS) score of less than 2 for any colonic segment. The model was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Independent factors included in the prediction model were stool frequency ≤ 5 (15 points), preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 5 h (15 points), incomplete dosage (100 points), non-split dose (90 points), unrestricted diet (88 points), no additional water intake (15 points), and last stool appearance as an opaque liquid (0-80 points). The training set exhibited the following performance metrics for identifying BP failure: area under the curve (AUC) of 0.818, accuracy (ACC) of 0.818, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 2.397, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.162, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.850, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.723. In the internal validation set, these metrics were 0.747, 0.776, 2.099, 0.278, 0.866, and 0.538, respectively. The external validation set showed values of 0.728, 0.757, 2.10, 0.247, 0.782, and 0.704, respectively, indicating strong discriminative ability. Calibration curves demonstrated close agreement, and DCA indicated superior clinical benefits at a threshold probability of 0.73 in the training cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort for this model. CONCLUSIONS: This novel scoring system was developed from a prospective study and externally validated in an independent set based on 7 easily accessible variables, demonstrating robust performance in predicting inadequate BP.

The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone. Methods: This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded. Results: We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

Introdução: As normas de orientação atuais sugerem a adição de simeticone oral à preparação intestinal para colonoscopia. Contudo, o seu efeito nos indicadores de qualidade no âmbito da colonoscopia de rastreio não está comprovado. O objetivo principal foi avaliar a taxa de preparação adequada usando polietilenoglicol (PEG) em dose dividida com e sem simeticone oral. Métodos: Estudo randomizado controlado, cego para o endoscopista, incluindo doentes admitidos para colonoscopia após teste fecal imunoquímico positivo. Os doentes foram aleatoriamente alocados para 4 litros de PEG em dose dividida (PEG) ou 4 litros de PEG em dose divida + simeticone oral (PEG + simeticone). Foram avaliados: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), qualidade da preparação relativa às bolhas através da Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS) scale, ADR, CIR e uso de simeticone durante o procedimento. Resultados: Foram incluídos 191 e 197 doentes nos grupos PEG + simeticone e PEG, respetivamente. Comparando os grupos PEG + simeticone versus PEG, não se registaram diferenças de significado estatístico relativamente à taxa de preparação intestinal adequada (97% vs. 93%; p = 0,01) mas o score da escala de bolhas foi significativamente inferior no grupo PEG + simeticone [0 (0) versus 2 (5), p < 0.01], assim como o uso de simeticone durante o procedimento (7% vs. 37%; p < 0,01). A ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0,86) e a CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0,14) não diferiram significativamente entre os dois grupos, respetivamente. Discussão/Conclusão: Adicionar simeticone oral à preparação intestinal em dose dividida permitiu menor incidência de bolhas e menor utilização de simeticone durante o procedimento, mas não se associa a melhor preparação intestinal ou melhor ADR.

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2). METHODS: 240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure. RESULTS: A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62). CONCLUSION: While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Validation of Artificial Intelligence-based Bowel Preparation Assessment in Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate bowel preparation assessment is essential for determining colonoscopy screening intervals. Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation are at a high risk of missing >5mm adenomas, and should undergo an early repeat colonoscopy. In this study, we employed artificial intelligence (AI) to evaluate bowel preparation and validated the ability of the system in accurately identifying patients who are at high risk of missing >5mm adenoma due to inadequate bowel preparation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, single-center, observational study was conducted at the Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University from October 8, 2021, to November 9, 2022. Eligible patients underwent screening colonoscopy were consecutively enrolled. The AI assessed bowel preparation using e-Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) while endoscopists evaluated using BBPS. If both BBPS and e-BBPS deemed preparation adequate, the patient immediately underwent a second colonoscopy, otherwise the patient underwent bowel re-cleansing before the second colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among the 393 patients, 72 ＞5mm adenomas were detected, while 27 ＞5mm adenomas were missed. In unqualified-AI patients, the >5mm AMR was significantly higher than in qualified-AI patients (35.71% vs 13.19%, p=0.0056, OR 0.2734, 95% CI 0.1139, 0.6565), as were the AMR (50.89% vs 20.79%, p<0.001, OR 0.2532, 95% CI 0.1583, 0.4052) and >5mm PMR (35.82% vs 19.48%, p=0.0152, OR 0.4335, 95% CI 0.2288, 0.8213). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that patients classified as inadequate by AI showed unacceptable >5mm AMR, provided key evidence for implementing AI in guiding the bowel re-cleansing, potentially standardizing the future colonoscopy screening; ClincialTrials.gov, NCT05145712.

Enhancing Colonoscopy Preparation in Elderly Constipation Patients: A Personalized Approach with PEG and Exercise - A Case Study.

This study aimed to optimize bowel preparation efficacy for colonoscopy in elderly constipation patients. A 71-year-old patient with chronic constipation and a history of poor bowel preparation. To address these challenges, we implemented a personalized strategy combining of PEG administration and walking exercise. The PEG was administered according to a protocol, with intermittent exercise breaks of 10 minute. Bowel cleanliness was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Adverse reactions and tolerance were closely monitored throughout the intervention. The patient's BBPS score improved from 3 to 8 post-intervention. The exercise intervention was well-tolerated (rating I), and mild nausea was observed only after the first PEG dose. No severe adverse reactions occurred. Subsequent Follow-up revealed symptom relief. The personalized approach combining (PEG and exercise intervention) successfully improved bowel preparation quality in the elderly constipation patient undergoing colonoscopy. This approach considers age-related changes in gastrointestinal function and activity level, offering an effective strategy to improve patient tolerance and reduce adverse reactions during bowel preparation. The findings underscore the importance of tailoring interventions for elderly constipation patients to optimize the colonoscopy experience.

Split doses versus whole dose bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A multicentric prospective Lebanese randomized trial between 2021 and 2023.

Background and Aims: Bowel preparation is considered as major obstacle before colonoscopy, and it is often reported as the most feared part of the procedure. The aim of this study is to determine the difference in efficacy between a split dose of PEG and the previous day regimen in cleaning the colon, using Boston bowel preparation scale. In addition, also to evaluate patient satisfaction regarding the modality of preparation. Methods: The study included 200 hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy at Beirut hospitals between 2021 and 2023. One of the two regimens will be prescribed randomly to the patients before colonoscopy: 98 (49%) in Group A (patients treated with PEG preparation as a split dose for 2 days), and 102 (51%) in Group B (patients taking PEG preparation as a whole dose). Data was analyzed using SPSS version 25. Results: Patients were distributed between 105 (52.5%) males and 95 (47.5%) females. The top two indications for colonoscopy were bleeding (34%), change in bowel habits (constipation/diarrhea) (32%). Patients experienced adverse events noting cramps (48.5%), stomach ache (32%), headache (31%), vomiting (53%), nausea (53%), sleep disturbance (27%), bloating (26.5%), and malaise (26%). A statistically significant difference (p = 0.040) was detected in sleep disturbance: 20.4% of patients in group A and 33.3% of patients in group B. The average satisfaction score was 3.02 ± 1.03 over 4 (Group A) and 3.04 ± 0.99 over 4 (Group B) (p = 0.896). The average BBPS was 8.07 ± 1.14 (Group A) and 8.28 ± 1.0 (Group B) (p = 0.162). Conclusion: The two administrations were almost similar in term of satisfaction and BBPS. As multiple factors like age, sexe, comorbidities may contribute in altering how much a given drug is safe and efficace, more research is needed to choose the best 3regimen for each patient.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively explore the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP). METHODS: We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases up to August 24, 2023, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined risk factors for IBP. A random effects model was used to pool the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 125 studies (91 observational studies, 34 RCTs) were included. Meta-analyses of observational studies revealed that three preparation-related factors, namely, characteristics of last stool (solid or brown liquid), incomplete preparation intake, and incorrect diet restriction, were strong predictors of IBP. The other factors were moderately correlated with IBP incidence, including demographic variables (age, body mass index, male sex, Medicaid insurance, and current smoking), comorbidities (diabetes, liver cirrhosis, psychiatric disease, Parkinson's disease, previous IBP, poor mobility, inpatient, and Bristol stool form 1/2), medications (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, antidepressants, narcotics, antipsychotics, and calcium channel blockers), and preparation-related factors (preparation-to-colonoscopy interval not within 3 to 5/6 h, nonsplit preparation, and preparation instructions not followed). No colonoscopy indications were found to be related to IBP. Meta-analyses of RCTs showed that education, constipation, stroke/dementia, and discomfort during preparation were also moderately associated with IBP. Most of the other findings were consistent with the pooled results of observational studies. However, primarily due to imprecision and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for most factors was very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: We summarized five categories of risk factors for IBP. Compared to demographic variables, comorbidities, medications, and colonoscopy indications, preparation-related elements were more strongly associated with IBP. These findings may help clinicians identify high-risk individuals and provide guidance for IBP prevention.

The effect of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound related complications: A meta-analysis.

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), a routine nursing procedure before paediatric bowel surgery, is widely should in clinical practice, but its necessity remains controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effect of preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound-related complications in order to analyse the clinical application value of MBP in paediatric bowel surgery. As of November 2023, we searched four online databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the collected studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ROBINS-I was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Using RevMan5.3, a meta-analysis of the collected data was performed, and a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model was used to analyse OR, 95% CI, SMD, and MD. A total of 11 studies with 2556 patients were included. Most of studies had moderate-to-severe quality bias. The results of meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications related to postoperative infections in children with MBP before bowel surgery versus those with No MBP, wound infection (OR 1.11, 95% CI:0.76 ~ 1.61, p = 0.59, I2 = 5%), intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.26, 95% CI:0.58 ~ 2.77, p = 0.56, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative bowel anastomotic leak (OR 1.07, 95% CI:0.68 ~ 1.68, p = 0.78, I2 = 12%), and anastomotic dehiscence (OR 1.67, 95% CI:0.13 ~ 22.20, p = 0.70, I2 = 73%). Patients' intestinal obstruction did not show an advantage of undergoing MBP preoperatively, with an incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR 1.95, 95% CI:0.55 ~ 6.93, p = 0.30, I2 = 0%). Based on existing evidence that preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery did not reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications, we cautiously assume that MBP before surgery is unnecessary for children undergoing elective bowel surgery. However, due to the limited number of study participants selected for this study and the overall low quality of evidence, the results need to be interpreted with caution. It is suggested that more high quality, large-sample, multicenter clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

The perilous consequences of bowel preparation: a case study with literature review of Boerhaave syndrome.

Colonoscopy is widely acknowledged as a prevalent and efficacious approach for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. In order to guarantee an effective colonoscopy, it is imperative for patients to undergo an optimal bowel preparation regimen. This entails the consumption of a substantial volume of a non-absorbable solution to comprehensively purge the colon of any fecal residue. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy to acknowledge that the bowel preparation procedure may occasionally elicit adverse symptoms such as nausea and vomiting. In exceptional instances, the occurrence of excessive vomiting may lead to the rupture of the distal esophagus, a grave medical condition referred to as Boerhaave syndrome (BS). Timely identification and efficient intervention are imperative for the management of this infrequent yet potentially perilous ailment. This investigation presents a case study of a patient who developed BS subsequent to the ingestion of mannitol during bowel preparation. Furthermore, an exhaustive examination of extant case reports and pertinent literature on esophageal perforation linked to colonoscopy has been conducted. This analysis provides valuable insights into the prevention, reduction, and treatment of such serious complications.

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3). RESULTS: The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts.

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

Establishment of a risk prediction model for bowel preparation failure prior to colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the factors that contribute to the failure of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy and to develop a risk prediction model. METHODS: A total of 1115 outpatients were included. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: the modeling group (669 patients) and the validation group (446 patients). In the modeling group, patients were further divided into two groups based on their success and failure in bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. A logistic regression analysis model was used to determine the risk factors of bowel preparation failure, which was subsequently visualized using an alignment diagram. RESULTS: After controlling for relevant confounders, multifactorial logistic regression results showed that age ≥ 60 years (OR = 2.246), male (OR = 2.449), body mass index ≥ 24 (OR = 2.311), smoking (OR = 2.467), chronic constipation (OR = 5.199), diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.396) and history of colorectal surgery (OR = 5.170) were influencing factors of bowel preparation failure. The area under the ROC curve was 0.732 in the modeling group and 0.713 in the validation group. According to the calibration plot, the predictive effect of the model and the actual results were in good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Age ≥ 60 years, male, body mass index ≥ 24, smoking, chronic constipation, diabetes mellitus, and history of colorectal surgery are independent risk factors for bowel preparation failure. The established prediction model has a good predictive efficacy and can be used as a simple and effective tool for screening patients at high risk for bowel preparation failure.

Evaluation of parameters influencing the quality of colon preparation with a split-dose regimen of sulfate salts.

Background: Bowel cleansing is an important factor for the quality of colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of split-dose oral sulfate salts on bowel preparation and to determine parameters influencing the quality of bowel cleaning. Method: Consecutive adults who completed their preparation for colonoscopy with a regimen of sulfate salts were enrolled. Results: Of the 446 patients, 11 were excluded from the analysis. Among the 435 patients, 257 (59.1%) were female, mean age was 62.0±11.6 years and median body mass index (BMI) 26.1 kg/m2 (interquartile range [IQR] 23.8-29.4). Indications for colonoscopy were screening 155 (35.6%), surveillance 102 (23.5%), or other 178 (40.9%). The median time between the end of second dose of the preparation regimen and colonoscopy initiation was 5:15 h (IQR 4:30-6:00, min: 2:20, max: 12:20). Minor adverse events were reported in 62 (14.3%) patients. BBPS=9 was observed in 279 (64.14%) patients. Segmental BBPS=3 was achieved in 387 (88.97%), 346 (79.54%) and 289 (66.44%) patients (P<0.001) in the descending, transverse and ascending colon, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that BMI (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1-1.1) and time between the end of the second laxative dose and colonoscopy initiation (OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.08-1.45) were associated with poorer bowel preparation. Conclusions: A split dose of oral sulfate salts is an efficacious and well tolerated regimen. Obesity and a longer time interval between the end of the second dose and colonoscopy initiation negatively influence bowel cleanliness.

Comparison of Objectively Assessed Versus Patient-Reported Clarity of Last Rectal Effluent for the Prediction of Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Case-Control Study.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is a crucial procedure for various clinical purposes, including screening for colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for its success. Poor bowel preparation can lead to bad outcomes. An objective assessment of bowel preparation quality is typically only possible after the colonoscope is inserted. This study aimed to objectively correlate the clarity of last rectal effluent, directly collected in a transparent container, with the quality of bowel preparation, and compare it with patient-reported descriptions. METHODS: This prospective, single-centre, case-control study obtained ethical clearance and included patients aged >18 years undergoing colonoscopies. Cases included patients who collected the last rectal effluent and took photographs, while controls relied on verbal descriptions. Data collected included demographics, clinical information, bowel preparation quality, and lastly, stool clarity. A statistical analysis was performed to identify correlations and associations. RESULTS: Of the 70 included patients, 45 were male. The mean age was 35.8 ± 14.3 years. Cases had a higher mean age (37.8 ± 14.6). A higher number of cases had comorbidities (11, 68.8%). Photographic recording of the last rectal effluent was not associated with the adequacy of bowel preparation. Thin yellow fluid was the most common last-rectal effluent clarity (33, 47.1%). Thin, clear fluid was significantly associated with adequate bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: Objective assessment of last rectal effluent clarity correlates with the quality of bowel preparation. This can improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopies and potentially reduce the need for repeat procedures, contributing to better patient outcomes and cost savings in healthcare systems.

Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics and Mechanical Bowel Preparations on the Intestinal Flora of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Single-Center Prospective Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION:  In the last few decades, considerable progress has been made in controlling surgical site infections (SSIs) using a combination of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation. However, the number of bacteria present after bowel preparation has not been clarified. In this study, we investigated the bacterial cultures of intestinal fluid samples from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer after preoperative bowel preparation. METHODS: This prospective observational study was designed as a pilot study at a single center. We enrolled 25 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer between March 2021 and February 2022 at our institution. RESULTS: The rate of bacterial culture positivity was 56.0%. The most abundant bacterium was Escherichia coli (44.0%). The positivity rates for E. coli on the right and left sides were 54.5% and 35.7%, respectively (P = 0.60). Moreover, there was a significant relationship between a low American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score and E. coli positivity on the right side (P = 0.031). In the left-sided group, female sex and large tumor size were significantly associated with E. coli positivity (P = 0.036 and 0.049, respectively). Superficial SSI occurred in the patient in the left-sided group, but E. coli was negative. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of understanding intestinal fluid contamination and its relationship to infection risk. Future prospective multicenter studies should be conducted to determine the association between intestinal bacteria and different types of preoperative preparation.

The status quo of short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Background: For high-quality colonoscopies, adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite, closely associated with the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy. Although popular-science short videos can help people quickly access health information, the overall quality of such short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy is unclear. Therefore, we intend to conduct a cross-sectional study to investigate the quality of bowel preparation information before colonoscopy through short videos taken on TikTok and Bilibili. Methods: The Chinese phrases "colonoscopy" and "bowel preparation" were used as keywords to search for and screen the top 100 videos in the comprehensive rankings on TikTok and Bilibili. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN score were used to assess the quality of the information provided in these short videos. Results: A total of 186 short videos were included in this study; 56.5% of them were posted by health professionals, whereas 43.5% of them were posted by nonhealth professionals. The overall quality of these videos was unsatisfactory, with a median DISCERN score of 3 (2-4) and a median GQS of 3 (3-4). The radar maps showed that videos posted by gastroenterologists had higher completeness scores regarding outcomes, management, and risk factors, while nongastroenterologists had higher completeness scores concerning adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation. Additionally, the median DISCERN score and GQS of the videos posted by gastroenterologists were 3 (3-4) and 3 (3-4), respectively, whereas the quality of the videos posted by patients was the worst, with a median DISCERN score of 2 (1-2) and a median GQS of 2 (1.25-3). Conclusion: In conclusion, the overall quality of health information-related videos on bowel preparation before colonoscopy posted on specified short video platforms was not satisfactory. Gastroenterologists provide more information on the outcomes, management, and risk factors for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, while nongastroenterologists focus on adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation.

Bowel Preparation Burden, Rectal Pain and Abdominal Discomfort: Perspective of Participants Undergoing CT Colonography and Colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate bowel preparation burden, rectal pain and abdominal discomfort levels and to determine the association between demographic characteristics and those levels among participants undergoing CT colonography and colonoscopy. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in eligible Thai citizens who consented to participate all four visits of a free colorectal cancer screening protocol. Three levels (mild, moderate and severe) of burden, pain and discomfort were used to ask the perspective of participants at the final visit, one week after undergoing those two procedures. RESULTS: Data from 1,271 participants completed for analyses - females 815 (64.1%), males 456 (35.9%). The majority of participants experienced mild burden, pain and discomfort. Association between characteristic groups and burden levels differed regarding own income, chronic disease and laxative. Between characteristic groups and pain and discomfort levels differed regarding own income and chronic disease. Participants without their own income rated severe burden lower than those who had (p<0.001), but those without chronic disease rated moderate burden lower than who had (p=0.003). Participants prepared bowel with spilt-dose of PEG rated moderate burden higher than those who prepared with NaP (p<0.001). Participants undergoing CT colonography without their own income and presenting no chronic disease faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.04). Participants without their own income rated moderate and severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.01 and p=0.008). Participants undergoing colonoscopy without their own income and no chronic diseases faced severe rectal pain lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.007). Participants without their own income and no chronic disease rated severe abdominal discomfort lower than those who had (p<0.001 and p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Evaluating the perspectives of customers alongside quality improvement and innovation to reduce unpleasant experiences remains needed in CT colonography and colonoscopy to promote CRC screening.

Evaluation after implementation of chemical bowel preparation for surgical site infections in elective colorectal cancer surgery and role of antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist: Retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the predictive factors for surgical site infections (SSIs) in elective colorectal cancer surgery and the role of antimicrobial stewardship (AS) pharmacists in modifying the clinical pathway. MAIN BODY: Between February 2017 and January 2022, 414 elective colorectal cancer surgeries were performed. The results of multivariate analysis by SSI incidence were adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.96 (P = 0.039) for sex (female), aOR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.13-0.58 (P < 0.001) for laparoscopy, aOR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19-0.91 (P = 0.029) for chemical bowel preparation. The median (interquartile range) postoperative length of stay was 12 (10.0-18.5) vs. 10 (9.0-13.0) days before and after the clinical pathway was modified (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The role of AS pharmacists was primarily to conduct a literature search to explore whether SSIs could be ameliorated by pharmacotherapy, coordinate the addition of chemical bowel preparation, and epidemiologically confirm their effectiveness.