Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulfate tablet versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol/ascorbate for bowel preparation in older patients: prospective, multicenter, investigator single-blinded, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulfate tablets (OST, which contains simethicone) and 2 L-polyethylene glycol/ascorbate (2 L-PEG/Asc) with a split-dosing regimen in older individuals aged ≥ 70 years who underwent scheduled colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter study was conducted between June 2022 and October 2023. Participants aged ≥ 70 years were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to the OST or 2 L-PEG/Asc groups. RESULTS: In total, 254 patients were evaluated using a modified full analysis set. Successful overall bowel preparation was excellent and similar between the OST and 2 L-PEG/Asc groups for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (96.5% vs. 96.6%) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) (96.5% vs. 97.4%). The overall high-quality preparation rate was higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/Asc group (BBPS: 55.7% vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001; HCS: 66.1% vs. 38.8%, P < 0.001). The overall adenoma detection rate (54.8% vs. 35.3, P = 0.003) was superior in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/Asc group. Tolerability scores, including overall satisfaction, were generally higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/Asc group. The incidence of major solicited adverse events was comparable between the two groups (55.7% vs. 68.1, P = 0.051), and there were no clinically significant changes in the serum laboratory profiles on the day of or 7 days after colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: OST is an effective and safe low-volume agent for colonoscopy, with better tolerance than 2 L-PEG/Asc, in older individuals aged ≥ 70 years.

The Effects of Combined Use of Linaclotide and Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder in Colonoscopy Preparation for Patients With Chronic Constipation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder in patients with chronic constipation undergoing colonoscopy preparation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 260 patients with chronic constipation who were scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy. They were equally divided into 4 groups using a random number table: 4L PEG, 3L PEG, 3L PEG+L, and 2L PEG+L. The 4 groups were compared based on their scores on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), adverse reactions during the bowel preparation procedure, colonoscope insertion time, colonoscope withdrawal time, detection rate of adenomas, and their willingness to repeat bowel preparation. RESULTS: In terms of the score of the right half of the colon, the score of the transverse colon, the total score using BBPS, and the total score using OBPQS, the 3L PEG (polyethylene glycol)+L group was superior to groups 3L PEG and 2L PEG+L ( P <0.05), but comparable to the 4L PEG group ( P >0.05). The incidence rate of vomiting was higher in the 4L PEG group than in the 2L PEG+L group ( P <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the insertion time of the colonoscope between the 4 groups. The colonoscope withdrawal time in the 3L PEG+L group was shorter than in groups 4L PEG and 3L PEG ( P <0.05) and comparable to that in the 4L PEG group ( P >0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of adenoma detection among the 4 groups ( P >0.05). The 4L PEG group was the least willing of the 4 groups to undergo repeated bowel preparation ( P <0.05). CONCLUSION: The 3L PEG+L is optimal among the 4 procedures. It can facilitate high-quality bowel preparation, reduce the incidence of nausea during the bowel preparation procedure, and encourage patients to undertake repeated bowel preparation.

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.

An intraprocedural bowel cleansing system for difficult-to-prepare patients-A multicenter prospective feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy. However, up to 20% of colonoscopies remain inadequately prepared. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation often overlap with those of failed cecal intubation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an intraprocedural bowel cleansing system (BCS) in patients with a history of inadequate bowel preparation. METHODS: Patients (n = 44) with a history of inadequate bowel preparation in the past 2 years were included. After a limited preparation with 300 mL split-dose sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate, additional cleansing during colonoscopy was performed with the BCS. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rate, procedure times, usability, and safety. RESULTS: Median BBPS increased from 1-2-2 (IQR 1-2) to 3-3-3 (IQR) (p < 0.0001), with 31.8% and 88.6% of patients adequately prepared before and after using the BCS, respectively (p < 0.0001). Cecal intubation rate was 88.6%. Reasons for incomplete colonoscopy were looping (n = 2), technical failure (n = 1), relative stricture (n = 1), and residual feces (n = 1). In patients with complete colonoscopy, the adequate cleansing rate was 97.5%. Median total procedure time was 26 min, of which 5.3 min were spent on cleaning. General ease of use was scored with a median of 4 out of 5, representing "as good as conventional colonoscopy". No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate bowel cleaning can be achieved with an intraprocedural BCS in patients with a history of inadequate bowel preparation, which may reduce repeat colonoscopies and clinical admissions for bowel preparation. However, since these patients more frequently have complicated anatomy (surgical scarring, diverticulosis, etc.), adequate patient selection is advised to avoid incomplete procedures.

Efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate versus 4 L polyethylene glycol in split-dose for colonoscopy cleansing in out and inpatient: A multicentre, randomized trial (OVER 2019).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for colonoscopy quality. A novel 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1 L PEG+ASC) solution has been recently introduced. Nevertheless, the efficacy of 1 L PEG+ASC as compared to that of high-volume bowel preparation in both inpatients and outpatients is still unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-blinded, non-inferiority study randomized patients undergoing colonoscopy to receive split-dose 1 L PEG+ASC or 4 L PEG. The primary endpoint was the overall cleansing success. Secondary endpoints were excellent cleansing and high-quality cleansing of the right colon, as well as lesions detection rate, patient compliance, tolerability and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 478 patients were randomized to 1 L PEG+ASC (N = 236) or 4 L PEG (N = 242). The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher cleansing success rate (91.8% vs 83.6%; P=0.01) and a high-quality cleansing of the right colon (52.3% and 38.5%; P=0.004) compared to 4 L PEG. Moreover, 1 L PEG+ASC achieved a higher cleansing success in out-patients (96.3%% vs 88.6%; P=0.018), and a similar success rate in the in-patients (84.7% vs 76.7%; P=0.18). Adenoma detection rate, tolerability and incidence of adverse events were comparable between preparations. CONCLUSIONS: The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher efficacy in achieving adequate colon cleansing compared with 4 L PEG, particularly in the right colon. No differences in the tolerability and safety were detected.

Dried lemon slices improve bowel cleansing quality of polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: adequate bowel preparation is related to the quality of colonoscopy. Dried lemon slices can increase gastrointestinal peristalsis, which has shown potential as an adjuvant of bowel preparation. We hypothesized that the combination of dried lemon slices and polyethylene glycol (PEG) could improve the efficacy of bowel preparation and be more acceptable to participants. AIM: to investigate the effectiveness of lemon slices combined with PEG for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: a prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled trial was performed of 521 patients randomly assigned to two groups. A total of 254 patients were given lemon slices based on conventional 4-L PEG treatment for the bowel, while 267 patients received only 4-L PEG treatment. Patients' basic information, procedure-related parameters, adverse effects, and subjective feelings were collected by questionnaires. Intestinal tract cleanliness was scored according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by experienced endoscopists. Data were analyzed by the two-sample t-test or the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: the BBPS scores were significantly higher in the PEG + lemon slice group (p < 0.05). The taste acceptability, satisfaction, and willingness to repeat bowel preparation were significantly higher in the PEG+ lemon slice group (p < 0.05). However, a larger proportion of patients from the PEG+ lemon slice group (30.7 %) suffered abdominal distension compared with the PEG group (20.6 %), while the incidence of other adverse effects was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: the addition of dried lemon slices to conventional PEG showed its superiority for bowel preparation.

Individualized intervention based on a preparation-related prediction model improves adequacy of bowel preparation: A prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled study.

AIMS: An easy-to-use preparation-related model (PRM) predicting inadequate bowel preparation (BP) was developed and proved superior to traditional models in our previous study. Here we aimed to investigate whether PRM-based individualized intervention can improve BP adequacy. METHODS: Patients undergoing morning colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 5 endoscopic centers in China. After standard BP of split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) was completed, patients were randomized (1:1) to the individualized group or standard group. High-risk patients predicted by PRM score ≥3 were instructed to drink an additional 1.5 L PEG in the individualized group while not in standard group. The primary endpoint was the rate of adequate BP, defined by segmental Boston bowel preparation scale ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adverse events. RESULTS: 900 patients were randomly allocated to the individualized group (n = 449) and the control (n = 451). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The rates of high-risk patients were 19.6 % in individualized group and 19.7 % in standard group. In intention-to-treat analysis, adequate BP was 91.8 % in individualized group and 84.7 % in the standard group (p = 0.001). Among high-risk patients, adequate BP rate was 94.3 % in individualized group and 49.3 % in standard group (p < 0.001), and ADR were 40.9 % vs 16.9 %, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding the adverse events and willingness to repeat BP (all p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The individualized intervention using an additional dose of PEG to high-risk patients predicted by PRM, significantly improved BP quality. The intervention significantly improved ADR in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04434625).

Lactulose vs Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation: A Single-Center, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study Based on BMI.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is currently considered as one of the principal techniques to diagnose the colorectal diseases. Admittedly, qualified bowel preparation before colonoscopy is a premise for high-quality examination. Lower quality bowel preparation might seriously impede visualization of the intestinal mucosa, resulting in missed and misdiagnosed intestinal lesions. Therefore, it is necessary to choose the appropriate oral laxative based on the guarantee of safety and efficacy. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to compare lactulose oral solution and polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder for bowel preparation using the following indicators: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, Bowel Bubble Score, detection rate of adenoma and lesion, patients' satisfaction, and adverse effects. Our study investigated the suitability of 2 bowel preparation reagents for patients with different body mass indices mainly based on body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: In the lactulose group, there was a significant improvement in the quality of bowel preparation compared with those in the PEG group ( P < 0.05), especially in people with normal BMI and higher BMI. Compared with the PEG group, individuals in the lactulose group had a significantly higher adenoma detection rate (50% vs 33.5%, P < 0.05) and taste scores (8.82 vs 6.69, P < 0.05), as well as significantly fewer adverse reactions (6.5% vs 32.5%, P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Lactulose oral solution is superior to PEG in bowel preparation quality and taste, especially in normal BMI and higher BMI groups. It can be used clinically as a potential and promising bowel preparation agent in the future. Clinical Trial registration number: ChiCTR2100054318.

A Phase 2 evaluation of a new flavored peg and sulfate solution compared to an over-the-counter laxative, peg and sports drink bowel preparation combination.

BACKGROUND: Acceptability and tolerance of bowel preparation is critical to overcome patient hesitancy in undergoing colon cancer screening and surveillance colonoscopy. To improve patient experience, a new sports drink-flavored bowel preparation containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sulfate salts (FPSS) was developed to provide a similar experience to a commonly used but not United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved PEG and sports drink bowel preparation (PEG-SD), while also achieving improved cleansing efficacy. METHODS: This FPSS preparation, approved by the FDA in June 2023, was evaluated in a non-randomized Phase 2 study in which 40 patients requiring colonoscopy were prepared with FPSS and 20 with PEG-SD. RESULTS: Overall cleansing success was high with FPSS based on unblinded local endoscopist assessment (93%) and blinded central reading (97%), exceeding PEG-SD which achieved success rates of 84% (local read), 74% and 68% (blinded central reads). Similar differences favoring FPSS were seen for excellent preparations and cleansing success by colon segment as rated by local endoscopists. Both preparations were well-tolerated, with 93% of FPSS patients rating their preparation as Tolerable to Very Easy to consume, compared to 100% of PEG-SD. Patients who had previously taken a preparation for colonoscopy found FPSS and PEG-SD better than their prior preparation (73% and 70%, respectively) and nearly all would request their assigned study preparation again in the future. About two thirds of FPSS patients agreed that the preparation tasted similar to a sports drink. CONCLUSION: The new sports drink-like flavored preparation compares favorably to PEG-SD for bowel cleansing efficacy while achieving similar patient satisfaction. The study was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT03328507) on 01/11/2017.

Emerging space for non-polyethene-glycol bowel preparations in inflammatory bowel disease-related colonoscopy: Veering toward better adherence and palatability.

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) require repeated endoscopic evaluations over time by colonoscopy to weigh disease activity but also for different and additional indications (e.g., evaluation of postoperative recurrence, colorectal cancer surveillance). Colonoscopy, however, requires adequate bowel preparation to be of quality. The latter is achieved as long as the patient takes a certain amount of product to have a number of bowel movements suitable to clean the colon and allow optimal visualization of the mucosa during endoscopy. However, significant guidelines recommend preparations for patients with IBD not excelling in palatability. This recommendation originates from the fact that most of the studies conducted on bowel preparations in patients with IBD have been done with isosmolar preparations based on polyethylene glycol (PEG), for which, therefore, more safety data exist. As a result, the low-volume non-PEG preparations (e.g., magnesium citrate plus picosulphate, oral sulphate solutions) have been set aside for the whole range of warnings to be heeded because of their hyperosmolarity. New studies, however, are emerging, leaning in overall for a paradigm shift in this matter. Indeed, such non-PEG preparations seem to show a particularly encouraging and engaging safety profile when considering their broad potential for tolerability and patient preference. Indeed, such evidence is insufficient to indicate such preparations in all patients with IBD but may pave the way for those with remission or well-controlled disease. This article summarizes the central studies conducted in IBD settings using non-PEG preparations by discussing their results.

Efficacy and safety of oral sodium sulfate tablet compared with 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate: a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Low-volume bowel preparation solutions, including 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-A), have been developed to improve tolerability. The oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) is a new agent with simethicone as a preloaded component. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of OST compared to 1-L PEG-A. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, controlled study was performed with randomization into the OST (group A) and 1-L PEG-A (group B) groups. Bowel preparation efficacy was assessed on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Bubble Scale. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using a questionnaire and laboratory examination. RESULTS: Final analysis was performed on 171 patients (group A: 87, group B: 84). The proportion of bowel preparation success (BBPS ≥ 2 for each colonic segment) in group A was not inferior compared to group B (95.4% vs 96.4%, P = 0.736, 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit -7.0%). The adenoma detection rate was not different (59.6% vs 41.9%; P = 0.087). The bubble scale was better in group A (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). All adverse events were mild in both groups. Nausea was less frequent in group A (14.9% vs 38.1%, P = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was better in group A (8.1 ± 2.1 vs 6.4 ± 2.8, P < 0.001). No clinically significant laboratory abnormality developed in both groups. These findings were similarly shown in old patients ≥65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Both OST and 1-L PEG-A were efficacious, safe, and tolerable for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. The OST showed fewer bubbles and slightly better tolerability.

Gut microbiota in children with split-dose bowel preparations revealed by metagenomics.

Objective: Split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) is routinely used for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. This study aimed to investigate the composition of gut microbiota and its functions in pediatric patients undergoing split-dose PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy to understand the stability and resilience of gut microbiota. Material and methods: From September to December 2021, 19 pediatric patients were enrolled at Shenzhen Children's Hospital and 76 samples (4 time points) were analyzed using metagenomics. Time points included Time_1 (one day before bowel preparation), Time_2 (one day after colonoscopy), Time_3 (two weeks after bowel preparation), and Time_4 (four weeks after bowel preparation). Result: Alpha diversity comparison at both the species and gene levels showed a decrease in community richness after colonoscopy, with little statistical significance. However, the Shannon diversity index significantly decreased (P<0.05) and gradually returned to pre-preparation levels at two weeks after bowel preparation. The genus level analysis showed six genera (Eubacterium, Escherichia, Intertinibacter, Veillonella, Ruminococcaceae unclassified, and Coprobacillus) significantly different across the four time periods. Additionally, at the species level, the abundance of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis, and Veillonella parvula significantly increased at one day after colonoscopy before gradually decreasing at two weeks after bowel preparation. In contrast, the abundance of Intertinibacter bartlettii decreased at one day after colonoscopy but then recovered at two weeks after bowel preparation, reaching the preoperative level at four weeks after bowel preparation. Furthermore, five functional pathways (base excision repair, biosynthesis of ansamycins, biosynthesis of siderophore group nonribosomal peptide, flavonoid biosynthesis, and biosynthesis of type II polyketide products) were significantly different across the four time periods, with recovery at two weeks after bowel preparation and reaching preoperative levels at four weeks after bowel preparation. Conclusions: Gut microbiota at the genus level, species level, and functional pathways are impacted in pediatric patients undergoing split-dose PEG bowel preparation and colonoscopy, with recovery two weeks following bowel preparation. However, the phylum level was not impacted. Modifications in gut microbiota composition and function may be investigated in future studies of bowel preparation. This study highlights the stability and resilience of gut microbiota among pediatric patients during bowel preparation.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: A hyperosmolar ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (ASC-PEG) lavage solution ensures excellent bowel preparation before colonoscopy; however, no study has demonstrated the efficacy of this lavage solution before surgery. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of ASC-PEG to the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. Overall, 188 patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal resection for single colorectal adenocarcinomas were randomly assigned to undergo preparation with different PEG solutions between August 2017 and April 2020 at four hospitals in Japan. Participants received ASC-PEG (Group A) or PEG-ELS (Group B) preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the ratio of successful bowel preparations using the modified Aronchick scale, defined as "excellent" or "good." RESULTS: After exclusion, 86 and 87 patients in Groups A and B, respectively, completed the study, and their data were analyzed. ASC-PEG was not inferior to PEG-ELS in terms of effective bowel preparation prior to laparoscopic colorectal resection (0.93 vs. 0.92; 95% confidence interval, - 0.078 to 0.099, p = 0.007). The total volume of cleansing solution intake was lower in Group A than in Group B (1757.0 vs. 1970.1 mL). Two and three severe postoperative adverse events occurred in Groups A and B, respectively. Patient tolerance of the two solutions was almost equal. CONCLUSIONS: ASC-PEG is effective for preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer and is non-inferior to PEG-ELS.

Efficacy and safety of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly: comparison with oral sulfate solution.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recently, 1 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (Asc) has been introduced in Korea as a colonoscopy preparation agent. Data on its efficacy and safety in older adults have been limited. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 L PEG/Asc in older adults by comparing it with oral sulfate solution (OSS). METHODS: A prospective multicenter randomized study was conducted with subjects aged ≥ 65 years who underwent colonoscopy. The participants were randomized to receive 1 L PEG/Asc or OSS. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation, defined as total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥ 6, and ≥ 2 at each segment. Patient satisfaction, adverse events, and renal function changes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Among the 106 patients, 104 were finally included in the analysis. Overall, successful bowel preparation was achieved in 96.2% of both 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS groups. The satisfaction scores for taste, total amount ingested, overall feeling, and willingness to repeat the same regimen were not significantly different between the groups. Adverse events of moderate or higher severity occurred in 16 and 10 cases in the 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS group, respectively. There were no significant changes in electrolyte levels or renal function from baseline. CONCLUSION: The successful bowel preparation rate was > 90% in both groups without severe adverse effects and significant changes in renal function. As a new low-dose preparation regimen for colonoscopy in older adults, 1 L PEG/Asc, is as effective and safe as OSS.

Comparison of a Novel, Flavor-optimized, Polyethylene Glycol and Sulfate Bowel Preparation With Oral Sulfate Solution in Adults Undergoing Colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: A new bowel preparation for colonoscopy has been developed containing poorly absorbed sulfate salts and polyethylene glycol 3350, which retain water within the intestinal lumen resulting in copious diarrhea, thereby cleansing the bowel. The product was formulated to be safe and effective with a sports drink-like flavor. This study evaluated the new flavored polyethylene glycol and sulfate solution (FPSS) compared with a Food and Drug Administration-approved bowel preparation containing sulfate salts only [oral sulfate solution (OSS)]. METHODS: Five hundred adults were enrolled in this multicenter, noninferiority study. Subjects were assigned FPSS or OSS administered in split-dose regimens (PM/AM). FPSS subjects took 2 L of the flavored osmotic solution (1 L at night and 1 L in the morning). OSS was taken according to its approved labeling. Colonoscopies were graded globally and segmentally by blinded local investigators using a 4-point scale (excellent, good, fair, and poor), with "good" and "excellent" considered successful. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs) and laboratory testing. RESULTS: A high rate of cleansing success was seen with FPSS (94%), which was noninferior to OSS (94%). This conclusion was confirmed by blinded central readers. Segmental success rates were >90% for both preparations, including the right colon. Questionnaire ratings indicated the FPSS experience was preferred over OSS with 87% of FPSS subjects noting their preparation was "tolerable" to "very easy" to consume versus 74% for OSS. The majority of FPSS subjects agreed their preparation tasted like a sports drink. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most common AEs. There was no difference between preparations for any AE and no clinically significant differences in laboratory parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The new sports drink-like flavored preparation achieved a high level of cleansing in the study, demonstrating noninferiority to OSS. FPSS was well-tolerated with low rates of expected gastrointestinal symptoms. The optimized flavor of FPSS resulted in significantly better acceptance ratings.

2L polyethylene glycol combined with castor oil versus 4L polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients.

Inpatients are more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation compared to outpatients. Although experts recommend 4L split polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparation, bowel preparation with castor oil (CaO) was recently found to reduce the volume of solution required. The aim of the study was to evaluate the cleansing effect and safety of 2L-PEG with Cao in bowel preparation among inpatients. Our study retrospectively analyzed the medical records and colonoscopy reports of inpatients (n = 1251) who underwent colonoscopy in the Affiliated Changzhou No.2 People Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, and the inpatients were divided into 2L-PEG-CaO and 4L-PEG group according to different bowel preparation protocols. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is used to assess bowel preparation efficacy before colonoscopy. Furthermore, we also calculated other outcomes, such as polyp or adenoma detection rates and adverse events. A total of 1251 patients undergoing colonoscopy were included in this study, 738 were taken 4L-PEG and 513 2L-PEG-CaO. Both inpatients groups were matched for baseline characteristics. The 2L-PEG-CaO group was significantly higher than the 4L-PEG group on both BBPS (7.26 ± 1.75 vs 7.06 ± 1.58, P = .043) and adequate bowel cleansing rates (83.2% vs 77.4%, P = .011). Regarding adverse events, the 4L-PEG group was significantly higher than the 2L-PEG-CaO group on the incidence of abdominal fullness (6.4% vs 9.6%, P = .045) and adverse events (33.7% vs 28.5%, P = .048). The 2L split PEG with CaO preparation increased quality of bowel cleansing and improved tolerance in inpatients. Bowel preparation with 2L-PEG-CaO is suitable alternative to traditional 4L split PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy of inpatients.

High-dose polyethylene glycol-3350 and gatorade solutions for patients with previous inadequate bowel preparations for colonoscopy are safe and effective.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy remains an issue resulting in lower adenoma detection rates and increased cost. We assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of high-dose bowel preparations in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: We performed a multi-step prospective trial of high-dose bowel preparations with subjects assigned to the dose higher than their previous inadequate preparation. Step 1: 1.5 times the standard-dose of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG, 459 g) and Gatorade; and Step 2: 2.0 times the standard-dose of PEG (612 g) and Gatorade, both were given as extended split-dose preparations. 69 outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago bowel preparation scale (BPS). Safety was assessed by comparing a baseline basic metabolic panel (BMP) to a post-cleansing BMP. Patients with no history of inadequate colon cleansing who consumed standard doses of PEG (306 g to 357 g) and Gatorade were used as a comparison group. Tolerability of the bowel preparation was assessed using a subject-questionnaire. RESULTS: When compared to controls consuming standard-dose bowel preparations, subjects consuming high-dose preparations had no statistically significant difference in colon cleanliness as measured by the modified or total Chicago BPS scores or differences in tolerability. Baseline and post-cleaning BMPs were not significantly different other than the BUN falling (p < 0.0001) after the preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-step high-dose bowel cleansing protocol proved highly efficacious, safe and well tolerated in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02661750.

SPLIT-DOSE BOWEL PREPARATION IS SUPERIOR TO STRAIGHT-DOSE IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS UNDERGOING INPATIENT COLONOSCOPY.

BACKGROUND: There is a two-fold higher rate of failed colonoscopy secondary to inadequate bowel preparation among hospitalized versus ambulatory patients. Split-dose bowel preparation is widely used in the outpatient setting but has not been generally adapted for use among the inpatient population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of split versus single dose polyethylene glycol bowel (PEG) preparation for inpatient colonoscopies and determine additional procedural and patient characteristics that drive inpatient colonoscopy quality. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on 189 patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy and received 4 liters PEG as either split- or straight-dose during a 6-month period in 2017 at an academic medical center. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), Aronchick Score, and reported adequacy of preparation. RESULTS: Bowel preparation was reported as adequate in 89% of the split-dose group versus 66% in the straight-dose group (P=0.0003). Inadequate bowel preparations were documented in 34.2% of the single-dose group and 10.7% of the split-dose group (P<0.001). Only 40% of patients received split-dose PEG. Mean BBPS was significantly lower in the straight-dose group (Total: 6.32 vs 7.73, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose preparation across reportable quality metrics for non-screening colonoscopies and was readily performed in the inpatient setting. Interventions should be targeted at shifting the culture of gastroenterologist prescribing practices towards use of split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Polyethylene glycol combined with lactulose has better efficacy than polyethylene glycol alone in bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of diagnosis and the safety of treatment in colonoscopy depends largely on the quality of bowel cleansing. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse reactions of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) combined with lactulose with that of PEG alone in bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: The authors searched a number of databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and China Academic Journals Full-text Database. The authors screened according to literature inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessed the quality of the included literature, and extracted the data. The meta-analysis of included literature used RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies, including 2274 patients, were enrolled. The meta-analysis showed that PEG combined with lactulose had a better efficacy (OR = 3.87, 95% CI 3.07‒4.87, p = 0.000, and I2 = 36.2% in the efficiency group; WMD = 0.86, 95% CI 0.69‒1.03, p = 0.032 and I2 = 0% in the BBPS score group) in bowel preparation for patients with or without constipation. Moreover, PEG combined with lactulose had fewer adverse reactions, including abdominal pain (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.94‒2.14, p = 0.094), nausea (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.13‒2.28, p = 0.009) and vomiting (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.14‒2.74, p = 0.011), than PEG alone. No significant reduction in the incidence of abdominal distention was observed. CONCLUSION: PEG combined with lactulose may be a better choice for bowel preparation before colonoscopy compared with PEG alone.

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature.

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.