CT colonography: can we achieve an adequate bowel preparation without diet restriction?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if an adequate bowel preparation for CT colonography, can be achieved without diet restriction, using a reduced amount of cathartic agent and fecal tagging. To investigate the influence of patients' characteristics on bowel preparation and the impact on patients' compliance. METHODS: In total, 1446 outpatients scheduled for elective CT colonography were prospectively enrolled. All patients had the same bowel preparation based on a reduced amount of cathartic agent (120 g of macrogol in 1.5 l of water) the day before the exam and a fecal tagging agent (60 ml of hyperosmolar oral iodinated agent) the day of the exam. No dietary restrictions were imposed before the exam. The bowel preparation was evaluated using a qualitative and quantitative score. Patients were grouped by age, gender, and presence of diverticula in both scores. Patients' compliance has been evaluated with a questionnaire after the end of the exam and with a phone-calling interview the day after the exam. RESULTS: According to the qualitative score, adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 1349 patients (93.29%) and no statistical differences were observed among the subgroups of patients. Quantitative scores demonstrated that colon distension was significantly better in younger patients and without diverticula. A good patients' compliance was observed and most patients (96.5%) were willing to repeat it. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of diet restriction does not affect the quality of CTC preparation and good patient's compliance could potentially increase the participation rate in CRC screening programs. KEY POINTS: • An adequate quality bowel preparation for CT colonography can be achieved without diet restriction, using a reduced amount of cathartic agent (120 g of macrogol in 1.5 l of water) and fecal tagging (60 ml of hyperosmolar oral iodinated agent). • A bowel preparation based on the combination of a reduced amount of cathartic agent and fecal tagging, without diet restriction, allows obtaining good quality in more than 90% of patients. • The bowel preparation scheme proposed reduces the distress and discomfort experienced by the patients improving adherence to CTC.

Sodium Picosulphate with Magnesium Citrate versus Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation in Children: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness, tolerability, acceptability, and safety of sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (PS/Mg) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children (≤18 years) preparing for colonoscopy. Methods: Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched till July 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. At least two authors independently selected studies and performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Results: Four RCTs (n=390), with overall good quality were included. A meta-analysis of two trials (n=224) found no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the proportion of patients who had excellent and good scores (≥6 points) according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (relative risk: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.08). Excellent and good scores were observed in both groups in approximately 90% of children. A meta-analysis of two other trials (n=150) showed no significant difference between the groups with respect to the mean total score for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference: 0.20; 95% CI: -0.74 to 1.14). Both regimens provided a comparable safety profile; however, PS/Mg was significantly superior to high volume PEG in terms of tolerability (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating/flatulence/fullness) and acceptability (ease of formulation consumption, taste acceptance, need for nasogastric tube, compliance with full dose). Conclusion: PS/Mg provides a quality and safety profile similar to PEG for bowel cleansing; however, it has better acceptance and tolerance in children preparing for colonoscopy.

Evaluating Mechanical Bowel Preparation Prior to Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has been used prior to total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), but evidence for its use is lacking. Our study seeks to assess whether or not completion of preoperative MBP prior to TLH improves visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, or overall ease of the operation. METHODS: Women aged 18-65 years undergoing TLH for benign indications at a level 1 trauma center were randomized to a bowel preparation (BP; n = 39) or non-bowel preparation (NP; n = 39) regimen. After each operation, the surgeon completed a survey about intraoperative visualization of the surgical field, bowel handling, and the overall ease of the operation. The surgeon was also asked whether or not he thought the patient had completed MBP. The patient completed a survey about pre- and postoperative gastrointestinal discomfort. The surgeon was blinded to whether MBP was completed before the operation. RESULTS: There was no difference in intraoperative visualization, bowel handling, or overall ease of the operation between the BP and NP groups. Comfort levels before and after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. The surgeon was able to correctly predict whether the patient performed MBP in 59% of cases. CONCLUSION: The routine use of MBP before TLH does not improve intraoperative visualization, bowel handling, or overall ease of performing the procedure. It also has no significant effect on patient comfort levels. MBP is not indicated before TLH for benign indications.

Anaphylaxis due to polyethylene glycol: A case report

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a major component of bowel preparation solution for colonoscopy. It has been recognized as a safe and effective osmotic laxative that is rarely immunogenic. We here report a case of anaphylaxis due to PEG. A 49-year-old female came to the outpatient clinic wanting to find the cause of skin rash, nausea and respiratory difficulty after ingesting bowel evacuant solution (Clicool). She had visited local Emergency Department at the time of event and was diagnosed with anaphylaxis. We performed skin tests with components of Clicool to identify the cause of anaphylactic reactions. The result showed a positive skin response only to PEG. In contrast, skin test done in the control showed no reactions to PEG. This is the first case that revealed PEG to be an exact cause of anaphylaxis after ingesting a bowel evacuant.

Comparison among Conventional 4 L Polyethylene Glycol, Split Method of 4 L Polyethylene Glycol and Combination of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol and Sodium Phosphate Solution for Colonoscopy Preparation / 대한소화기학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4 L, split method of PEG 4 L and PEG 2 L plus sodium phosphate (NaP) in the aspect of bowel preparation quality, safety, patients' compliance and preference. METHODS: Total 249 subjects were prospectively enrolled and received bowel preparation for colonoscopy from August to October in 2010; PEG 4 L (93 subjects), split method of 4 L PEG (74 subjects) and PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL group (82 subjects). To investigate the completion, preference for bowel preparation and safety, a questionnaire survey was conducted before colonoscopy. RESULTS: There were no significant intergroup differences in the aspect of completion of preparation, cecal intubation time and success rate. Satisfaction and preference were higher in PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL and split method of 4 L PEG compared with PEG 4 L. In the aspect of the bowel preparation quality PEG 4 L showed significantly higher quality in the morning colonoscopy (p<0.001). However, in the afternoon colonoscopy PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL showed better result than PEG 4 L (p=0.009). Hyperphosphatemia was most frequently observed in PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL, but no severe adverse events occurred (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PEG 4 L showed better result than split method of 4 L PEG or PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL in the aspect of bowel preparation quality and safety.