Morning-only polyethylene glycol is noninferior but less preferred by hospitalized patients as compared with split-dose bowel preparation.

GOALS: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of morning-only polyethylene glycol (PEG) with split-dose preparation in hospitalized patients scheduled for colonoscopy. BACKGROUND: Morning-only colonoscopy preparation may improve efficiency by allowing patient preparation and colonoscopy to be performed on the same day. There are limited data comparing morning-only with split-dose preparation, and more studies are needed before morning-only preparation can be routinely recommended. STUDY: A single-center, prospective, endoscopist-blinded study was conducted, in which hospitalized patients scheduled to undergo diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive 4 L of PEG either on the morning of colonoscopy or as a split-dose (evening-morning). The primary endpoint was efficacy of bowel preparation measured by the Ottawa scale. Secondary endpoints were patient compliance and tolerance. RESULTS: A total of 120 hospitalized patients scheduled for diagnostic colonoscopy were randomized. The mean total Ottawa score was slightly superior for the morning-only arm, and the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference between arms was less than our prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.5 (difference=-0.23; 95% CI, -1.72 to 1.25). The percentage of patients with good bowel preparation was similar for all colonic segments. There was a trend toward more side effects among patients in the morning-only compared with the split-dose arm (71% vs. 54%; P=0.08). Compared with morning-only preparation, more patients in the split-dose arm were willing to undergo similar preparation for future colonoscopies (71% vs. 89%; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Morning-only PEG is not inferior to split-dose preparation regarding bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. However, split-dose preparation was preferred by patients because of less side effects.

Should bowel preparation, antifoaming agents, or prokinetics be used before video capsule endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The ideal bowel preparation regime before small bowel video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is not known. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effect of purgatives, antifoaming agents, and prokinetics on the outcomes associated with VCE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed literature searches in MEDLINE and Cochrane Library and included randomized-controlled trials studying the effect of purgatives, antifoaming agents, and prokinetics in patients undergoing VCE. Our outcomes of interest were visualization quality, diagnostic yield, and completion rate. Meta-analyses were carried out using the RevMan software and heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. RESULTS: Fifteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. As compared with no bowel preparation, bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) led to adequate visualization in a significantly higher number of patients undergoing VCE [odds ratio (OR) 3.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70-5.75]. Both PEG and sodium phosphate significantly improved the diagnostic yield (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.16-2.42 and OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.18-2.64, respectively) but did not affect the completion rate. All studies with simethicone showed significantly improved visualization quality with its use as compared with overnight fasting or purgatives alone. Prokinetics did not significantly improve the completion rate of VCE. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the data available, a combination of PEG and simethicone appears to be the best approach for small bowel preparation before VCE. However, large multicenter randomized-controlled trials are needed to validate this recommendation and to evaluate the ideal dose of PEG and timing of bowel preparation before VCE. Prokinetics administered before VCE do not improve the completion rate and should not be used.