Esophagogastroduodenoscopy-assisted bowel preparation for colonoscopy

AIM: To compare the quality and tolerance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-assisted and conventional split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for inpatient colonoscopy.METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial in hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy the day following EGD for evaluation of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or other symptoms. Patients randomized to either EGD-assisted bowel prep [2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) administered endoscopically into distal duodenum at time of EGD, plus 1 L PEG orally the following day] or conventional-PEG (2 L PEG orally the evening prior and 1 L PEG orally the following day). The main outcome measurements are bowel preparation quality and patient tolerance of bowel prep.RESULTS: Forty-two patients randomized to EGD-assisted bowel prep and 40 patients to conventional-PEG. Overall mean ± SD preparation quality was superior for EGD-PEG (4.1 ± 2.8) vs conventional-PEG (6.5 ± 3.1; P = 0.0005). Seventy-four percent of patients rated EGD-PEG as easy or slightly difficult to tolerate compared to 46% for standard-PEG (P = 0.0133). Mean EGD-procedural time was greater for EGD-assisted subject (24 ± 10 min) compared to conventional-PEG prep subjects (15 ± 7 min; P < 0.0001). Conscious sedation requirements did not differ between groups. There were no significant prep-related adverse events in either group.CONCLUSION: In selected hospitalized patients, compared to a conventional split-dose regimen, use of EGD to administer the majority of PEG solution improves patient tolerance and quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.     

The impact of patient education on the quality of inpatient bowel preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND:

For patients requiring colonoscopy while admitted to hospital, achieving adequate cleansing of the colon is often difficult.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the impact of patient education, in the form of both counselling and written instructions, on bowel cleanliness at colonoscopy.

METHODS:

A total of 38 inpatients at a tertiary care hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, who were referred to the gastroenterology service for colonoscopy were enrolled in the present study. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group, while 22 patients comprised the control group. Both groups received a clear liquid diet and 4 L of a commercially available bowel preparation. The intervention group also received a brief counselling session and written instructions outlining the methods and rationale for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Bowel cleanliness was assessed by the endoscopist using a five-point rating scale.

RESULTS:

The two groups were similar with respect to demographics, the indication for colonoscopy and findings at colonoscopy. The median bowel cleanliness scores in the control group and the enhanced-instruction group were 3.0 and 2.0, respectively (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Patient counselling and written instructions are inexpensive, safe and simple interventions. Such interventions are an effective means of optimizing colonoscopy preparation in the inpatient setting.     

Improving quality of colonoscopy by adding simethicone to sodium phosphate bowel preparation

AIM： To evaluate the effectiveness of simethicone in enhancing visibility and efficacy during colonoscopy.
METHODS： A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted. One hundred and twenty-four patients were allocated to receive 2 doses of sodium phosphate plus 240 mg of tablet simethicone or placebo as bowel preparation. Visibility was blindly assessed for the amount of air bubbles and adequacy of colon preparation. Total colonoscopic time, side effects of the medication, endoscopist and patient satisfaction were also compared.
RESULTS： Sodium phosphate plus simethicone, compared to sodium phosphate plus placebo, improved visibility by diminishing air bubbles （100.00% vs 42.37%, P 〈 0.0002） but simethicone failed to demonstrate improvement in adequacy of colon preparation （90.16% vs 81.36%, P = 0.17）. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were increased significantly in the simethicone group. However, there was no difference in the total duration of colonoscopy and side effects of the medication.
CONCLUSION： The addition of simethicone is of benefit for colonoscopic bowel preparation by diminishing air bubbles, which results in enhanced visibility. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction is also increased.     

Use of automated irrigation pumps improves quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of automated irrigation pumps(AIPs) in improving the quality of the bowel preparation and the yield of colonoscopy.METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted at a single medical center. Outpatient colonoscopies performed during a 4-mo time period when AIPs were not in use, were compared to colonoscopies performed during control period. The main outcomes measured were quality of bowel preparation, procedures aborted due to poor preparation, recommendations to repeat at short interval due to suboptimal bowel preparation and adenoma detection rates.RESULTS: One thousand and thirty-seven colonoscopies were included. A higher proportion of cases did not achieve a satisfactory bowel preparation when AIPs were not used(24.4% vs 10.3%, P < 0.01). The number of procedures aborted due to inadequate preparation was not significantly different, however a repeat procedure at a short interval was recommended in a higher proportion of cases when AIPs were not used(21.3% vs 6.9%, P < 0.01). Good or excellent preparation was 2.91(95%CI: 2.04-4.15) times more likely when AIPs were used. Detection of polyps and adenomas was not significantly different.CONCLUSION: AIP use during colonoscopy results in a higher proportion of colonic preparation rated as satisfactory, although polyp detection rate is not significantly affected. Recommendations for repeat colonoscopy at shorter interval significantly decrease with the use of AIPs. This study supports the use of the irrigation pumps in endoscopy units to improve the quality of colonoscopy.     

Split-dose menthol-enhanced PEG vs PEG-ascorbic acid for colonoscopy preparation

AIM:To compare the efficacy and palatability of 4L polyethylene glycol electrolyte(PEG)plus sugar-free menthol candy(PEG+M)vs reduced-volume 2 L ascorbic acid-supplemented PEG(Asc PEG).METHODS:In a randomized controlled trial setting,ambulatory patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled.Patients were randomized to receive either PEG+M or Asc PEG,both splitdosed with minimal dietary restriction.Palatability was assessed on a linear scale of 1 to 5(1=disgusting;5=tasty).Quality of preparation was scored by assignment-blinded endoscopists using the modified Aronchick and Ottawa scales.The main outcomes were the palatability and efficacy of the preparation.Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to retake the same preparation again in the future and completion of the prescribed preparation.RESULTS:Overall,200 patients were enrolled(100patients per arm).PEG+M was more palatable than Asc PEG(76%vs 62%,P=0.03).Completing the preparation was not different between study groups(91%PEG+M vs 86%Asc PEG,P=0.38)but more patients were willing to retake PEG+M(54%vs 40%respectively,P=0.047).There was no significant difference between PEG+M vs Asc PEG in adequate cleansing on both the modified Aronchick(82%vs77%,P=0.31)and the Ottawa scale(85%vs 74%,P=0.054).However,PEG+M was superior in the left colon on the Ottawa subsegmental score(score0-2:94%for PEG+M vs 81%for Asc PEG,P=0.005)and received significantly more excellent ratings than Asc PEG on the modified Aronchick scale(61%vs 43%,P=0.009).Both preparations performed less well in afternoon vs morning examinations(inadequate:29%vs 15.2%,P=0.02).CONCLUSION:4 L PEG plus menthol has better palatability and acceptability than 2 L ascorbic acidPEG and is associated with a higher rate of excellentpreparations;Clinicaltrial.gov identifier:NCT01788709.     

Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using an educational video

Colonoscopy is the preferred modality for colon cancer screening. A successful colonoscopy requires proper bowel preparation. Adequate bowel preparation continues to remain a limiting factor. One hundred thirty-three patients scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy were prospectively randomized in a single-blinded manner to video or nonvideo group. In addition to written bowel preparation instructions, patients in the video group viewed a brief instructional video. Quality of colon preparation was measured using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality scale, while patient satisfaction with preparation was evaluated using a questionnaire. Statistical analyses were used to evaluate the impact of the instructional colonoscopy video. There were significant differences in the quality of colonoscopy preparation between the video and the nonvideo groups. Participants who watched the video had better preparation scores in the right colon (P=0.0029), mid-colon (P=0.0027), rectosigmoid (P=0.0008), fluid content (P=0.03) and aggregate score (median score 4 versus 5; P=0.0002). There was no difference between the two groups with regard to patient satisfaction. Income, education level, sex, age and family history of colon cancer had no impact on quality of colonoscopy preparation or patient satisfaction. The addition of an instructional bowel preparation video significantly improved the quality of colon preparation.     

Low-volume plus ascorbic acid vs high-volume plus simethicone bowel preparation before colonoscopy

AIM:To investigate the effectiveness of low-volumeplus ascorbic acid [polyethylene glycol plus ascorbicacid(PEG + Asc) ] and high-volume plus simethicone[polyethylene glycol plus simethicone(PEG + Sim) ]bowel preparations.METHODS:A total of one hundred and forty-fourout patients(76 males) ,aged from 20 to 84 years(me-dian age 59.5 years) ,who attended our Department,were divided into two groups,age and sex matched,and underwent colonoscopy. Two questionnaires,onefor patients reporting acceptability and the ...     

Evidence-based considerations on bowel preparation for colonoscopy

We recently read with interest the article, “Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy”. This is a practical narrative review, which could be of particular importance to clinicians in order to improve their current practice. Although we appreciate the venture of our colleagues, based on our in-depth analysis, we came across several minor issues in the article; hence, we present our comments in this letter. If the authors consider these comments further in their relevant research, we believe that their contribution would be of considerable importance for future studies.     

Analysis of YouTube~(TM) videos related to bowel preparation for colonoscopy

AIM: To examine YouTubeTM videos about bowel preparation procedure to better understand the quality of this information on the Internet. METHODS: YouTubeTM videos related to colonoscopy preparation were identified during the winter of 2014; only those with ≥ 5000 views were selected for analysis(n = 280). Creator of the video, length, date posted, whether the video was based upon personal experience, and theme was recorded. Bivariate analysis was conducted to examine differences between consumers vs healthcare professionals-created videos. RESULTS: Most videos were based on personal experience. Half were created by consumers and 34% were ≥ 4.5 min long. Healthcare professional videos were viewed more often( 19400, 59.4% vs 40.8%,P = 0.037, for healthcare professional and consumer, respectively) and more often focused on the purgative type and completing the preparation. Consumer videos received more comments( 10 comments, 62.2% vs 42.7%, P = 0.001) and more often emphasized the palatability of the purgative, disgust, and hunger during the procedure. Content of colonoscopy bowel preparation YouTube? videos is influenced by who creates the video and may affect views on colon cancer screening. CONCLUSION: The impact of perspectives on the quality of health-related information found on the Internet requires further examination.     

Split-dose vs same-day reduced-volume polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for morning colonoscopy

AIM: To compare same-day whole-dose vs split-dose of 2-litre polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) plus bisacodyl for colon cleansing for morning colonoscopy.METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing morning colonoscopy were allocated into two groups i.e., same-day whole-dose or split-dose of 2-litre PEG-ELS. Investigators and endoscopists were blinded to the allocation. All patients completed a questionnaire that was designed by Aronchick and colleagues to assess the tolerability of the bowel preparation regime used. In addition, patients answered an ordinal five-value Likert scale question on comfort level during bowel preparation. Endoscopists graded the quality of bowel preparation using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). In addition, endoscopists gave an overall grading of the quality of bowel preparation. Cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total colonoscopy time, adenoma detection rate and number of adenomas detected for each patient were recorded. Sample size was calculated using an online calculator for binary outcome non-inferiority trial. Analyses was based upon intent-to-treat. Significance was assumed at P-value < 0.05.RESULTS: Data for 295 patients were analysed. Mean age was 62.0 ± 14.4 years old and consisted of 50.2 % male. There were 143 and 152 patients in the split-dose and whole-dose group, respectively. Split-dose was as good as whole-dose for quality of bowel preparation. The total BBPS score was as good in the split-dose group compared to the whole-dose group [6 (6-8) vs 6 (6-7), P = 0.038]. There was no difference in cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total colonoscopy time and adenoma detection rate. Median number of adenoma detected was marginally higher in the split-dose group [2 (1-3) vs 1 (1-2), P = 0.010]. Patients in the whole-dose group had more nausea (37.5% vs 25.2%, P = 0.023) and vomiting (16.4% vs 8.4%, P = 0.037), and were less likely to complete the bowel preparation (94.1% vs 99.3%, P = 0.020). Patients in the split-dose group were less likely to refuse the same bowel preparation regime (6.3% vs 13.8%, P = 0.033) and less likely to want to try another bowel preparation regime (53.8% vs 78.9%, P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: Splitting reduced-volume PEG-ELS for morning colonoscopy is as effective as taking the whole dose on the same morning but is better tolerated and preferred by patients.     

Comparison of asymmetric (low morning-dose) and standard split-dose regimen of PEG plus bisacodyl for bowel preparation: A randomized controlled trial

BackgroundReducing the morning dose of PEG solution may be a reliable strategy to improve the patient compliance of split-dose regimens without affecting efficacy of bowel cleansing.Aimsto compare the efficacy for bowel cleansing of an asymmetric split-dose regimen (25% of the dose on the day of colonoscopy and 75% on the day before) with the standard split-dose regimen.MethodsOutpatients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. All subjects received a split-dose preparation with a 2L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus Bisacodyl. Patients were randomly assigned to: group A, asymmetric split-dose regimen; group B, symmetric split-dose regimen. Primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing.ResultsSplit-dose was taken by 81 and 80 patients in group A and B. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 92.6% and 92.5% patients in group A and B (p = 1.000). No differences were observed regarding Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score, adenoma detection rate and scores of each colon segment.ConclusionsThe reduction of morning dose of PEG in a split-dose regimen is not inferior to the standard split-dose regimen in achieving an adequate bowel cleansing. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether asymmetric preparation is associated to a higher tolerability compared to symmetric split-dose regimen. (NCT03146052)     

利那洛肽联合复方聚乙二醇在结肠镜肠道准备中应用的初步研究

目的　初步探索利那洛肽联合复方聚乙二醇（polyethylene glycol,PEG）在结肠镜肠道准备中的作用。方法　本试验是一项多中心随机对照研究。连续纳入2021年11月—2022年3月在上海长海医院、山西省人民医院和联勤保障部队第九〇〇医院3家消化内镜中心接受结肠镜检查的受试者,采用完全随机法分成3组,A组肠道准备方案为3 d利那洛肽+3 L PEG,B组为仅3 L PEG,C组为3 d利那洛肽+2 L PEG。主要观察指标为肠道准备合格率,次要观察指标包括肠道准备优秀率、肠道准备完成率以及肠道准备愿意重复率。结果　共入组130例受试者,其中A组46例,B组43例,C组41例,3组受试者肠道准备合格率［95.7%（44/46）、93.0%（40/43）和95.1%（39/41）,χ2=0.465,P=0.893］,肠道准备优秀率［43.5%（20/46）、25.6%（11/43）和34.1%（14/41）,χ2=3.151,P=0.207］及肠道准备完成率［95.7%（44/46）、95.3%（41/43）和100.0%（41/41）,χ2=1.909,P=0.544］差异均无统计学意义。3组受试者愿意再次行相应肠道准备方案的愿意重复率差异有统计学意义［89.1%（41/46）、74.4%（32/43）和100.0%（41/41）,χ2=12.862,P=0.002］。C组受试者肠道准备完成率和愿意重复率均为100.0%,较A、B两组有升高趋势。结论　利那洛肽有提高肠道准备质量的趋势,可以减少PEG用量。     

结肠镜检查前肠道准备致肠梗阻2例分析

2例老年患者行结肠镜检查,常规使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散（恒康正清）肠道准备,患者肠道准备差,嘱患者口服20%甘露醇250 mL,5%葡萄糖盐水1 000 mL,再次肠道准备,2例患者皆出现肠梗阻,后病理证实肠腔狭窄为结肠癌所致。恒康正清清肠后肠道准备差提示肠道不完全梗阻可能,老年人肠道肿瘤可能性大。继续使用20%甘露醇250 mL及5%葡萄糖盐水1 000 mL清肠可能增加狭窄肠管梗阻风险。     

Effectiveness of polyethylene glycol antegrade gut lavage bowel preparation for colonoscopy—timing is the key!

PURPOSE: Polyethylene glycol gut lavage is an effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The quality of the preparation is not uniform however, and most studies report a rate of suboptimal cleansing of 10 percent or more. One of the possible reasons for a poor preparation is the length of time between the lavage and the examination. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of timing of polyethylene glycol gut lavage on the quality of the preparation achieved. METHODS: Patients referred for elective outpatient colonoscopy with afternoon appointments were randomized to take polyethylene glycol gut lavage either the same morning as their examination (Group 1) or the afternoon of the day before (Group 2). The colonoscopist was unaware of the preparation timing until after the examination was over. During the examination the endoscopist scored the quality of bowel preparation in the cecum, ascending colon, and transverse and left colon. Patient demographics and clinical data were recorded. RESULTS: There were 157 patients in Group 1 (colonoscopy complete in 152 patients) and 160 in Group 2 (colonoscopy complete in 159 patients). The groups were similar in age and gender, indication for colonoscopy, and previous colonic surgery. Patients who drank gut lavage on the morning of their colonoscopy had a greatly better preparation in all areas of the colon than the patients who took their preparation the night before. In the cecum, 97 Group 1 patients had an excellent preparation (vs. 14 Group 2 patients), 45 had a good preparation (vs. 103 Group 2 patients), and 10 had a fair preparation (vs. 33 Group 2 patients). In the ascending colon, numbers of patients with excellent, good, fair, and poor results were 103, 45, 5, and 0 for Group 1 and 12, 107, 32, and 7 for Group 2. Results in the transverse and left colons were 102, 50, 5, 0 and 93, 55, 7, 2 for Group 1 and 15, 116, 27, 5 and 18, 114, 24, 3 for Group 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: The timing of administration of polyethylene glycol-based gut lavage is a major determinant of the quality of the bowel preparation achieved.Presented at the Tripartite Meeting of Colorectal Surgical Societies in Sydney, Australia, October 17 to 20, 1993.     

Same-day 2-L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus bisacodyl vs split 4-L PEG: Bowel cleansing for late-morning colonoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, acceptability and feasibility of bisacodyl plus low volume polyethyleneglycol-citrate-simeticone(2-L PEG-CS) taken the same day as compared with conventional split-dose 4-L PEG for late morning colonoscopy. METHODS: Randomised, observer-blind, parallel group, comparative trial carried out in 2 centres. Out patients of both sexes, aged between 18 and 85 years, undergoing colonoscopy for diagnostic investigation, colorectal cancer screening or follow-up were eligible. The PEG-CS group received 3 bisacodyl tablets(4 tablets for patients with constipation) at bedtime and 2-L PEG-CS in the morning starting 5 h before colonoscopy. The control group received a conventional 4-L PEG formulation given as split regimen; the morning dose was taken with the same schedule of the low volume preparation. The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale(OBPS) score was used as the main outcome measure.RESULTS: A total of 164 subjects were enrolled and 154 completed the study; 78 in the PEG-CS group and 76 in the split 4-L PEG group. The two groups were comparable at baseline. The OBPS score in the PEG-CS group(3.09 ± 2.40) and in the PEG group(2.39 ± 2.55) were equivalent(difference +0.70; 95%CI:-0.09-1.48). This was confirmed by the rate of successful bowel cleansing in the PEG-CS group(89.7%) and in the PEG group(92.1%)(difference-2.4%; 95%CI:-11.406.70). PEG-CS was superior in terms of mucosa visibility compared to PEG(85.7% vs 72.4%, P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in caecum intubation rate, time to reach the caecum and withdrawal time between the two groups. The adenoma detection rate was similar(PEG-CS 43.6% vs PEG 44.7%). No serious adverse events occurred. No difference was found in tolerability of the bowel preparations. Compliance was equal in both groups: more than 90% of subjects drunk the whole solution. Willingness to repeat the same bowel preparations was about 90% for both regimes. CONCLUSION: Same-day PEG-CS is feasible, effective as split-dose 4-L PEG for late morning colonoscopy and does not interfere with work and daily activities the day before colonoscopy.     

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy using standard vs reduced doses of sodium phosphate: A single-blind randomized controlled study

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of a colonoscopy prepa-ration that utilizes a reduced dose of sodium phosphate(NaP) and an adjunct.METHODS: Sixty-two patients requiring screening colonoscopies were studied. Each patient was randomly allocated to receive either 50 NaP tablets(50 g) or 30 NaP tablets(30 g) with 10 mL of 0.75% sodium pico-sulfate for bowel preparation. NaP was administered at a rate of five tablets(5 g) or three tablets(3 g) every 15 min with 200 mL of water, beginning five to six hours before colonoscopy. The sodium picosulfate was administered with 200 mL of water on the night before the procedure. Both groups were compared in term of the efficacies of colonic cleansing, the time required for completion of the bowel preparation, and acceptability of the preparation.RESULTS: Sixty patients(n = 30 for each group) were analyzed. The cleansing efficacy tended to be higher in the 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate group as as-sessed by the mean total Ottawa scale score(50 g NaP6.70 ± 1. 42 vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 6.17 ± 1.18 P = 0.072). The mean time for bowel prepara-tion tended to be shorter in the 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate group(50 g NaP 189.9 ± 64.0 min vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 161.8 ± 57.6 min, P = 0.065). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the acceptability of the preparations(50 g NaP 83.3% vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 86.7%, P = 0.500). There were no adverse events re-lated to bowel preparation in either of the groups.CONCLUSION: The colonoscopy preparation that uti-lized 30 g NaP with sodium picosulfate was comparable to that utilizing 50 g NaP. This novel bowel preparation might be useful before colonoscopy.     

Efficacy of morning-only 4 liter sulfa free polyethylene glycol vs 2 liter polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for afternoon colonoscopy

AIM:To compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of same day ingestion of 4-L sulfa-free polyethylene glycol(4-L SF-PEG)vs 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid(2-L PEG+Asc)in patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy.METHODS:206 patients(mean age 56.7 years,61%male)undergoing outpatient screening or surveillance colonoscopies were prospectively randomized to receive either 4-L SF-PEG(n=104)or 2-L PEG+Asc solution(n=102).Colonoscopies were performed by two blinded endoscopists.Bowel preparation was graded using the Ottawa scale.Each participant completed a satisfaction and side effect survey.RESULTS:There was no difference in patient demographics amongst groups.4-L SF-PEG resulted in better Ottawa scores compared to 2-L PEG+Asc,4.2 vs4.9(P=0.0186);left colon:1.33 vs 1.57 respectively(P=0.0224),right colon:1.38 vs 1.63 respectively(P=0.0097).No difference in Ottawa scores was found for the mid colon or amount of fluid.Patient satisfaction was similar for both arms but those assigned to 4-L SF-PEG reported less bloating:23.1%vs 11.5%(P=0.0235).Overall polyp detection,adenomatous polyp and advanced adenoma detection rates were similar between the two groups.CONCLUSION:Morning only 4-L SF-PEG provided superior cleansing with less bloating as compared to 2-L PEG+Asc bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy.Thus,future studies evaluating efficacy of morning only preparation for afternoon colonoscopy should use4-L SF-PEG as the standard comparator.     

An assessment of bisacodyl-based bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children

Background The most commonly used methods for bowel preparation are polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) and sodium phosphate. Both are problematic in children. The use of bisacodyl together with fleet enema has been suggested as an alternative; however, its use without dietary restriction is inferior to other preparations. We aimed to study the effect of bisacodyl together with fleet enema and a half day of clear fluid diet. Methods Ninety-eight children (aged 30 months to 12 years) were studied prospectively according to the following protocol: on the day prior to the colonoscopy, the patient received a 5-mg bisacodyl tablet at noon and started a clear fluid diet. An additional bisacodyl tablet was taken in the evening by patients more than 5 years old. Two pediatric fleet enemas were performed, on the evening before and on the morning of the procedure. The patients were compared with 26 historical control patients that had been prepared with PEG-ELS solution. Results The compliance of the bisacodyl group was excellent (100%), compared with 88% of the control group. Ninety-five percent of the bisacodyl group had good to excellent bowel preparation, compared with 88% of the PEG-ELS group. Conclusions This method is safe and appropriate for use in children younger than 12 years.     

利那洛肽联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜肠道准备的临床研究

目的探讨利那洛肽联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散(polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder, PEG)作为结肠镜肠道准备方案的价值。方法采用随机、单盲的前瞻性临床研究, 纳入2021年6—8月于南方医科大学深圳医院消化内科门诊行结肠镜检查的患者。将行结肠镜肠道准备的患者分成2组, 试验组152例患者采用580 μg利那洛肽+2 L PEG方案, 对照组152例患者采用3 L PEG方案。比较两组患者肠道准备效果(波士顿肠道准备量表评分、气泡评分和病变检出率)及安全性(不良事件)。结果试验组与对照组相比, 波士顿肠道准备量表评分[总评分9(8, 9)分比9(9, 9)分, Z=0.141, P=0.888], 气泡评分[1(1, 2)分比1(1, 1)分, Z=1.788, P=0.074]及总体病变检出率[37.50%(57/152)比33.55%(51/152), χ2=0.517, P=0.472]差异均无统计学意义。在安全性方面, 试验组与对照组相比, 恶心[7.24%(11/152)比13.16%(20/152), χ2=2.910, P=0.08...