Effectiveness of very low-volume preparation for colonoscopy: A prospective,multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of colonoscopy strictly depends on adequate bowel cleansing.Recently, a 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate(PEG-ASC) solution(Plenvu;Norgine, Harefield, United Kingdom) has been introduced on the evidence of three phase-3 randomized controlled trials, but it had never been tested in the real-life.AIM To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of the 1L preparation compared to 4L and 2L-PEG solutions in a real-life setting.METHODS All patients undergoing a screening or diagnostic colonoscopy after a 4, 2 or 1L PEG preparation, were consecutively enrolled in 5 Italian centers from September2018 to February 2019. The primary endpoints of the study were the assessment of bowel cleansing success and high-quality cleansing of the right colon. The secondary endpoints were the evaluation of tolerability, adherence and safety of the different bowel preparations. Bowel cleansing was assessed through the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Adherence was defined as consumption of at least 75% of each dose, while tolerability was evaluated through a semiquantitative scale. Safety was systematically monitored through adverse events reporting.RESULTS Overall, 1289 met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. Of these,490 patients performed a 4L-PEG preparation(Selgesse~?), 566 a 2L-PEG cleansing(Moviprep~? or Clensia~?) and 233 a 1L-PEG preparation(Plenvu~?).Bowel cleansing by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was 6.5 ± 1.5 overall and 6.3 ±1.5, 6.2 ± 1.5, 7.3 ± 1.5(P 0.001) in the subgroups of 4L, 2L and 1L-PEG preparation, respectively. Cleansing success was achieved in 72.4%, 74.1% and90.1%(P 0.001), while a high-quality cleansing of the right colon in 15.9%,12.0% and 41.4%(P 0.001) for 4L, 2L and 1L-PEG preparation groups,respectively. The 1L preparation was the most tolerated compared to the 2 and 4L-PEG solutions in the absence of serious adverse events within any of the three groups. Multiple regression models confirmed 1L PEG-ASC preparation as an independent predictor of overall cleansing success, high-quality cleansing of the right colon and of tolerability.CONCLUSION This study supports the effectiveness and tolerability of 1L PEG-ASC, also showing it is an independent predictor of overall cleansing success, high-quality cleansing of the right colon and of tolerability.     

The optimal bowel preparation intervals before colonoscopy: A randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions

Background & aimsThe optimal duration of bowel preparation has only been assessed for polyethylene glycol (PEG). The aim of the study was to determine the intervals for achieving a satisfactory quality/tolerability of the preparation using PEG/ascorbic acid (PEGA) and sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (SPMC), and to compare them with 4L of PEG.MethodsA randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. The 612 outpatients referred to a colonoscopy, were prepared using PEG, SPMC, PEGA. The quality, tolerability, duration of the preparation, and the interval from the end of the preparation to the colonoscopy was assessed.ResultsOptimum duration of the preparation was similar for both PEG and SPMC (≥7.3 vs. ≥8.8 h, overall ≥8.4 h). Optimum interval to the colonoscopy was ≤11.8 h and did not differ between preparations (PEG, PEGA ≤ 11.8, SPMC ≤ 13.3 h). These times were the only predictors for a satisfactory preparation. The tolerability depends on the product type (SPMC) only. Timing of the preparation or the other factors had no impact on tolerability.ConclusionThe optimum intervals for bowel preparation are identical for all preparations. Satisfactory preparation is achived at the preparation length ≥8.4 h and the time to colonoscopy ≤11.8 h.     

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.     

Oral sodium phosphate solution is a superior colonoscopy preparation to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of two bowel preparations for colonoscopy. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-three consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either oral sodium phosphate, or 2 liters of polyethylene glycol solution preceded by the stimulant laxative bisacodyl. Patients were asked to record the effects of the preparation, noting any vomiting, nausea, or abdominal pain, and to determine a discomfort rating on a scale of 1 to 5. One hundred sixty-nine patients were assigned to the oral sodium phosphate solution, and 154 to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl. Surgeons were blinded to the preparation used and rated the quality of the bowel preparation on a scale of 1 to 5. RESULTS: Ninety-nine percent of patients in the sodium phosphate group drank all of the solution as opposed to 91 percent of patients in the polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl group. Patients in the sodium phosphate group reported significantly less discomfort (P=0.002). No significant difference was reported for vomiting, nausea, or abdominal pain associated with the preparations. The quality of bowel cleansing was considered by the colonoscopists significantly better for the sodium phosphate group than the polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl group (P<0.000001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy preparation with sodium phosphate solution is better tolerated and more effective than polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl.     

Electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy:A randomized controlled multicenter trial

AIM:To investigate the electrolyte changes between 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid 20 g(PEGAsc) and 4-L PEG solutions.METHODS:From August 2012 to February 2013,a total of 226 patients were enrolled at four tertiary hospitals.All patients were randomly allocated to a PEG-Asc group or a 4-L PEG.Before colonoscopy,patients completed a questionnaire to assess bowel preparation-related symptoms,satisfaction,and willingness.Endoscopists assessed the bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale(BBPS).In addition,blood tests,including serum electrolytes,serum osmolarity,and urine osmolarity were evaluated both before and after the procedure.RESULTS:A total of 226 patients were analyzed.BBPS scores were similar and the adequate bowel preparation rate(BBPS≥6)was not different between the two groups(PEG-Asc vs 4-L PEG,73.2%vs 76.3%,P=0.760).Bowel preparation-related symptoms also were not different between the two groups.The taste of PEG-Asc was better(41.1%vs 16.7%,P0.001),and the willingness to undergo repeated bowel preparation was higher in the PEG-Asc group(73.2%vs 59.3%,P=0.027)than in 4-L PEG.There were no significant changes in serum electrolytes in either group.CONCLUSION:In this multicenter trial,bowel preparation with PEG-Asc was better than 4-L PEG in terms of patient satisfaction,with similar degrees of bowel preparation and electrolyte changes.     

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.     

Bisacodyl plus split 2-L polyethylene glycol-citrate-simethicone improves quality of bowel preparation before screening colonoscopy

AIM:To compare the bowel cleansing efficacy,tolerability and acceptability of split 2-L polyethylene glycol(PEG)-citrate-simethicone(PEG-CS)plus bisacodyl(BIS)vs 4-L PEG for fecal occult blood test-positive screening colonoscopy.METHODS:This was a randomised,observer-blind comparative study.Two hundred and sixty-four subjects underwent screening colonoscopy(mean age 62.5±7.4years,male 61.7%).The primary objective of the study was to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of the two preparations.Interventions:BIS plus PEG-CS:3 tablets of 5-mg BIS at 16:00,PEG-CS 1-L at 19:00 and 1-L at7:00,4-L PEG:3-L at 17:00,and 1-L at 7:00.Colonoscopy was carried out after 11:00,at least 3 h after the completion of bowel preparation.Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Harefield Cleansing Scale.RESULTS:Bowel preparation was successful for 92.8%of subjects in the PEG-CS group and for 92.1%of subjects in the 4-L PEG(RR=1.01;95%CI:0.94-1.08).BIS+PEG-CS was better tolerated than 4-L PEG.A greater rate of patients in the BIS+PEG-CS group had no difficulty and/or were willing to repeat the same preparation compared to split-dose 4-L PEG group.Subjects in the BIS+PEG-CS group rated the prep as good or satisfactory in 90.6%as compared to 77%in the 4-L PEG(P=0.003).Subjects receiving BIS+PEGCS stated they fully adhered to instructions drinking all the 2-L solution in 97.1%compared with 87.3%in the4-L PEG(P=0.003).CONCLUSION:BIS plus split 2-L PEG-CS was as effective as but better tolerated and accepted than split4-L PEG for screening colonoscopy.This new procedure may increase the positive attitude and participation to colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy.     

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)     

Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy:A continual search for excellence

Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential to maximize the benefits of colonoscopy.Numerous bowel preparations have been studied,ranging from 4 L polyethylene glycol(PEG) to split-dose regimens to 2 L PEG with an adjunct laxative(senna,bisacodyl,ascorbic acid).Due to the large volume of PEG required for adequate bowel preparation,many studies have focused on reducing this large volume to only 2 L PEG with the addition of an adjunct.Recently,a randomized controlled trial by Tajika et al showed that the addition of mosapride to only 1.5 L PEG was non-inferior to mosapride and 2 L PEG for bowel cleansing but did provide improvements in patient tolerance.This study offers yet another potential bowel preparation for patients undergoing colonoscopy and may trigger further studies with 1.5 L PEG with an adjunct.In this letter,we discuss the current state of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy and offer information to guide clinicians on choosing the appropriate bowel preparation for their patients.     

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.     

莫沙必利联合聚乙二醇电解质在老年患者结肠镜检肠道准备中的应用

目的 观察聚乙二醇电解质联合莫沙必利用于结肠镜检查前清肠效果和副作用.方法 712例拟行结肠镜检查的老年患者（＞ 60岁）肠道清洁前随机分为A组351例和B组361例,A组口服聚乙二醇电解质,B组口服聚乙二醇电解质和莫沙必利.记录肠道清洁效果及副作用.结果 B组肠道清洁效果满意率（95.3％）高于A组（91.4％）,但差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;B组达到Ⅰ级清洁度的比例（39.3％）高于A组（31.3％）,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.B组恶心发生率和副作用总发生率明显低于A组（3.6％ vs 13.4％; 15.7％ vs 23.7％,P均＜0.05）.结论 聚乙二醇电解质联合莫沙必利用于老年人肠道清肠准备效果好、副作用发生率低.     

莫沙比利和聚乙二醇在肠镜检查前肠道准备中的联合应用价值研究

目的 探讨联用莫沙比利与聚乙二醇对功能性疾病导致便秘倾向患者进行结肠镜检查的肠道准备是否比单用聚乙二醇能取得更好的清肠效果.方法 将212例拟行结肠镜检查的患者随机纳入治疗组与对照组,治疗组在服用莫沙比利10 mg半小时后,服用聚乙二醇3L,对照组直接服用聚乙二醇3L清肠.调查患者是否具有便秘倾向,分别记录两组患者及两组中具有便秘倾向者首次大便时间、大便清澈时间、大便次数、服药过程中的不良反应程度以及由内镜操作医师评估肠道准备情况.结果 治疗组患者首次大便时间、大便清澈时间短于对照组(P＜0.05),但两组患者清肠效果、排便次数及不良反应差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).对照组与治疗组中有便秘倾向患者分别占26.61％和26.67％,治疗组便秘倾向患者首次大便时间、大便清澈时间短于对照组便秘倾向患者(P＜0.05),清肠效果亦优于对照组便秘倾向患者(P＜0.05),而在排便次数及不良反应上二者差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 对功能性疾病导致便秘倾向患者进行结肠镜检查肠道准备,联用莫沙比利和聚乙二醇相比单用聚乙二醇,可以缩短患者首次大便时间及大便清澈时间,并能提高患者肠道准备效果.     

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 ...     

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 cleans...     

Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation

AIM: To compare the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and physical tolerability of two oral lavage solutions prior to colonoscopy in a Taiwanese population. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP) in a split regimen of two 45 mL doses separated by 12 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects who had completed the preparation. Secondary endpoints included colonic cleansing evaluated with an overall assessment and segmental evaluation, the tolerance and acceptability assessed by a self-administered structured questionnaire, and a safety profile such as any unexpected adverse events, electrolyte tests, physical exams, vital signs, and body weights. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.2% vs 27.5%, P<0.001). The amount of fluid suc-tioned was significantly less in patients taking NaP vs PEG (50.13±54.8 cc vs 121.13±115.4 cc, P<0.001), even after controlling for completion of the oral solution (P= 0.031). The two groups showed a comparable overall assessment of bowel preparation with a rate of "good" or "excellent" in 78.9% of patients in the NaP group and 82.5% in PEG group (P = 0.778). Patients taking NaP tended to have significantly better colonic segmental cleansing relative to stool amount observed in the descending (94.7% vs 70%, P = 0.007) and transverse (94.6% vs 74.4%, P = 0.025) colon. Slightly more patients graded the taste of NaP as "good" or "very good" compared to the PEG patients (32.5% vs 12.5%; P = 0.059). Patients' willingness to take the same preparation in the future was 68.4% in the NaP compared to 75% in the PEG group (P = 0.617). There was a significant increase in serum sodium and a significant decrease in phosphate and chloride levels in NaP group on the day following the colonoscopy without any clinical sequelae. Prolonged (>24 h) hemodynamic changes were also observed in 20-35% subjects of either group. CONCLUSION: Both bowel cleansing agents proved to be similar in safety and effectiveness, while NaP appeared to be more cost-effective. After identifying and excluding patients with potential risk factors, sodium phosphate should become an alternative preparation for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy in the Taiwanese population.     

Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets vs polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing

AIM: To compare efficacy, patient compliance, acceptability, satisfaction, safety, and adenoma detection rate of sodium phosphate tablets (NaP, CLICOLON^TM) to a standard 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution for bowel cleansing for adults undergoing colonoscopy.METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, prospective, investigator-blind study, the relatively young (19-60 years) healthy outpatients without comorbidity were randomly assigned to one of two arms. All colonoscopy were scheduled in the morning. The NaP group was asked to take 4 tablets, 5 times the evening before and 4 tablets, 3 times early on the morning of the colonoscopy. The PEG group was asked to ingest 2 L of solution the evening before and 2 L early in the morning of the procedure. Adequacy of bowel preparation was scored using the Boston bowel preparation scale.RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the NaP group (n = 158) and PEG group (n = 162) in bowel cleansing quality (adequate preparation 93.0% vs 92.6%, P = 0.877), patient compliance (P = 0.228), overall adverse events (63.3% vs 69.1%, P = 0.269), or adenoma detection rate (34.8% vs 35.2%, P = 0.944). Patient acceptability, satisfaction, and patient rating of taste were higher in the NaP group than in the PEG group (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: NaP tablets, compared with PEG solution, produced equivalent colon cleansing, did not cause more side effects, and had better patient acceptability and satisfaction in the relatively young (age < 60 years) healthy individuals without comorbidity. An oral tablet formulation could make bowel preparation less burdensome, resulting in greater patient participation in screening programs.     

Same-day colonoscopy preparation with Senna alkaloids and bisacodyl tablets: A pilot study

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of same-day bowel preparation with Senna alkaloids combined with bisacodyl tablets in routine colonoscopy procedures.METHODS: Between March and June 2013, a same-day bowel preparation was implemented in our endoscopy unit. The preparation consisted of a semi-liquid, fiber-free diet one day prior to the procedure, with two bisacodyl tablets after lunch and dinner, and 250 mL of Senna alkaloid with 1.5 L of drinking water at 6 am the day of the procedure. The quality control parameters of colonoscopy were evaluated and implemented according to the guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The pre-procedure, during-procedure and post-procedure patient data were collected and analyzed: (1) pre-procedure (age, gender, comorbid diseases, colonoscopy indications, complete lack of compliance with the bowel preparation protocol); (2) during-procedure (sedation dose, duration of colonoscopy, withdrawal time, cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, Boston Bowel Preparation Scores and presence of foam and clear liquid); and (3) post-procedure (visual analogue scale score, pain during the procedure, patient satisfaction and premature withdrawal due to the insufficient bowel preparation).RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in this study with a mean age of 54.64 ± 13.29 years; 53.3% (40/75) were female and 46.7% (35/75) were male. A complete lack of compliance with the bowel preparation protocol was seen in 6.7% of patients (5/75). The mean total duration of colonoscopy was 16.12 ± 6.51 min, and the mean withdrawal time was 8.89 ± 4.07 min. The cecal intubation rate was 93.8% (61/64) and the polyp detection rate was 40% (30/75). The mean Boston Bowel Preparation Score was 7.38 ± 1.81, with the following distribution: right colon, 2.34 ± 0.89; transverse colon, 2.52 ± 0.67; left colon, 2.52 ± 0.63. The mean visual analogue scale score was 4.59 ± 1.57. Due to insufficient bowel preparation, seven patients (7/75; 9.3%) were asked to repeat the procedure. Of these, five patients had poor or modest compliance with the protocol, and two patients reported constipation. Premature withdrawal due to insufficient bowel preparation was 2.7% (2/75). The overall satisfaction with the protocol was 86.7% (65/75), with patients reporting they would prefer the same protocol in a repeat procedure.CONCLUSION: The same-day administration of Senna alkaloids appears to be a safe and effective bowel cleansing protocol for colonoscopy procedures.     

肠道准备对无痛胃镜黏膜清晰度和安全性的影响

目的研究肠道准备对无痛胃镜检查黏膜清晰度和安全性的影响。 方法2019年9至10月邹平市人民医院接受无痛胃镜和肠镜健康查体的某单位员工168例,随机分为观察组和对照组两组,观察组90例术前进行肠道准备,胃肠镜在一次麻醉中完成;对照组78例先行无痛胃镜检查,择期再行肠道准备和无痛肠镜检查。对比两组胃镜检查时胃底、胃体、胃窦黏膜清晰度评分和总评分,记录并比较两组患者术中麻醉异常和术后不良反应的发生率。 结果观察组胃底、胃体、胃窦各部位黏膜清晰度评分和总评分均低于对照组：(1.54±0.56)分vs.(2.01±0.73)分、(1.67±0.57)分vs.(1.99±0.67)分、(1.40±0.58)分vs.(1.63±0.61)分、(4.32±1.21)分vs.(5.63±1.32)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者术中麻醉异常和术后不良反应的发生率差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论服用聚乙二醇(polyethylene glycol,PEG)电解质散进行肠道清洁准备可提高胃黏膜清晰度,且不会增加无痛胃镜检查的麻醉风险。     

A low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: The NORMO randomised clinical trial

Background

Patient acceptability of the preparation is a key factor in the success of colonoscopy, yet standard polyethylene glycol solutions are poorly tolerated owing to their high volume (4 L) and low palatability. This study compared the efficacy, safety and acceptability of a 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate solution with a standard 4-L polyethylene glycol solution.

Methods

Adults referred for colonoscopy were randomised to 2-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate (n = 202) or 4-L polyethylene glycol solution (n = 198). Colon cleansing success was assessed using the Harefield Cleansing Scale^© and the Aronchick scale. Safety and acceptability were also assessed.

Results

Successful cleansing was achieved in 94.1% and 90.9% of subjects with the 2-L and 4-L solutions respectively using the Harefield Cleansing Scale^© and 94.6% and 90.0% using the Aronchick scale (non significant). Despite better acceptability and tolerability, no superiority over the standard 4-L preparation was demonstrated. Fewer treatment-related adverse events were reported with the 2-L solution (80.2% versus 89.9%, p = 0.011). More subjects were willing to take the 2 L PEG + ascorbate solution again (87% versus 51%, p < 0.001), found it easier to drink (80% versus 70%, p = 0.025), with a better taste (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Two-litre polyethylene glycol + ascorbate solution, with a similar high degree of cleansing and superior acceptability and tolerability, presents an alternative to 4-L polyethylene glycol when compliance is an issue.     

Colonic preparation before colonoscopy in constipated and non-constipated patients:A randomized study

AIM: To compare the efficacy of different doses of sodium phosphate(NaP) and polyethylenglicol(PEG) alone or with bisacodyl for colonic cleansing in constipated and non-constipated patients.METHODS: Three hundred and forty-nine patients,older than 18 years old,with low risk for renal damage and who were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to receive one of the following preparations(prep): 90 mL of NaP(prep 1);45 mL of NaP + 20 mg of bisacodyl(prep 2);4 L of PEG(prep 3) or 2 L of PEG + 20 mg of bisacodyl(prep 4).Randomization was stratified by constipation.Patients,endoscopists,endoscopists’ assistants and data analysts were blinded.A blinding challenge was performed to endoscopist in order to reassure blinding.The primary outcome was the efficacy of colonic cleansing using a previous reported scale.Secondary outcomes were tolerability,compliance,side effects,endoscopist perception about the necessity to repeat the study due to an inadequate colonic preparation and patient overall perceptions.RESULTS: Information about the primary outcome was obtained from 324 patients(93%).There were no significant differences regarding the preparation quality among different groups in the overall analysis.Compliance was higher in the NaP preparations being even higher in half-dose with bisacodyl: 94%(prep 1),100%(prep 2),81%(prep 3) and 87%(prep 4)(2 vs 1,3 and 4,P < 0.01;1 vs 3,4,P < 0.05).The combination of bisacodyl with NaP was associated with insomnia(P = 0.04).In non-constipated patients the preparation quality was also similar between different groups,but endoscopist appraisal about the need to repeat the study was more frequent in the half-dose PEG plus bisacodyl than in whole dose NaP preparation: 11%(prep 4) vs 2%(prep 1)(P < 0.05).Compliance in this group was also higher with the NaP preparations: 95%(prep 1),100%(prep2) vs 80%(prep 3)(P < 0.05).Bisacodyl was associated with abdominal pain: 13%(prep 1),31%(prep 2),21%(prep 3) and 29%(prep 4),(2,4 vs 1,2,P < 0.05).In constipated pati