Safety and efficacy of colonoscopy after myocardial infarction: an analysis of 100 study patients and 100 control patients at two tertiary cardiac referral hospitals

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to analyze the risks vs. the benefits of colonoscopy soon after myocardial infarction. METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy within 30 days after myocardial infarction at two large tertiary cardiac referral hospitals were studied. The study group was compared with 100 control patients with neither myocardial infarction nor unstable angina during the preceding 6 months (matched for age, colonoscopy indication, and colonoscopist) who underwent colonoscopy. RESULTS: Indications for colonoscopy were bleeding per rectum (37 patients), fecal occult blood (36 patients, hematocrit < 30% in 25), iron deficiency anemia (11 patients, hematocrit < 25% in 9), and other (16 patients). Colonoscopy was performed at a mean of 15.5 (8.3) days after myocardial infarction. Two patients underwent colonoscopic colonic decompression. Colonoscopy was diagnostic in 46 (47%) of the study patients vs. 41% of the control patients ( p = 0.47, chi-square test). The relative rate of ischemic colitis was significantly higher in study vs. control patients (14 vs. 2, p < 0.005). Other diagnoses in study patients were the following: colon cancer (8), bleeding internal hemorrhoids (5), pseudomembranous colitis (5), high-risk adenomatous polyp (large or villous histopathology) (4), and other (10). Urgent colonoscopy was diagnostic in 63% of cases. Twenty-three patients had a major therapeutic benefit consequent to colonoscopy, including colon cancer surgery in 5. Study patients were significantly sicker than control patients (APACHE II score 9.9 [4.3] vs. 7.4 [2.8], p < 0.0001) and suffered significantly more colonoscopic complications compared with control patients (9 vs. 1; OR 5.2: 95% CI [1.2, 9.8], p < 0.03). Minor complications without clinical sequelae occurred in 8 study patients (asymptomatic hypotension or bradycardia). One major complication occurred in this group that was probably not procedure related. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy in patients with a recent myocardial infarction is associated with a higher rate of minor, transient, and primarily cardiovascular complications compared with control patients but is relatively infrequently associated with major complications. Colonoscopy is beneficial and indicated after myocardial infarction, despite a higher risk, in certain circumstances. The relative frequency of ischemic colitis was relatively high in study patients.     

Does insertion of a rectal tube after colonoscopy reduce patient discomfort and improve satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Distention of the colon is a major contributor to patient discomfort after colonoscopy. Some physicians and nurses believe insertion of a rectal tube relieves this discomfort and improves patient satisfaction with the procedure. This prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessed rectal tube insertion for reduction or prevention of abdominal bloating and discomfort after colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred fifty-seven patients were prospectively randomized to groups with (n = 68) and without (n = 89) rectal tube insertion after colonoscopy. Patients were evaluated for bloating, discomfort, and pain before the procedure, at its conclusion, at discharge, and 24 hours later (by telephone). Satisfaction was also assessed at discharge and 24 hours later. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups with respect to age, gender, hospitalization status, comorbidity, or socioeconomic status. In both groups the cecum was reached in 90% of patients and procedure time was similar. There were no differences between the groups in abdominal bloating (patient and nurse assessment), abdominal discomfort, or satisfaction at any time point. There were no serious complications. The subgroup of patients who experienced more severe pain and discomfort, regardless of whether a rectal tube was inserted, was characterized by more complaints of bloating, more incomplete procedures, and a higher rate of previous abdominal operations. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of a rectal tube after colonoscopy does not affect abdominal bloating, pain, or discomfort during recovery from the procedure or over the subsequent 24 hours, nor does it affect overall patient satisfaction.     

Comparison of standard polyethylene glycol and two doses of oral sodium phosphate solution in precolonoscopy bowel preparation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy, side effects and patient acceptance of standard 4-liters polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 2 doses of sodium phosphate (NaP) solution for precolonoscopy colon cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 182 patients were randomized to receive either standard 4-L PEG (88 patients) or 80 mL of NaP (94 patients) in a split regimen of two 40 mL doses separated by 24 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the segmental assessment of colonic wall visualization. Secondary outcomes included percent of assumed preparation, and the patient tolerance and acceptability. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.3% vs 62.9%; difference, 21.40%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.29% to 34.51%; p = 0.001). PEG solution caused more nausea than NaP solution (p = 0.024). Patient acceptance for bowel preparation with NaP was greater (p = 0.019). Adequate colon wall visualization was achieved in similar proportion of patients in both groups with exception of the descending colon, where NaP regimen was superior (72.0% vs 52.9%; difference, 19.10%; 95% CI, 5.20% to 33.00% ; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of NaP solution, taken 24 h and 12 h before colonoscopy, tend to guarantee superior results in colonic cleansing with respect to standard 4-liters PEG solution. Taking the second dose of NaP 24 h after the first dose reduces side effects and allows achieving a more satisfactory compliance of the patient.     

二氧化碳灌注提高老年患者结肠镜检查舒适度的随机对照研究

背景：常规空气灌注式结肠镜检查往往会造成不同程度的腹痛、腹胀等不适,探求更好的结肠镜检查方式具有重要临床意义。目的：评价二氧化碳（CO2）灌注用于老年患者结肠镜检查的舒适度和安全性。方法：98例老年患者随机分为4组,各组基线情况基本一致,分别以空气或CO2为注气媒介,辅以或不辅以镇痛药行结肠镜检查。以直观模拟量表（VAS）评价检查中和检查后5、10、15、20min腹痛、腹胀情况。每组分别随机选取8例患者,8例于检查后10min行动脉血气分析,另8例于检查后60min拍摄腹部X线平片评价肠管扩张程度。结果：CO2组和CO2＋镇痛组各时点腹痛、腹胀VAS评分以及检查后肠管扩张程度评分分别显著低于空气组和空气＋镇痛组（P〈0．01）,CO2＋镇痛组检查中腹痛、腹胀VAS评分显著低于CO2组（P〈0．05）。四组间各项结肠镜操作参数以及动脉血pH值和PCO2差异无统计学意义,且均无严重并发症发生。结论：CO2灌注式结肠镜检查用于老年患者安全、有效,舒适度较空气灌注式结肠镜检查明显提高。     

Total colonic dye-spray increases the detection of diminutive adenomas during routine colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Small adenomas may be missed during colonoscopy, but chromoscopy has been reported to enhance detection. The aim of this randomized-controlled trial was to determine the effect of total colonic dye spray on adenoma detection during routine colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomized to a dye-spray group (0.1% indigo carmine used to coat the entire colon during withdrawal from the cecum) or control group (no dye). RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-nine patients were randomized, 124 to the dye-spray and 135 to the control group; demographics, indication for colonoscopy, and quality of the preparation were similar between the groups. Extubation from the cecum took a median of 9:05 minutes (range: 2:48-24:44 min) in the dye-spray group versus 4:52 minutes (range: 1:42-15:21 min) in the control group (p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with at least 1 adenoma and the total number of adenomas were not different between groups. However, in the dye-spray group significantly more diminutive adenomas (<5 mm) were detected proximal to the sigmoid colon (p = 0.026) and more patients were identified with 3 or more adenomas (p = 0.002). More non-neoplastic polyps were detected throughout the colon in the dye-spray group (p = 0.003). There were no complications. CONCLUSIONS: Dye-spray increases the detection of small adenomas in the proximal colon and patients with multiple adenomas, but long-term outcomes should be studied to determine the clinical value of these findings.     

Comparison of patients' experiences during imaging tests of the colon.

BACKGROUND: Physical discomfort, anxiety, embarrassment, and other aspects of patient experience impact on future compliance for colonic imaging tests. Therefore, a prospective study was performed comparing patient experiences during air contrast barium enema (ACBE), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. METHODS: Immediately after each procedure, patients completed a questionnaire assessing pretest anxiety, difficulty with preparation, pain, cramping, bloating, overall discomfort, loss of dignity, willingness to repeat the test, and overall satisfaction. A follow-up questionnaire was administered within 48 hours. Nurses and physicians also completed questionnaires to assess the provider impression of patient experience. RESULTS: Four hundred ten patients (80 ACBE, 202 sigmoidoscopy, 128 colonoscopy) were prospectively enrolled. Sigmoidoscopy caused more pain than ACBE (Odds ratio [OR] 2.64: 95% CI [1.63, 4.27]) or colonoscopy (OR 1.83: 95% CI [1.21, 2.77]). ACBE and colonoscopy did not differ in the degree of pain. Although overall satisfaction appeared to be similar for all tests, patients were less willing to repeat ACBE than sigmoidoscopy (OR 1.85: 95% CI [1.13, 3.02]) or colonoscopy (OR 1.82: 95% CI [1.07, 3.09]). Initial and follow-up pain ratings by patients were highly correlated (Spearman correlation 0.81); however, correlation of pain assessments between staff and patients was poor (Spearman correlation 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Sigmoidoscopy was more painful than other colonic imaging modalities. Although ACBE and colonoscopy caused similar pain, patients were less willing to repeat ACBE. In aggregate, the data suggest that patients perceive colonoscopy as the most acceptable colonic imaging procedure. Better methods are required to allow staff to adequately assess discomfort experienced by patients during these procedures.     

Electroacupuncture analgesia for colonoscopy. a prospective,randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: A study was undertaken to compare the effectiveness of acupuncture in reducing patient's discomfort and anxiety during colonoscopy with a standard sedation protocol. METHODS: Thirty patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive acupuncture, sham, or no acupuncture. A verbal rating scale was used to measure patient's pain when the endoscope reached four scheduled positions. Midazolam was administered at baseline and again anytime patients complained of "severe" pain. The amount of midazolam administered was recorded. A verbal rating scale was used to assess patient's satisfaction with the level of sedation achieved. RESULTS: Pain level was lower, although not significantly, in the acupuncture group. Midazolam boluses were required in three patients with acupuncture (30%), eight in the sham group (80%), and nine in the control group (90%) (p = 0.01). Six patients in the acupuncture group (60%) reported optimum acceptance of colonoscopy compared with only one in the sham group (10%) and none in the control group (0%) (p = 0.016). Satisfaction scores, assessed 24-72 h after colonoscopy, were extremely high (median score 90 of 100) in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture may decrease the demand for sedative drugs during colonoscopy by reducing discomfort and anxiety of the patient and the well-known adverse effects of pharmacologic sedation.     

Carbon dioxide insufflation during withdrawal of the colonoscope improved postprocedure discomfort: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

In colonoscopy, the question of when and how to use carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation remains uncertain. Inspection for the pathological changes during colonoscopy takes place during the withdrawal of the scope. This study aimed to determine whether CO(2) insufflation only at the withdrawal of the colonoscope has an effect comparable to that of CO(2) usage throughout the course of the procedure. Symptomatic patients were randomized in three groups: (1) patients given air insufflation (A; n = 33); (2) patients given CO(2) insufflation only at the time of scope withdrawal (CW; n = 33); and (3) patients given the CO(2) insufflation (C; n = 34) for the whole course of the colonoscopy. Patients were requested to answer questionnaires about their pain score during, at the end, and 1 h after the colonoscopy by using a pain numerical scale ranging from 0 to 10. The disparities of the pain score were noted at the end of the procedure and 1 h after the procedure (p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively). We further analyzed the scores between two of the three groups. Both CW (vs. A; procedure end: p = 0.012, 1 h after: p = 0.001) and C (vs. A; procedure end: p = 0.072, 1 h after: p < 0.001) showed less postprocedure pain when compared with the group A. The pain score between CW and C were similar at each time segment (procedure end: p = 0.555, 1 h after: p = 0.491). CO(2) insufflation merely at the withdrawal of the colonoscope improved postprocedural abdominal discomfort and the effect was not inferior to that of full course CO(2) insufflation.     

Significance of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy. Results from a prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND: In France, general anesthesia is given to more than 90% of patients undergoing colonoscopy although in several countries sedation is limited to intolerant patients. This study was carried out to determine whether Patient-Controlled Sedation (PCS) could provide a lighter sedation than general anesthesia adapted to the patient's individual requirement. METHODS: Patients aged from 18 to 80 scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive either standard sedation (control group) or patient-controlled-sedation (PCS). In the control group, patients received a continuous infusion of propofol. Patients in the PCS group were connected to an infusion pump containing propofol and self-administered 20-mg boluses as often as they required. An anesthetist was present throughout the procedure. Patient satisfaction measured on a visual analog scale four hours after colonoscopy was the main outcome criterion. RESULTS: From December 2002 to September 2003, 402 patients underwent elective colonoscopy, 173 of them were eligible and were asked to participate in the study. Seventy-two gave their informed consent and were prospectively randomized. The patients' mean satisfaction scores were not statistically different between the two groups: 84.7 mm (PCS group) vs. 91.5 mm (control group); P = 0.24. Mean doses of propofol (60 mg vs. 248 mg; P <0.001), depth of sedation and time before discharge (1.75 hours vs. 4.45 hours) were significantly lower for patients in the PCS group; nine of them (25.7%) did not use the pump and had total colonoscopy without sedation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding total duration of colonoscopy (19.4 min (PCS) vs. 18 min (control)) difficulty and therapeutic procedures (biopsy or polypectomy). Two weeks after the procedure, 96.5% of patients in the PCS group were willing to repeat the examination under the same conditions vs. 72.5% of patients in the control group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that need of sedation is widely overestimated in France. A subset of our patients is willing to consider colonoscopy without general anesthesia. For them, PCS with propofol is an effective and very well accepted form of sedation.     

Colonoscopy in octogenarians: a prospective outpatient study

OBJECTIVES: The number of octogenarians (age > or =80 yr) referred for colonoscopy is increasing. Reported success rates regarding colonoscopy completion and adequacy of colonic preparation are poor overall in this group. This may be the result of age-related differences or biases due to retrospective data. The aims of this study were to prospectively determine differences between octogenarians and nonoctogenarians in adequacy of colonic preparation, success in completing colonoscopy, and complications of conscious sedation. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 250 consecutive outpatients (150 nonoctogenarians and 100 octogenarians) referred for colonoscopy. Colonic preparation tolerance was assessed before colonoscopy, and the success rate and preparation were evaluated after the procedure. Conscious sedation complications were compared. RESULTS: In octogenarians and nonoctogenarians preparation tolerance (86% and 90%, respectively) was similar. Endoscopic success rate was slightly lower in octogenarians (90% vs 99%, p = 0.002). Preparation was poor in 16% of octogenarians compared with 4% of nonoctogenarians (p = 0.001). This was independent of the type of preparation used. Oxygen desaturation was more common in octogenarians (27% vs 19%, p = 0.0007) and associated with a higher meperidine dose (1.05 vs 0.75 mg/kg). No adverse outcomes occurred in either study group. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic preparations were well tolerated and colonoscopic success rates were high in octogenarians and nonoctogenarians. However, poor colonic preparation was four times as likely in octogenarians and was the most important impediment to adequate colonoscopy.     

Premedication with intravenous ketorolac trometamol (Toradol) in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trial to investigate the effect of ketorolac trometamol (KT) administered intravenously as premedication in colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred and forty patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 60 mg of KT (KT group (KTG), n=70) or placebo (normal saline group (NSG), n=70) intravenously as premedication 30 min prior to procedure. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) was used as the mode of sedation. Outcome measures included patient self-assessed pain score in a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS), endoscopist assessment of patient pain score in VAS, patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy, administered and demanded doses of PCS, patient satisfaction score in VAS, and hemodynamic changes during and after the procedure. RESULTS: The mean patient self-assessed pain score (SD) during procedure was significantly lower in KTG than NSG: 5.08 (2.74) vs 6.62 (2.45); p=0.001. The mean endoscopist assessment of patient pain score (SD) was significantly lower in KTG than NSG as well: 3.99 (2.80) vs 5.28 (2.71); p=0.006. More patients in KTG were willing to repeat procedure as compared with NSG (80.0%vs 57.1%; p=0.004). No significant difference was found in the administered and demanded doses of PCS, mean satisfactory scores and hemodynamic changes in both groups. No serious complication related to intravenous (IV) KT was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with IV KT (Toradol) improves pain control during colonoscopy with no associated serious complications.     

The administration of cisapride as an adjuvant to PEG-electrolyte solution for colonic cleansing: a double-blind randomized study

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Traditional bowel preparation before colonoscopy involves lavage with approximately 4L of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte solution. Only a few studies have been published evaluating the use of cisapride in routine bowel preparation. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a blinded, placebo-controlled trial with the prokinetic agent, cisapride, in addition to standard PEG-electrolyte lavage. Of 115 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 58 were randomized (double-blind) to PEG plus cisapride (10 mg per os thrice per day three days before the procedure and one 10-mg dose on the morning of the procedure) and 57 to PEG plus a placebo of identical appearance. The adequacy of the preparation was scored on a four-point grading scale for each anatomic-segment and for the overall impression. A questionnaire was also used to assess each patient's symptoms during lavage. RESULTS: The difference in the overall score between the two groups was not significant (p=0.21). The quality of bowel preparation was significantly better in transverse (p=0.001), ascending (p=0.0053), and cecum (p=0.0001) in the cisapride group than in the placebo group. The differences in symptoms scores between the two groups were not significant in nausea, abdominal cramps and bloating but there was improvement in symptom score of vomiting in cisapride group (p=0.0422). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of cisapride to patients undergoing colonic lavage may be an effective adjuvant to PEG-electrolyte solution particularly with respect to increase patient acceptability.     

A new water instillation method for colonoscopy without sedation as performed by endoscopists-in-training

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy may be associated with discomfort when performed without sedation. A study was conducted to determine whether instillation of water into the colon at the beginning of the procedure reduces intubation time as well as patient discomfort and pain. METHODS: Colonoscopy was performed in 259 patients by 3 endoscopists-in-training with limited experience. Patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups. In one, a technique was used in which 500 to 1000 mL of water is instilled into the colon by enema at the beginning of the procedure (instillation group, n = 130). In the other, patients underwent a conventional colonoscopy (control group, n = 129). Intubation time was measured and compared between the groups, and subjective discomfort experienced by the patients was measured upon completion of the examination. RESULTS: Success rates for insertion to the cecum were similar, (95.4%, instillation group; 96.1%, control group). Detection rates for any colorectal diseases were not different between the groups (30.0% vs. 32.6%). Mean time to cecal intubation was 10.5 minutes in the instillation group and 16.2 minutes in the control group (p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who complained of abdominal pain during the procedure was 17.1% in the instillation group and 33.3% in the control group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When used by endoscopists-in-training, the water-instillation colonoscopy technique was associated with less discomfort and faster cecal intubation with no decrease in the rate of detection of colorectal diseases.     

Minimizing postcolonoscopy abdominal pain by using CO(2) insufflation: a prospective,randomized, double blind,controlled trial evaluating a new commercially available CO(2) delivery system

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain after colonoscopy is a common, distressing symptom resulting from bowel distension by insufflated gas. CO(2), unlike air, is rapidly cleared from the colon by passive absorption. A commercially available CO(2) delivery system has only recently become available. The effects of CO(2) and air insufflation on residual bowel gas and postprocedure pain were compared. METHODS: One hundred patients were randomized to undergo colonoscopy with insufflation of air (n = 51) or CO(2) (n = 49) by means of a regulator; 97 patients completed the study. Patients with active GI bleeding, inflammatory bowel disease, or previous colectomy were excluded. Pain scores (ordinal scale: 0 = none, to 5 = extreme) were recorded immediately after colonoscopy and at 1, 6, and 24 hours. Residual colonic gas was evaluated on abdominal radiographs at 1 hour. RESULTS: Residual colonic gas and postprocedural pain at 1 and 6 hours were significantly less in the CO(2) group. 71% of patients insufflated with room air had colonic distension in excess of 6 cm versus 4% for those in the CO(2) group. 94% of patients insufflated with CO(2) had minimal colonic gas versus 2% in whom air was used (p < 0.0001). Of patients insufflated with air, 45% and 31% had pain at, respectively, 1 hour and 6 hours, versus 7% and 9%, respectively, for those insufflated with CO(2) (respectively, p < 0.0001 and p < O.02). No complications resulted from use of the CO(2) delivery system. CONCLUSIONS: Insufflation of CO(2) rather than air significantly reduces abdominal pain and bowel distension after colonoscopy. CO(2) may be insufflated safely and effectively with the new CO(2) delivery system.     

Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol

OBJECTIVES: Nurse-administered propofol has gained attention as a safe and effective means of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. However, little is known about the effect of propofol on the technical performance of colonoscopy. METHODS: Three separate studies were conducted. In the first study, we reviewed procedure notes from consecutive colonoscopies performed by a single experienced endoscopist at our hospital endoscopy unit on patients sedated with either nurse-administered propofol (n = 162) or midazolam/narcotic (n = 164). In the second study, 100 eligible colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to receive either nurse-administered propofol (n = 50) or midazolam/fentanyl (n = 50). In both studies, the measured parameters included visualization of the cecum, time required to reach the cecum, repositioning of the patient, and the application of abdominal counterpressure. In a third study, we reviewed the rate of cecal intubation and colonic perforation in the first 2357 patients in our unit receiving nurse-administered propofol. RESULTS: In the retrospective comparative study, there was no difference in the cecal intubation rate in those receiving propofol (99.4%) compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (97%; p= 0.1), and three of five failed cecal intubations in the latter group resulted from obstructing masses. Patients sedated with propofol were repositioned less frequently compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (3.7%vs 26.2%) (p < 0.0001). Abdominal pressure was employed in 9.9% of patients sedated with propofol compared to 19.5% (p= 0.01) of those given midazolam/narcotic. The mean time to reach the cecum was lower in the propofol group than in the midazolam/narcotic group (4.6 min vs 6.0 min, p= 0.002). In the prospective randomized study, the endoscopist intubated the cecum in all 100 patients. Patients in the propofol group were repositioned less frequently than those in the midazolam/fentanyl group (2%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.001). The number of cases requiring abdominal counterpressure was not significantly different between the propofol and midazolam/fentanyl groups (12%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.1). The mean time to reach the cecum in the propofol group (3.2 min) was similar to that in the midazolam/fentanyl group (3.8 min, p= 0.08). Among the first 2357 patients in our unit undergoing colonoscopy with nurse-administered propofol, the rate of complete colonoscopy was 99.2% and there were no perforations. CONCLUSION: Nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and simplifies the technical performance of colonoscopy compared to midazolam/narcotic sedation.     

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide in patients undergoing colonoscopy with patient-controlled sedation

BACKGROUND: A prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial was conducted to investigate the effect of the antispasmodic hyoscine N-butyl bromide (Buscopan) during colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 120 patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 40 mg of hyoscine N-butyl bromide (n=60) or normal saline solution (n=60) intravenously as premedication. Colonoscopy was performed under patient-controlled sedation. Outcome measures included cecal intubation and total procedure time, demanded and administered doses of patient-controlled sedation, spasm score, pain score, endoscopist satisfaction score, patient willingness to repeat colonoscopy, and vital signs (blood pressure, pulse rate) during colonoscopy. RESULTS: Mean cecal intubation time in the hyoscine N-butyl bromide group was significantly longer than the control group (12.20 vs. 9.74 minutes; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance). The use of hyoscine N-butyl bromide was associated with a significantly lower endoscopist mean satisfaction score (6.47 vs. 7.30; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance), higher demanded and administered mean doses of patient-controlled sedation (respectively, 34.80 and 7.25 vs. 24.20 and 5.87; p=0.045; p=0.04, respectively; but correction for multiple testing of data removed these findings of significance), fewer patients willing to repeat colonoscopy (60% vs. 83.9%; p=0.005), and more hemodynamic instability (p<0.001) when compared with the control group. No significant difference was found in the total procedure time, spasm score, or pain score. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide impedes colonoscope insertion and causes greater patient discomfort, as well as hemodynamic instability.     

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.     

A randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the role of salmeterol in the in-hospital management of asthma

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of salmeterol xinafoate as an adjunct to conventional therapy for the in-hospital management of acute asthma. DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Medical wards of a large university-based hospital. PATIENTS: Forty-three patients admitted for an acute exacerbation of asthma. INTERVENTIONS: Salmeterol (42 microg) or two puffs of placebo every 12 h in addition to standard therapy (short-acting beta-agonists, corticosteroids, and anticholinergic agents). RESULTS: No clinically adverse effects were seen with the addition of salmeterol to conventional therapy. After salmeterol, there was no difference in pulse, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry, severity of symptoms, or dyspnea score. Patients receiving salmeterol had greater FEV(1) percent improvements than the placebo group at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h. These findings were not statistically significant. By paired Student's t tests, there were significant improvements in FEV(1) (p = 0.03) and FVC (p = 0.03) in the salmeterol group after 48 h of treatment with no comparable improvement in the placebo group. In a subgroup analysis of patients with an initial FEV(1) < or = 1.5 L, the absolute FEV(1) percent improvement for salmeterol vs placebo was 51% vs 16% at 24 h and 54% vs 40% at 48 h. The relative FEV(1) percent improvement for salmeterol vs placebo was 17% vs 8% at 24 h and 18% vs 14% at 48 h. CONCLUSION: The addition of salmeterol to conventional therapy is safe and may benefit hospitalized patients with asthma. Further studies are needed to clarify its role in the treatment of acute exacerbation of asthma.     

A prospective randomized trial comparing low-dose oral sodium phosphate plus stimulant laxatives with large volume polyethylene glycol solution for colon cleansing

This study examined whether the combination of a single dose (45 ml) oral sodium phosphate (NaP), four bisacodyl tablets (5 mg), and one bisacodyl enema (10 mg) preparation, Fleet Prep Kit 3 (FPK #3), was better tolerated and more efficacious than 4 L polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) for colonic cleansing prior to colonoscopy. One hundred and seventy-one patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study designed to detect a 20% or greater difference in patient tolerance and effectiveness in colonic cleansing between the two agents. The single dose of NaP and the bisacodyl tablets were administered at 1900 h and at 2100 h, respectively, the evening prior to colonoscopy and the bisacodyl enema 2 h before the procedure. PEG was consumed over 1-2 h the evening prior to colonoscopy. Most patients (84%) found the FPK #3 easy or tolerable compared to only 33% receiving PEG (p < 0.001). Over 40% could not complete the PEG. There was no detectable difference in the efficacy between the two preparations (p= 0.74). Comparison of biochemical and hemodynamic values obtained before and after colonic cleansing did not reveal any significant differences apart from hyperphosphatemia in a few patients (16%) receiving FPK #3 and minor changes in blood urea nitrogen and chloride. These findings suggest that FPK #3 is better tolerated and as safe as PEG but does not provide more efficacious cleansing of the colon.     

Benefit of intravenous antispasmodic (hyoscyamine sulfate) as premedication for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether premedication for colonoscopy with intravenous hyoscyamine sulfate (Levsin) was helpful from the standpoint of the colonoscopist and the patient. METHODS: One hundred sixteen adult patients were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg hyoscyamine sulfate intravenous (n = 57) or placebo (n = 59). After administration of study drug, patients were given meperidine and midazolam. Parameters measured included the time required to reach the cecum, total procedure time, and the endoscopist's perception of the adequacy of sedation, difficulty of insertion, and amount of colonic spasm on insertion and withdrawal. Patients were given a postprocedure questionnaire assessing their experience. RESULTS: In patients receiving hyoscyamine, there was a shorter cecal intubation time (median 9.2 vs. 12.9 minutes; p = 0. 01), shorter total colonoscopy time (median 20.5 vs. 25.0 minutes; p = 0.01), better patient sedation (p = 0.02), easier colonic insertion (p = 0.001), and less spasm on insertion (p = 0.01). No difference was found in the amount of spasm during withdrawal or the total dosages of meperidine or midazolam used. Patients receiving hyoscyamine sulfate reported being more comfortable during their procedures ( p < 0.001) and were more willing to repeat colonoscopy in the future (p = 0.0001). The only adverse effect seen during the study was a 27% incidence of sinus tachycardia that occurred in patients receiving hyoscyamine. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with intravenous hyoscyamine sulfate was beneficial in terms of the time required for cecal intubation, total procedure time, adequacy of sedation, and scales of patient comfort. However, the high frequency of sinus tachycardia seen with the dose used in our study, which was extremely rapid in two patients, indicates the need for further study before the drug can be recommended as a routine premedication for colonoscopy.