|
1
|
Mitsuhashi S, Azari J, Dioguardi V, Bilello J, Tang M, Kastenberg D. Age Matters: Adenoma Detection Rates in Average-risk Screening Patients Aged 45 to 49 Compared With Those Aged 50 to 54. J Clin Gastroenterol 2024; 58:896-901. [PMID: 38059772 DOI: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000001953] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Accepted: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
GOALS This study aims to address gaps in medical knowledge by determining whether adenoma detection rate (ADR) in average-risk screening patients aged 45 to 49 is equivalent to screening patients aged 50 to 54. BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend initiating colon cancer screening at age 45, yet our understanding of the effects of ADR in average-risk individuals among 45- to 49-year-olds is still limited. STUDY A retrospective analysis was conducted on records of average-risk screening colonoscopies performed on patients aged 45 to 54 from January 2018 to August 2022. Exclusions were prior diagnoses of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps, inflammatory bowel disease, personal or family history of genetic cancer syndromes, incomplete colonoscopy, and inadequate bowel preparation. The primary outcome was ADR in the age 45 to 49 group compared with the age 50 to 54 group. RESULTS Of the 3199 average-risk screening colonoscopies performed, 879 and 2116 patients were included in the age 45 to 49 and 50 to 54 groups, respectively. Both groups were predominantly female, White ethnicity, never smokers, and obese. ADR was found to be 27% in the age 45 to 49 group compared with 34% in the age 50 to 54 group (odds ratio 0.70, 90% CI: 0.60-0.83, P -value for equivalence=0.81 w/ margin 0.77 to 1.30). CONCLUSIONS The study did not demonstrate equivalent ADR between the 2 age groups, with ADR being substantially lower in the age 45 to 49 group (27% vs. 34%). Despite this, the ADR in the 45 to 49 age range surpasses the established benchmark of 25%, supporting the decision to lower the screening age to 45 years. Ongoing national monitoring is essential to comprehensively evaluate the impact of these updated guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - David Kastenberg
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Huang L, Li C, Jiang YZ, Ma K, Wang X. Vitamin drinks improve palatability and reduce adverse events associated to polyethylene glycol electrolyte solutions. Heliyon 2024; 10:e37590. [PMID: 39309268 PMCID: PMC11413698 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2024] [Revised: 09/05/2024] [Accepted: 09/05/2024] [Indexed: 09/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The unpleasant taste of polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been a hindrance to patients undergoing colonoscopy. Aim This study aims to determine whether the addition of a vitamin drink (Mizone) to the 4L split-dose PEG regimen would be effective in improving the solution's palatability, and reducing patient discomfort during bowel preparation. Methods The present prospective, single endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled study randomly assigned patients into two groups: PEG + Mizone group (3.6 L of PEG solution plus 0.4 L of Mizone) and PEG group (4 L of PEG solution). Palatability was assessed using a Likert scale of 1-5. The adverse events, amount of unconsumed solution, and willingness to repeat the same process were recorded through a questionnaire. The present study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000034484). Results A total of 132 patients were included. The demographic characteristics of these patients were comparable between the two groups. The palatability score (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) was higher in the PEG + Mizone group, when compared to the control group (4.00 ± 0.859 vs. 2.95 ± 0.999, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the incidence of nausea was lower in the PEG + Mizone group (9.1 % vs. 28.8 %, p = 0.004), while the other adverse events were similar between the two groups. The percentage of the completely consumed pre-prepared solution was significantly greater in the PEG + Mizone group (95.5 % vs. 78.8 %, p = 0.004). Furthermore, the willingness to repeat the same process was higher in the PEG + Mizone group (83.3 % vs. 42.4 %, p < 0.001). However, the consumption of either of these preparations did not significantly affect the electrolyte and blood glucose levels, and renal function. Conclusion Compared to the conventional 4L PEG bowel preparation, the use of a vitamin drink (Mizone) as an adjuvant can improve the palatability, reduce adverse events, and increase the patient's willingness to undergo bowel preparation with the same regimen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Yi-Zhou Jiang
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 29 Xinglong Lane, Tianning District, Changzhou, 213000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Kai Ma
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 29 Xinglong Lane, Tianning District, Changzhou, 213000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Xiaoyong Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 29 Xinglong Lane, Tianning District, Changzhou, 213000, Jiangsu Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Zhang Z, Gao H, Yuan X, Liu C, Bao Z, Yu S, Xie H, Wang W, Xie J, Xu L. The efficacy and tolerability of sports drink versus water in bowel preparations: a randomised controlled study. Trials 2022; 23:709. [PMID: 36028915 PMCID: PMC9419325 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06658-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 08/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background An optimal bowel preparation can result in an improved colonoscopy. This study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the use of a sports drink (Mizone) plus polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution with a water plus PEG solution in bowel preparations. Methods This was a randomised controlled study. All of the included patients were randomly divided into the following two groups: the PEG + Mizone group and the PEG + water group. The palatability of the solution was measured through the use of questionnaires. Additionally, bowel cleanliness was evaluated according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS, 0–14, with higher values indicating worse cleanliness), as well as with the aid of colonoscopy videos. Results A total of 270 patients were enrolled. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was 74.8% in the PEG + Mizone group and 68.9% in the PEG + water group, with a risk difference of 5.9% (95% CI: − 4.8–16.6%), which indicated noninferiority (noninferiority margin: − 9.5% < − 4.8%). However, patients rated the palatability (65.9% vs 44.4%, P < 0.001) and willingness to recommend or repeat (88.9% vs 75.6%, P = 0.004) the administration of the PEG + Mizone preparation as being better than those of the PEG + water preparation. The rates of adverse events during the bowel preparations were not significantly different between the two groups, except for bloating (PEG + Mizone vs PEG + water, 4.4% vs 13.3%, P = 0.010). Conclusion The concomitant use of PEG + Mizone was a well tolerated and effective bowel preparation, compared with the PEG + water treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04247386. Registered on 30 Jan 2020. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06658-2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhixin Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China.,College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315211, China
| | - Hui Gao
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China.,College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315211, China
| | - Xin Yuan
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China.,College of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315211, China
| | - Cenqin Liu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China.,College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China
| | - Zhenfei Bao
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China
| | - Siyi Yu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China
| | - Haofen Xie
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China
| | - Weihong Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China
| | - Jiarong Xie
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China.
| | - Lei Xu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315010, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Zelhart MD, Kann BR. Endoscopy. THE ASCRS TEXTBOOK OF COLON AND RECTAL SURGERY 2022:51-77. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-66049-9_4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2025]
|
|
5
|
Strauss AT, Yeh J, Martinez DA, Yenokyan G, Yoder J, Nehra R, Feller T, Bull-Henry K, Stein E, Hsu LCH, Al-Grain H, Zabko C, Fain C. A patient-centered framework for health systems engineering in gastroenterology: improving inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation. BMC Gastroenterol 2021; 21:89. [PMID: 33639850 PMCID: PMC7912514 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-01661-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation (ICBP) is frequently inadequate and can lead to adverse events, delayed or repeated procedures, and negative patient outcomes. Guidelines to overcome the complex factors in this setting are not well established. Our aims were to use health systems engineering principles to comprehensively evaluate the ICBP process, create an ICBP protocol, increase adequate ICBP, and decrease length of stay. Our goal was to provide adaptable tools for other institutions and procedural specialties. Methods Patients admitted to our tertiary care academic hospital that underwent inpatient colonoscopy between July 3, 2017 to June 8, 2018 were included. Our multi-disciplinary team created a protocol employing health systems engineering techniques (i.e., process mapping, cause-effect diagrams, and plan-do-study-act cycles). We collected demographic and colonoscopy data. Our outcome measures were adequate preparation and length of stay. We compared pre-intervention (120 ICBP) vs. post-intervention (129 ICBP) outcomes using generalized linear regression models. Our new ICBP protocol included: split-dose 6-L polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution, a gastroenterology electronic note template, and an education plan for patients, nurses, and physicians. Results The percent of adequate ICBPs significantly increased with the intervention from 61% pre-intervention to 74% post-intervention (adjusted odds ratio of 1.87, p value = 0.023). The median length of stay decreased by approximately 25%, from 4 days pre-intervention to 3 days post-intervention (p value = 0.11). Conclusions By addressing issues at patient, provider, and system levels with health systems engineering principles, we addressed patient safety and quality of care provided by improving rates of adequate ICBP. Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01661-4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra T Strauss
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St. Blalock 465, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| | - Jennifer Yeh
- Department of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Diego A Martinez
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Gayane Yenokyan
- Johns Hopkins Biostatistics Center, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Janet Yoder
- Department of Medical Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Ravi Nehra
- Department of Pharmacy, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Tara Feller
- Department of Pharmacy, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Kathy Bull-Henry
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St. Blalock 465, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Ellen Stein
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St. Blalock 465, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Lawrence C H Hsu
- Operations Integration, Johns Hopkins Health System, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Haitham Al-Grain
- Department of Anesthesiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Candice Zabko
- Department of Medical Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA
| | - Christopher Fain
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St. Blalock 465, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Li P, He XQ, Dong J, Du J. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the addition of lubiprostone to bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99:e19208. [PMID: 32080109 PMCID: PMC7034681 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000019208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM Adequate bowel preparation is essential to the quality of colonoscopy. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of the addition of lubiprostone to the bowel preparation process prior to colonoscopy. METHODS Online databases, namely, PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library, were searched for randomized controlled trials that assessed the additive effect of lubiprostone on the quality of colon preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Each included study was evaluated by the Jadad score to assess the quality of the study. The primary outcome was bowel preparation efficacy, defined as the proportion of patients with an excellent or poor preparation. The secondary outcomes included the length of the colonoscopy, polyp detection, and any adverse effects. RESULTS In total, 5 articles published between 2008 and 2016 fulfilled the selection criteria. The addition of lubiprostone to the bowel cleansing process significantly increased the proportion of patients with an excellent preparation (risk ratio [RR] = 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-2.02, P < .00001) but did not decrease the procedural time or increase the polyp detection rate (mean difference = -0.52, 95% CI: -3.74-2.69, P = .75; RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.96-1.42, P = .13, respectively). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with any adverse events. CONCLUSION The addition of lubiprostone to the bowel preparation regimen prior to colonoscopy is effective and safe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peng Li
- Department of Gastroenterology
| | - Xue-Qian He
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
| | | | - Jing Du
- Department of Gastroenterology
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
The Efficacy of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114:884-892. [PMID: 30865011 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Split-dose bowel preparation leads to superior colon cleansing for colonoscopy. However, the magnitude of benefit in detecting colonic polyps is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the data on whether using a split-dose bowel preparation regimen improves the detection of polyps when compared with other dosing methods or regimen products. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (from the inception to June 2017) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the following: split-dose vs day-before, split-dose vs same-day (as colonoscopy), or different types of split-dose regimens for patients undergoing colonoscopy. We excluded studies limited to inpatients, children, or individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy with recorded detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), right colonic adenomas, right colonic polyps, or right colonic SSPs. RESULTS Twenty-eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (8,842 participants). Of the seven trials comparing split-dose vs day-before bowel preparation regimens, there was an increased detection rate of adenomas (risk ratio (RR) 1.26, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.10-1.44; 4 trials; 1,258 participants), advanced adenomas (RR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22-1.92; 3 trials; 1,155 participants), and SSPs (RR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.21-5.09; 2 trials; 1,045 participants). Pooled estimates from 8 trials (1,587 participants) evaluating split-dose vs same-day bowel preparations yielded no evidence of statistical difference. For various split-dose vs split-dose trials, 14 fulfilled the criteria (5,496 participants) and no superior split-regimen was identified. CONCLUSIONS Compared with day-before bowel preparation regimens, split-dose bowel preparations regimens increase the detection of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and have the greatest benefit in SSP detection.
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of Competing Colonoscopy Preparations: Results of a Prospective Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114:305-314. [PMID: 30730859 PMCID: PMC6551000 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES National societies provide little guidance regarding which colonoscopy bowel preps are best tolerated and most effective; this reflects a lack of comparative effectiveness studies that directly evaluate the available preps in a "real-world" setting. To address this gap, we conducted a prospective, commercially unfunded comparative effectiveness study of currently available bowel preps and measured their impact on bowel cleansing. METHODS We included patients aged ≥18 years, who presented for an outpatient colonoscopy at a large medical center serving more than 70 academic and community-based endoscopists who are free to prescribe the bowel prep of their choice. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. We performed regression models with random effects on the outcomes to adjust for confounding. RESULTS Approximately 4,339 colonoscopies were performed by 75 endoscopists. Magnesium citrate, MiraLAX with Gatorade, MoviPrep, OsmoPrep, Prepopik/Clenpiq, and Suprep all had significantly higher prep tolerability compared with GoLYTELY (all P < 0.05). For bowel cleansing, Suprep (7.28 ± 1.66; P < 0.001), MoviPrep (7.11 ± 1.62; P = 0.004), and MiraLAX with Gatorade (7.09 ± 1.64; P < 0.001) had higher total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores compared with GoLYTELY (6.67 ± 1.87); there were no significant differences among the remaining preps. Split-prep dosing was associated with better cleansing; however, men, opioid and tricyclic antidepressent users, and patients with diabetes and cirrhosis had worse cleansing (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In this prospective, real-world comparative effectiveness study of available bowel preps, we found that MiraLAX with Gatorade, MoviPrep, and Suprep were prospectively associated with superior tolerability and bowel cleansing.
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Colonoscopy is recognizably, the best colon cancer prevention test, provided the quality of the preparation is adequate for detection of precancerous polyps but also allowing for accurate identification of margins, thereby facilitating complete endoscopic resection. As there are many aspects effecting colon prep outcomes, it is timely to review new standards for optimizing outcomes, including product selection based on patient demographics. RECENT FINDINGS New national guidelines have set a minimum quality threshold for adequacy and also defined a split day delivery for oral options as the "standard of care". Several new prep options have been recently released and these data are discussed. SUMMARY Optimizing the quality of colon preps has major implications for clinical practice. Clinicians must recognize new targets for standard of care, providing the best approach for each individual patient, considering variable factors which may otherwise compromise success.
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Wang X, Zhu XQ. Research progress on patient comfort during bowel preparation. Shijie Huaren Xiaohua Zazhi 2018; 26:1015-1021. [DOI: 10.11569/wcjd.v26.i17.1015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Bowel preparation is one of the key and necessary steps for preoperative preparations of multiple operations such as electronic colonoscopy, capsule endoscopy, barium X-ray, colorectal surgery, gynecology surgery, and urology surgery. Although better methods for bowel preparation have been explored continuously, patient intolerance still exists during the current bowel preparation process. Adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting often occur, leading to poor comfort experience and affecting the patient's compliance and bowel preparation results. This article reviews the factors influencing patient comfort during bowel preparation and the corresponding interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China
| | - Xiu-Qin Zhu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Hadjiliadis D, Khoruts A, Zauber AG, Hempstead SE, Maisonneuve P, Lowenfels AB. Cystic Fibrosis Colorectal Cancer Screening Consensus Recommendations. Gastroenterology 2018; 154:736-745.e14. [PMID: 29289528 PMCID: PMC9675422 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 116] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Improved therapy has substantially increased survival of persons with cystic fibrosis (CF). But the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults with CF is 5-10 times greater compared to the general population, and 25-30 times greater in CF patients after an organ transplantation. To address this risk, the CF Foundation convened a multi-stakeholder task force to develop CRC screening recommendations. METHODS The 18-member task force consisted of experts including pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, a social worker, nurse coordinator, surgeon, epidemiologist, statistician, CF adult, and a parent. The committee comprised 3 workgroups: Cancer Risk, Transplant, and Procedure and Preparation. A guidelines specialist at the CF Foundation conducted an evidence synthesis February-March 2016 based on PubMed literature searches. Task force members conducted additional independent searches. A total of 1159 articles were retrieved. After initial screening, the committee read 198 articles in full and analyzed 123 articles to develop recommendation statements. An independent decision analysis evaluating the benefits of screening relative to harms and resources required was conducted by the Department of Public Health at Erasmus Medical Center, Netherlands using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model from the Cancer Innervation and Surveillance Modeling Network. The task force included recommendation statements in the final guideline only if they reached an 80% acceptance threshold. RESULTS The task force makes 10 CRC screening recommendations that emphasize shared, individualized decision-making and familiarity with CF-specific gastrointestinal challenges. We recommend colonoscopy as the preferred screening method, initiation of screening at age 40 years, 5-year re-screening and 3-year surveillance intervals (unless shorter interval is indicated by individual findings), and a CF-specific intensive bowel preparation. Organ transplant recipients with CF should initiate CRC screening at age 30 years within 2 years of the transplantation because of the additional risk for colon cancer associated with immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS These recommendations aim to help CF adults, families, primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and CF and transplantation centers address the issue of CRC screening. They differ from guidelines developed for the general population with respect to the recommended age of screening initiation, screening method, preparation, and the interval for repeat screening and surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denis Hadjiliadis
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Alexander Khoruts
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Ann G. Zauber
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Patrick Maisonneuve
- Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Clinical Trial of 1000 Subjects Randomized to 5 Low-Volume Bowel Preparations for Colonoscopy and Their Acceptance of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations. J Clin Gastroenterol 2017; 51:512-521. [PMID: 27433812 DOI: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000000575] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of 5 low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy. STUDY We performed an investigator-blinded, randomized trial of 5 bowel preparations: 64 ounces of Gatorade and 306 or 357 g of PEG, both given the day prior; Gatorade and 306 g PEG, 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution with ascorbic acid, and sulfate solution, all 3 given as a split dose. One thousand outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale (BPS). Tolerability was assessed using a subject questionnaire. Another primary endpoint was patient acceptance of a split-dose bowel preparation assessed using a subject questionnaire. RESULTS No statistically significant differences in the modified Chicago BPS were found among Gatorade and 357 g of PEG given as a day-prior dose and the 3 split-dose arms with 98.5% of colons cleansed adequately. The Gatorade and 357 g of PEG had significantly lower Chicago BPS fluid scores and Chicago BPS total scores (indicating dryer colons that required more irrigation) than the 3 split-dose arms. The Gatorade and PEG preparations were better tolerated. Many subjects are unwilling to consume a split-dose preparation and the majority of subjects would prefer a day-prior preparation with this preference highly dependent on the type of preparation they just consumed. CONCLUSIONS The cleanliness of the colons was not significantly different among the 3 split-dose preparations. Day-prior dosing of Gatorade and 357 g of PEG allowed the mucosa to be visualized as well as did the split-dose preparations.
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Govani SM, Elliott EE, Menees SB, Judd SL, Saini SD, Anastassiades CP, Urganus AL, Boyce SJ, Schoenfeld PS. Predictors of suboptimal bowel preparation in asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8:616-622. [PMID: 27668072 PMCID: PMC5027032 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i17.616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2016] [Revised: 06/15/2016] [Accepted: 07/13/2016] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To identify risk factors for a suboptimal preparation among a population undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy.
METHODS Retrospective review of the University of Michigan and Veteran’s Administration (VA) Hospital records from 2009 to identify patients age 50 and older who underwent screening or surveillance procedure and had resection of polyps less than 1 cm in size and no more than 2 polyps. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or a family history of colorectal cancer were excluded. Suboptimal procedures were defined as procedure preparations categorized as fair, poor or inadequate by the endoscopist. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of suboptimal preparation.
RESULTS Of 4427 colonoscopies reviewed, 2401 met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of our population, 16% had a suboptimal preparation. African Americans were 70% more likely to have a suboptimal preparation (95%CI: 1.2-2.4). Univariable analysis revealed that narcotic and tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) use, diabetes, prep type, site (VA vs non-VA), and presence of a gastroenterology (GI) fellow were associated with suboptimal prep quality. In a multivariable model controlling for gender, age, ethnicity, procedure site and presence of a GI fellow, diabetes [odds ratio (OR) = 2.3; 95%CI: 1.6-3.2], TCA use (OR = 2.5; 95%CI: 1.3-4.9), narcotic use (OR = 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2-2.5) and Miralax-Gatorade prep vs 4L polyethylene glycol 3350 (OR = 0.6; 95%CI: 0.4-0.9) were associated with a suboptimal prep quality.
CONCLUSION Diabetes, narcotics use and TCA use were identified as predictors of poor preparation in screening colonoscopies while Miralax-Gatorade preps were associated with better bowel preparation.
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Lee JM, Keum B, Yoo IK, Kim SH, Choi HS, Kim ES, Seo YS, Jeen YT, Chun HJ, Lee HS, Um SH, Kim CD, Kim MG, Jo SK. Polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in chronic kidney disease. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95:e4755. [PMID: 27603372 PMCID: PMC5023895 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000004755] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The safety of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid has not been fully investigated in patients with renal insufficiency. High-dose ascorbic acid could induce hyperoxaluria, thereby causing tubule-interstitial nephritis and renal failure. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid in patients with chronic kidney disease.We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data on colonoscopy in patients with impaired renal function. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (n = 61) and 4 L polyethylene glycol (n = 80). The safety of the 2 groups was compared by assessing the differences in laboratory findings before and after bowel cleansing.The laboratory findings were not significantly different before and after the administration of 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid or 4 L polyethylene glycol. In both groups, the estimated glomerular filtration rate was not influenced by the administration of the bowel-cleansing agent. Patients' reports on tolerance and acceptability were better in the 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid group than in the 4 L polyethylene glycol group.The 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid solution is a safe choice for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in patients with impaired renal function.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Bora Keum
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- Correspondence: Bora Keum, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Korea (e-mail: )
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Soon Ho Um
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
| | | | - Myung Gyu Kim
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea
| | - Sang Kyung Jo
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Harrison NM, Hjelkrem MC. Bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: Balancing efficacy, safety, cost and patient tolerance. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8:4-12. [PMID: 26788258 PMCID: PMC4707321 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i1.4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2015] [Revised: 09/15/2015] [Accepted: 11/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Effective colorectal cancer screening relies on reliable colonoscopy findings which are themselves dependent on adequate bowel cleansing. Research has consistently demonstrated that inadequate bowel preparation adversely affects the adenoma detection rate and leads gastroenterologists to recommend earlier follow up than is consistent with published guidelines. Poor preparation affects as many as 30% of colonoscopies and contributes to an increased cost of colonoscopies. Patient tolerability is strongly affected by the preparation chosen and manner in which it is administered. Poor tolerability is, in turn, associated with lower quality bowel preparations. Recently, several new developments in both agents being used for bowel preparation and in the timing of administration have brought endoscopists closer to achieving the goal of effective, reliable, safe, and tolerable regimens. Historically, large volume preparations given in a single dose were administered to patients in order to achieve adequate bowel cleansing. These were poorly tolerated, and the unpleasant taste of and significant side effects produced by these large volume regimens contributed significantly to patients’ inability to reliably complete the preparation and to a reluctance to repeat the procedure. Smaller volumes, including preparations that are administered as tablets to be consumed with water, given as split doses have significantly improved both the patient experience and efficacy, and an appreciation of the importance of the preparation to colonoscopy interval have produced additional cleansing.
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Kantartzis KL, Shepherd JP. The use of mechanical bowel preparation in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:721.e1-5. [PMID: 25981848 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.05.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2014] [Revised: 04/26/2015] [Accepted: 05/10/2015] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The use of mechanical bowel preparation prior to laparoscopy is common in gynecology, but its use may affect the rates of perioperative events and complications. Our objective was to compare different mechanical bowel preparations using decision analysis techniques to determine the optimal preparation prior to laparoscopic gynecological surgery. STUDY DESIGN A decision analysis was constructed modeling perioperative outcomes with the following mechanical bowel preparations: magnesium citrate, sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol, enema, and no bowel preparation. Comparisons were made using published utility values. Secondary analyses included the percentages that had 1 or more preoperative events and 1 or more intra- or postoperative complications. RESULTS Overall, the highest utility values were for no bowel preparation (0.98) and magnesium citrate (0.97), whereas the other values were as follows: enema (0.95), sodium phosphate (0.94), and polyethylene glycol (0.91). The difference between no bowel preparation and magnesium citrate was less than the published minimally important differences for utilities, so there is likely no real difference between these strategies. The probability of having at least 1 preoperative event was lowest for no bowel preparation (1%), whereas the probability of having at least 1 intra- or postoperative complication was lowest with magnesium citrate (8%). CONCLUSION The highest utilities were seen with no bowel preparation, but the absolute difference between no bowel preparation and magnesium citrate was less than the minimally important difference. With similar overall utilities, our model raises questions as to whether mechanical bowel preparation is a necessary step prior to laparoscopic gynecological surgery. However, if a surgeon prefers a bowel preparation, magnesium citrate is the preferred option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly L Kantartzis
- Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Jonathan P Shepherd
- Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Altamirano Castañeda ML, Hernández Mondragón ÓV, Blanco Velasco G, Blancas Valencia JM. Comparación de 2 tipos de preparación intestinal para la realización de colonoscopia en un hospital de tercer nivel. ENDOSCOPIA 2015. [DOI: 10.1016/j.endomx.2015.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
|
18
|
Split-dose menthol-enhanced PEG vs PEG-ascorbic acid for colonoscopy preparation. World J Gastroenterol 2015. [PMID: 25684963 DOI: 10.37] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/24/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To compare the efficacy and palatability of 4 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) plus sugar-free menthol candy (PEG + M) vs reduced-volume 2 L ascorbic acid-supplemented PEG (AscPEG). 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 AscPEG, both split-dosed 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 (100 patients per arm). PEG + M was more palatable than AscPEG (76% vs 62%, P = 0.03). Completing the preparation was not different between study groups (91% PEG + M vs 86% AscPEG, 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 AscPEG in adequate cleansing on both the modified Aronchick (82% vs 77%, 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 (score 0-2: 94% for PEG + M vs 81% for AscPEG, P = 0.005) and received significantly more excellent ratings than AscPEG 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 acid- PEG and is associated with a higher rate of excellent preparations; Clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT01788709.
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C, Restellini S, Kherad O, Vanasse A. Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2015; 149:79-88. [PMID: 25863216 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 144] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2014] [Revised: 03/30/2015] [Accepted: 04/01/2015] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS There are different regimens of preparing the colon for colonoscopy, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate, or oral sulfate solutions. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of split-dose vs other colon preparation regimens, the optimal products for use, and the most effective preparation volumes. METHODS We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, from January 1980 to March 2014, for published results from randomized trials that assessed split-dose regimens vs day-before colonoscopy preparation. We excluded studies that included pediatric or hospitalized patients, or patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was efficacy of bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes included side effects or complications, outcomes of procedures, patients' willingness to repeat the procedure, and the amount of time required for patients to resume daily activities. RESULTS We identified 47 trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 13,487 patients). Split-dose preparations provided significantly better colon cleansing than day-before preparations (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-3.39), as well as day-before preparations with PEG (OR, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.63), sodium phosphate (OR, 9.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-41.11), or picosulfate (OR, 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-6.45). PEG split-dose preparations of 3 L or more yielded greater bowel cleanliness than lower-volume split-dose regimens (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis. A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat split-dose vs day-before cleansing (OR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.46), and low-volume split-dose preparations vs high-volume split-dose preparation (OR, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.10). There were no differences between preparations in other secondary outcome measures. However, there was variation among studies in definitions and main and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Based on meta-analysis, split-dose regimens increase the quality of colon cleansing and are preferred by patients compared with day-before preparations. Additional research is required to evaluate oral sulfate solution-based and PEG low-volume regimens further.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Myriam Martel
- Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; Département de Médecine de Famille et de Médecine d'Urgence, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada
| | - Alan N Barkun
- Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
| | | | - Sophie Restellini
- Department of specialties of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Geneva University Hospital, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Omar Kherad
- Internal Medicine, La Tour Hospital, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Alain Vanasse
- Département de Médecine de Famille et de Médecine d'Urgence, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF, Early DS, Muthusamy VR, Khashab MA, Chathadi KV, Fanelli RD, Chandrasekhara V, Lightdale JR, Fonkalsrud L, Shergill AK, Hwang JH, Decker GA, Jue TL, Sharaf R, Fisher DA, Evans JA, Foley K, Shaukat A, Eloubeidi MA, Faulx AL, Wang A, Acosta RD. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81:781-94. [PMID: 25595062 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 290] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2014] [Accepted: 09/18/2014] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
|
22
|
Sweetser S, Baron TH. Optimizing bowel cleansing for colonoscopy. Mayo Clin Proc 2015; 90:520-6. [PMID: 25841255 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.01.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2014] [Revised: 01/19/2015] [Accepted: 01/20/2015] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for complete examination of the colon mucosa during colonoscopy. Suboptimal bowel preparation has potential adverse consequences, such as missed pathologic abnormalities, the need for repeated procedures, and increased procedure-related complications. Several factors can predict individuals at increased risk for inadequate bowel preparation. If predictors of inadequate bowel preparation are identified, then education should be intensified and a more aggressive bowel regimen recommended. On completion of this article, you should be able to (1) define the frequency of inadequate colon preparations, (2) identify predictors of poor bowel preparation, and (3) use a more aggressive bowel regimen when clinically indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seth Sweetser
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN.
| | - Todd H Baron
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Matro R, Negoianu D, Kastenberg D. Editorial: hyponatremia - a possible but forgotten consequence of bowel preparation for colonoscopy; authors' reply. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014; 40:1112-5. [PMID: 25280255 DOI: 10.1111/apt.12941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- R Matro
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, Dominitz JA, Kaltenbach T, Martel M, Robertson DJ, Boland CR, Giardello FM, Lieberman DA, Levin TR, Rex DK. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014; 147:903-24. [PMID: 25239068 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 269] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alan N Barkun
- McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Larry B Cohen
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Tonya Kaltenbach
- Veterans Affairs Palo Alto, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Myriam Martel
- McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - Douglas J Robertson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, White River Junction, Vermont
| | | | | | | | | | - Douglas K Rex
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Miralax with gatorade for bowel preparation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109:1566-74. [PMID: 25135007 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.238] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2014] [Accepted: 07/01/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a very popular bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its large volume may reduce patient compliance, resulting in suboptimal preparation. Recently, a combination of Miralax and Gatorade has been studied in various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as a lower volume and more palatable bowel preparation. However, results have varied. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis assessing the use of Miralax-Gatorade (M-G) vs. PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS Multiple databases were searched (January 2014). RCTs on adults comparing M-G (238-255 g in 1.9 l that is 64 fl oz) vs. PEG (3.8-4 l) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy were included. The effects were analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of quality of bowel preparation (satisfactory, unsatisfactory, excellent), patient tolerance (nausea, cramping, bloating), and polyp detection by using odds ratio (OR) with fixed- and random-effects models. RESULTS Five studies met inclusion criteria (N=1,418), with mean age ranging from 53.8 to 61.3 years. M-G demonstrated statistically significantly fewer satisfactory bowel preparations as compared with PEG (OR 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.98, P=0.04) but more willingness to repeat preparation (OR 7.32; 95% CI: 4.88-10.98, P<0.01). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences in polyp detection (P=0.65) or side effects were apparent between the two preparations for nausea (P=0.71), cramping (P=0.84), or bloating (P=0.50). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for split-dose M-G vs. split-dose PEG. CONCLUSIONS M-G for bowel preparation before colonoscopy was inferior to PEG in bowel preparation quality while demonstrating no significant improvements in adverse effects or polyp detection. Therefore, PEG appears superior to M-G for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80:543-562. [PMID: 25220509 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 98] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
|
27
|
Ton L, Lee H, Taunk P, Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Nationwide variability of colonoscopy preparation instructions. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59:1726-32. [PMID: 24985353 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-014-3262-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2014] [Accepted: 06/18/2014] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients undergoing colonoscopy are typically provided preparation instructions. However, these are not standardized for type of bowel purgative, dietary restrictions, or management of prescription and nonprescription medications. AIM To examine the degree of variability in colonoscopy instructions across the USA. METHODS Collected colonoscopy preparation instructions from endoscopy units that successfully participated in the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Endoscopy Unit Recognition Program (EURP). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the variability in bowel preparation, dietary restrictions, medication instructions, and other patient advice. RESULTS Preparation instructions were available from 201 (49%) of 411 EURP units. Split dosing of bowel purgatives was used by 82% of practices, although 79 units (39%) offered instructions for both single- and split-dose regimens and 18% of units relied only on single-dose regimens. Patients were restricted to a clear liquid diet on the day prior to the colonoscopy by 91% of practices, but other specific dietary instructions (such as avoidance of nuts or legumes) varied. Instructions for the management of anti-thrombotic and anti-platelet agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and diabetes medications varied widely among practices. Geographic variations in instructions were also observed. Compared to units in the northeast, units in the west were more likely to rely on split-dose preparations exclusively (p = 0.05) and units in the south were less likely to include instructions on warfarin management (p < 0.02). Units throughout the USA were less likely to specifically recommend continuing aspirin use compared to the northeast (p < 0.02). CONCLUSION Despite national recommendations for use of split-dose bowel purgatives, many practices are still relying on single-dose preparations. Clear liquid diets are widely recommended for the day prior to the colonoscopy, despite a lack of data to support the need for such a strict dietary regimen. Patients receive disparate instructions regarding the management of their medications. These findings suggest a need for more evidence-based and comprehensive colonoscopy preparation instructions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Loc Ton
- Boston University Medical Center, 85 East Concord Street, Room 7721, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Landreneau SW, Di Palma JA. Colon cleansing for colonoscopy 2013: current status. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2014; 15:341. [PMID: 23852571 DOI: 10.1007/s11894-013-0341-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Colonoscopy requires adequate bowel cleansing to be safe and effective. There are a variety of options available. This review will focus on highlighting new products, administration techniques emphasizing the value of split-dose and same-day regimens, safety, and options for inadequate cleansing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen W Landreneau
- Section of Gastroenterology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, 1542 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Bang KB, Jeong EH, Jeong WS, Chae HB, Kim NH, Lee TH, Kim JY, Jung YS, Park JH, Sohn CI, Choi KY, Park DI. Efficacy of Bisacodyl Given as Part of a Polyethylene Glycol-based Bowel Preparation Prior to Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Ramdomized Trial. THE KOREAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 2014; 64:268-77. [DOI: 10.4166/kjg.2014.64.5.268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ki Bae Bang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Eun Haeng Jeong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Woo Shin Jeong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Beom Chae
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Nam Hee Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Tae Hoon Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ji Yeon Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoon Suk Jung
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jung Ho Park
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chong Il Sohn
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyu Yong Choi
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Il Park
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Sharara AI, El-Halabi MM, Abou Fadel CG, Sarkis FS. Sugar-free menthol candy drops improve the palatability and bowel cleansing effect of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78:886-891. [PMID: 23769143 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2013] [Accepted: 05/13/2013] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colon preparations are generally poorly tolerated. OBJECTIVE To study the efficacy of sugar-free candy drops in improving palatability and tolerability of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-E). DESIGN Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING University medical center. PATIENTS Ambulatory patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy. INTERVENTION Menthol candy drops. Patients were randomly assigned to split-dose, 4-L, PEG-E ± cough drops. Palatability was assessed on a linear scale of 1 to 5 (1 = disgusting; 5 = tasty). Quality of preparation, remaining unconsumed volume, and side effects were secondary outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Palatability and tolerability of PEG-E. RESULTS A total of 99 patients were enrolled (50 control group, 49 candy drops-added group). The mean (± standard deviation) palatability score was significantly better in candy drop users versus controls (3.9 ± 0.7 vs 2.8 ± 1.2, respectively; P < .001) as were the preparations scored as excellent (63.3% vs 34% of controls; P = .004). Side effects were similar except for nausea (24.5% candy drops vs 44% controls; P = .04). The amount of unconsumed PEG-E was not different between candy drop and control groups (128 [± 361 mL] versus 69 [± 194 mL], respectively; P = .32) but was significantly lower in excellent grade preparations versus other grades (31 [± 103 mL] versus 162 [± 384 mL], respectively; P = .024). On multivariate logistic regression, an excellent preparation was associated with candy drops (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-7.8; P = .006) and smaller unconsumed volume of same-day PEG-E [OR 0.996, 95% CI, 0.992-1.000; P = .044). LIMITATIONS Single-center study. CONCLUSION Sugar-free menthol candy drops are a safe and effective addition to split-dose PEG-E, resulting in improved tolerability and patient compliance, which appears to translate into improved bowel cleansing. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01541683.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ala I Sharara
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Mustapha M El-Halabi
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Carla G Abou Fadel
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Fayez S Sarkis
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Abstract
Adequate bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy. Suboptimal bowel preparation occurs in 25% to 40% of cases and is associated with canceled procedures, prolonged procedure time, incomplete examination, increased cost, and missed pathology. There are several effective formulations for colon cleansing with a good safety profile. Split dosing should be implemented whenever possible in an effort to enhance tolerance and adherence, and improve mucosal visibility and overall quality of the examination. In this review, modern bowel preparations are discussed including their mechanism of action, mode of use, safety, and how to optimize outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ala I Sharara
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Prospective evaluation of 1-day polyethylene glycol-3350 bowel preparation regimen in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013; 56:220-4. [PMID: 22744195 DOI: 10.1097/mpg.0b013e31826630fc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of the present study was to evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a pediatric colonoscopy bowel preparation regimen composed of polyethylene glycol-3350 (PEG-3350) and a sports drink completed in a few hours. METHODS A prospective, open-label trial of a colonoscopy bowel preparation in children ages 8 to 18 years that included 238 g of PEG-3350 mixed with 1.9 L of Gatorade completed in a few hours. Efficacy was determined using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Basic metabolic profiles and questionnaires were obtained that assessed for safety, adverse effects, tolerability, and patient acceptability. RESULTS Forty-six patients completed the study. Patients were predominately boys (56.5%) with a mean age of 14.50 years (SD ± 2.9 years). Forty-three (93.5%) were able to complete the regimen. All of the colonoscopies were completed to the cecum and 84% had terminal ileum visualization. Seventy-seven percent were found to be effective preparations. Nausea/vomiting were the most common reported adverse effect (60%) followed by abdominal pain/cramping (44%) and fatigue/weakness (40%). Overall, the regimen was acceptable with 1 exception being the large volume to drink. There were no clinically significant changes in basic metabolic profiles, although there was a statistically significant decrease in the mean potassium (0.16 mEq/L; P = 0.016), blood urea nitrogen (2.68 mg/dL; P < 0.0001), and carbon dioxide (1.89 mmol/L; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that PEG-3350 + Gatorade administered in a few hours is an effective, safe, and moderately tolerable bowel preparation regimen for colonoscopy in children.
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Lewis JR, Cohen LB. Update on colonoscopy preparation, premedication and sedation. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 7:77-87. [PMID: 23265152 DOI: 10.1586/egh.12.68] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
The advent of optical colonoscopy has enabled gastroenterologists to visualize the colonic mucosa. This procedure has since become the cornerstone of colon cancer screening programs. Clinicians and scientists have made great strides to fine-tune the technical aspects of this procedure and have also made important advances that allow for a more effective and safer colonoscopy. This article focuses on current research and expert opinion regarding colonoscopy preparation, premedication and sedation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey R Lewis
- The Department of Medicine (Gastroenterology), The Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Hillyer GC, Lebwohl B, Basch CH, Basch CE, Kastrinos F, Insel BJ, Neugut AI. Split dose and MiraLAX-based purgatives to enhance bowel preparation quality becoming common recommendations in the US. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2013; 6:5-14. [PMID: 23320046 PMCID: PMC3539296 DOI: 10.1177/1756283x12464100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Rates of suboptimal bowel preparation up to 30% have been reported. Liberalized precolonoscopy diet, split dose purgative, and the use of MiraLAX-based bowel preparation (MBBP) prior to colonoscopy are recently developed measures to improve bowel preparation quality but little is known about the utilization prevalence of these measures. We examined the patterns of utilization of these newer approaches to improve precolonoscopy bowel preparation quality among American gastroenterologists. METHODS Surveys were distributed to a random sample of members of the American College of Gastroenterologists. Participants were queried regarding demographics, practice characteristics, and bowel preparation recommendations including recommendations for liberal dietary restrictions, split dose purgative, and the use of MBBP. Approaches were evaluated individually and in combination. RESULTS Of the 999 eligible participants, 288 responded; 15.2% recommended a liberal diet, 60.0% split dose purgative, and 37.4% MBBP. Diet recommendations varied geographically with gastroenterologists in the West more likely to recommend a restrictive diet (odds ratio [OR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-7.67) and physicians in the Northeast more likely to recommend a liberal diet more likely. Older physicians more often recommended split dosing (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-2.97). Use of MBBP was more common in suburban settings (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23-3.73). Evidence suggests that physicians in private practice were more likely to prescribe split dosing (p = 0.03) and less often recommended MBBP (p = 0.02). Likelihood of prescribing MBBP increased as weekly volume of colonoscopy increased (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS To enhance bowel preparation quality American gastroenterologists commonly use purgative split dosing. The use of MBBP is becoming more prevalent while a liberalized diet is infrequently recommended. Utilization of these newer approaches to improve bowel preparation quality varies by physician and practice characteristics. Further evaluation of the patterns of usage of these measures is indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grace Clarke Hillyer
- Associate Research Scientist, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA
| | - Benjamin Lebwohl
- College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University - Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, New York, New York USA
| | - Corey H. Basch
- Department of Public Health, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, USA
| | - Charles E. Basch
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Fay Kastrinos
- College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University - Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, New York, New York USA
| | - Beverly J. Insel
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alfred I. Neugut
- College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University - Division of Hematology and Oncology, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
McKenna T, Macgill A, Porat G, Friedenberg FK. Colonoscopy preparation: polyethylene glycol with Gatorade is as safe and efficacious as four liters of polyethylene glycol with balanced electrolytes. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:3098-105. [PMID: 22711499 PMCID: PMC3571759 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2266-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2012] [Accepted: 05/30/2012] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Four liters of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG) with balanced electrolytes for colonoscopy preparation has had poor acceptance. Another approach is the use of electrolyte-free PEG combined with 1.9 L of Gatorade. Despite its widespread use, there are no data on metabolic safety and minimal data on efficacy. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and electrolyte safety of these two PEG-based preparations. METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomized to 238 g PEG + 1.9 L Gatorade or 4 L of PEG-ELS containing 236 g PEG. Split dosing was not performed. On procedure day blood was drawn for basic chemistries. The primary outcome was preparation quality from procedure photos using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. RESULTS We randomized 136 patients (66 PEG + Gatorade, 70 PEG-ELS). There were no differences in preparation scores between the two agents in the ITT analysis (7.2 ± 1.9 for PEG-ELS and 7.0 ± 2.1 for PEG + Gatorade; p = 0.45). BBPS scores were identical for those who completed the preparation and dietary instructions as directed (7.4 ± 1.7 for PEG-ELS, and 7.4 ± 1.8 for PEG + Gatorade; p = 0.98). There were no statistical differences in serum electrolytes between the two preparations. Patients who received PEG + Gatorade gave higher overall satisfaction scores for the preparation experience (p = 0.001), and had fewer adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS Use of 238 g PEG + 1.9 L Gatorade appears to be safe, better tolerated, and non-inferior to 4 L PEG-ELS. This preparation may be especially useful for patients who previously tolerated PEG-ELS poorly.
Collapse
|
|
36
|
4-Liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10:1225-31. [PMID: 22940741 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.08.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 131] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2012] [Revised: 08/13/2012] [Accepted: 08/20/2012] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions are used commonly in bowel preparation, but their poor palatability and large volumes (4 L) influence compliance. Adjunct therapies, such as bisacodyl, split-dose regimens, and lower-volume regimens have been tested. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a 4-L split dose of PEG is better than others for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database, recent abstracts from major conference proceedings, references from selected reviews and randomized trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and Google Scholar, through September 2011, for high-quality, randomized trials that compared 4-L split-dose PEG without adjunct therapy with other bowel preparation methods. Nine of 2477 trials considered were used in the analysis. We calculated pooled estimates of bowel preparation quality (primary outcome: excellent or good), preparation compliance, favorable overall experiences, willingness to repeat same preparation, and side effects. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios by fixed- and random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and publication bias. RESULTS The overall pooled odds ratio for excellent or good bowel preparation quality for 4-L split-dose PEG was 3.46, compared with other methods (95% confidence interval, 2.45-4.89; P < .01). Although there was significant heterogeneity in results among studies, 7 of 9 reported a significant benefit from the 4-L split-dose PEG preparation. There were no significant differences between PEG and others in preparation compliance, favorable overall experience, willingness to repeat the same preparation, abdominal cramping, nausea, or sleep disturbance. There was no significant publication bias based on funnel plot. CONCLUSIONS A meta-analysis showed that 4-L split-dose PEG is better than other bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy. Significant heterogeneity among studies might result from differences in patient demographics and protocols. A 4-L split dose of PEG should be considered the standard with which new bowel preparation methods are compared.
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Randomized Trial of Gatorade/Polyethylene Glycol With or Without Bisacodyl and NuLYTELY for Colonoscopy Preparation. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2012; 3:e16. [PMID: 23238266 PMCID: PMC3391000 DOI: 10.1038/ctg.2012.11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of a new preparation of Gatorade and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for colonoscopy with or without bisacodyl compared with NuLYTELY. METHODS: We performed an investigator-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of 64 oz of Gatorade and 306 g of PEG (G/PEG) with or without 10 mg of bisacodyl and NuLYTELY. A total of 600 outpatients consumed their preparation the day before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Tolerability was assessed using a subject questionnaire, and safety was assessed from a basic metabolic profile drawn before the colonoscopy. RESULTS: Adding bisacodyl to G/PEG caused more abdominal bloating/cramps (P<0.01) and did not result in a cleaner colon (P=0.66) compared with G/PEG without bisacodyl. The BBPS scores in both the G/PEG arms and NuLYTELY arm were not significantly different (P=0.19). Compared with subjects in the NuLYTELY arm, subjects in the G/PEG without bisacodyl arm had less nausea (P<0.04), vomiting (P<0.02), abdominal pain (P<0.02), bloating (P<0.005), difficulty drinking the liquid (P<0.0001), and found the overall preparation easier to tolerate (P<0.0001). Subjects in the combined G/PEG arms had a lower serum sodium (P<0.0007), chloride (P<0.007), and BUN (P<0.0001) levels than those in the NuLYTELY arm, but this did not cause any clinical symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Bisacodyl added to G/PEG for colon lavage caused more side effects and did not result in a cleaner colon. The G/PEG preparations cleansed the colon as well as NuLYTELY, were far better tolerated, and were equally safe.
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Guidelines for an Optimum Screening Colonoscopy. CURRENT COLORECTAL CANCER REPORTS 2012. [DOI: 10.1007/s11888-011-0109-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
|
39
|
MiraLAX-Gatorade bowel prep versus GoLytely before screening colonoscopy: an endoscopic database study in a community hospital. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46:e96-e100. [PMID: 23060223 PMCID: PMC3566661 DOI: 10.1097/mcg.0b013e3182617bfb] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polyethylene glycol-3350 without electrolytes (MiraLAX; Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Inc.)+a carbohydrate-electrolyte solution (Gatorade; PepsiCo Inc.)+bisacodyl is frequently used for bowel cleansing, although limited data quantifies its efficacy and safety. No prior studies have assessed this in a community setting or with PM-only dosing, which is still used frequently. AIM To compare the frequency of excellent/good/fair/poor bowel cleansing with PM-only dosing of MiraLAX-Gatorade-bisacodyl versus 4-liter GoLytely. METHODS This is a retrospective endoscopic database analysis of 50 years and older average-risk individuals with a normal screening colonoscopy at a community hospital and ambulatory endoscopy center. Data were extracted for the last 4 months when 4-liter GoLytely was the preferred bowel purgative and the first 4 months when 238-g MiraLAX in 64-ounce Gatorade and four 5-mg bisacodyl tablets became the preferred purgative. All patients used PM-only dosing of bowel purgative. RESULTS A total of 778 subjects [GoLytely (n=395) vs. MiraLAX+Gatorade+bisacodyl (n=383)] were identified. Patients who took the MiraLAX bowel preparation were more likely to achieve an excellent/good bowel cleansing compared with patients taking the GoLytely preparation (93.3% vs. 89.3%, respectively; P=0.048). However, when only American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class I patients are studied, there was no difference in frequency of excellent/good bowel cleansing (91.1% vs 93.6%, respectively; P=0.498). No serious adverse events were identified. An excellent/good bowel cleansing was strongly associated with a recommendation for repeat colonoscopy in 10 years compared with patients with a fair cleansing (odds ratio=28.01; 95% confidence interval, 13.96-56.19). CONCLUSIONS The MiraLAX+Gatorade+bisacodyl combination produces similar rates of excellent/good bowel cleansing as compared with GoLytely in most average-risk individuals undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal screening in a community setting.
Collapse
|
|
40
|
Enestvedt BK, Brian Fennerty M, Zaman A, Eisen GM. MiraLAX vs. Golytely: is there a significant difference in the adenoma detection rate? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34:775-82. [PMID: 21848798 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04795.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In recent clinical trials (RCT) of bowel preparation, Golytely was more efficacious than MiraLAX. We hypothesised that there is a difference in adenoma detection between Golytely and MiraLAX. AIMS To compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between these bowel preparations, and to identify independent predictors of bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection. METHODS This was a post hoc analysis of an RCT that assessed efficacy and patient tolerability of Golytely vs. MiraLAX/Gatorade in average risk screening colonoscopy patients. Bowel preparation quality was measured with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). An excellent/good equivalent BBPS score was defined as ≥ 7. Polyp pathology review was performed. ADR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies with an adenoma. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS One hundred and ninety patients were prospectively enrolled (87 MiraLAX, 103 Golytely). Golytely had a higher rate of a BBPS score ≥ 7 (82.5% vs. MiraLAX 67.8%, P=0.02). The ADR in the Golytely cohort was 26.2% (27/103), and was 16.1% (14/87) for MiraLAX (P = 0.091). On multivariate analyses, Golytely was 2.13 × more likely to be associated with a BBPS ≥ 7 (95% CI 1.05-4.32, P = 0.04) and 2.28 × more likely to be associated with adenoma detection (95% CI 1.05-4.98, P = 0.04) than MiraLAX. CONCLUSIONS Golytely was more efficacious than MiraLAX in bowel cleansing, and was independently associated with both bowel prep quality (BBPS ≥ 7) and higher adenoma detection. Golytely should be used as first line for bowel prep for colonoscopy. Studies with larger populations are needed to confirm these results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B K Enestvedt
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Weber FH. Optimizing colonic preparation: the solution is becoming clearer and clearer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9:286-9. [PMID: 21195792 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.12.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2010] [Accepted: 12/20/2010] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|