-
1.
Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.
Rondonotti, E, Spada, C, Adler, S, May, A, Despott, EJ, Koulaouzidis, A, Panter, S, Domagk, D, Fernandez-Urien, I, Rahmi, G, et al
Endoscopy. 2018;(4):423-446
Abstract
SMALL-BOWEL CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY (SBCE): 1: ESGE recommends that prior to SBCE patients ingest a purgative (2 L of polyethylene glycol [PEG]) for better visualization.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.However, the optimal timing for taking purgatives is yet to be established. 2: ESGE recommends that SBCE should be performed as an outpatient procedure if possible, since completion rates are higher in outpatients than in inpatients.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that patients with pacemakers can safely undergo SBCE without special precautions.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that SBCE can also be safely performed in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends the acceptance of qualified nurses and trained technicians as prereaders of capsule endoscopy studies as their competency in identifying pathology is similar to that of medically qualified readers. The responsibility of establishing a diagnosis must however remain with the attending physician.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends observation in cases of asymptomatic capsule retention.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In cases where capsule retrieval is indicated, ESGE recommends the use of device-assisted enteroscopy as the method of choice.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. DEVICE-ASSISTED ENTEROSCOPY (DAE): 1: ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.Strong recommendation, low quality evidenceThe choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE] and double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
-
2.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials challenging the usefulness of purgative preparation before small-bowel video capsule endoscopy.
Gkolfakis, P, Tziatzios, G, Dimitriadis, GD, Triantafyllou, K
Endoscopy. 2018;(7):671-683
Abstract
BACKGROUND The usefulness of purgative preparation before small-bowel video capsule endoscopy is controversial. We aimed to examine the effect of purgative preparation on small-bowel video capsule endoscopy outcomes. METHODS We performed literature searches in MEDLINE and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of purgative preparation (polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, others) vs. clear-liquid diet/fasting in patients undergoing small-bowel capsule endoscopy. Meta-analysis outcomes included the examination's diagnostic yield, small-bowel mucosal visualization quality, the examination's completion rate, and gastric and small-bowel transit times. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a fixed- or random-effect model, as appropriate, and is shown as the risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI). RESULTS We identified 12 eligible trials with 17 sets of data including 1221 subjects. Significant heterogeneity was detected with no evidence of publication bias. As compared with clear-liquid diet, purgative bowel preparation did not increase capsule endoscopy diagnostic yield (RR 1.17 [95 %CI 0.97 to 1.40]; P = 0.11). Neither the small-bowel mucosal visualization quality (RR 1.14 [95 %CI 0.96 to 1.35]; P = 0.15) nor completion rate for the examination (RR 0.99 [95 %CI 0.95 to 1.04]; P = 0.76) significantly improved after purgative preparation. Purgatives also had no effect on video capsule endoscopy gastric and small-bowel transit times. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis challenges the usefulness of purgative preparation for improving the diagnostic yield of small-bowel video capsule endoscopy and the quality of small-bowel mucosal visualization.
-
3.
Bowel preparation in CT colonography: Is diet restriction necessary? A randomised trial (DIETSAN).
Bellini, D, De Santis, D, Caruso, D, Rengo, M, Ferrari, R, Biondi, T, Laghi, A
European radiology. 2018;(1):382-389
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate whether diet restriction affects quality of colon cleansing and patient tolerance during reduced bowel preparation for CT colonography (CTC). METHODS Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this pragmatic, single-centre, randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced bowel preparation and faecal tagging with (Diet-Restriction-Group [DR]) or without (No-Diet-Restriction-Group [NDR]) dietary restriction. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of 4-point Likert-scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (URomLSDBAL1). RESULTS Ninety-five patients were randomly allocated to treatments (48 in NDR-group, 47 in DR-group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. The mean residual stool (0.22, 95%CI 0.00-0.44) and fluid burden (0.39, 95%CI 0.25-0.53) scores for patients in DR-group were similar to those in patients in NDR-group (0.25, 95%CI 0.03-0.47 [p = 0.82] and 0.49, 95%CI 0.30-0.67 [p = 0.38], respectively). Tolerance was significantly better in NDR-group. CONCLUSION A reduced bowel preparation in association with faecal tagging and without any dietary restriction demonstrated optimal colon cleansing effectiveness for CTC, providing better patient compliance compared with dietary restriction. KEY POINTS • Dietary restriction in reduced bowel preparation regimen can be avoided. • The quality of colon cleansing is not affected by dietary restriction. • The quality of faecal tagging is not affected by dietary restriction. • Avoidance of dietary restriction improves patients' tolerance for CTC.
-
4.
Polyethylene Glycol-3350 (Miralax®)+1.9-L sports drink (Gatorade®)+2 tablets of bisacodyl results in inferior bowel preparation for colonoscopy compared with Polyethylene Glycol-Ascorbic Acid (MoviPrep®).
Khan, MA, Patel, KB, Nooruddin, M, Swanson, G, Fogg, L, Keshavarzian, A, Brown, M
The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology. 2018;(1):67-74
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-3350, approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only for constipation, combined with 1.9 L of sports drink (SD) (GatoradeR) and bisacodyl (B) is commonly used in outpatient practice for bowel preparation due to cited patient satisfaction and tolerability of this specific regimen. We aim to compare PEG-3350 (MiralaxR) with PEG-AA-based (MoviPrepR) in terms of efficacy, patient satisfaction, and the effects of these two regimen on serum electrolytes. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study is a prospective, single-blinded, block randomized trial comparing single-dose PEG-3350+SD+B to split-dose 2-L PEG-AA in the outpatient endoscopy unit in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Basic metabolic profiles were checked on the day of randomization and on the day of procedure. Patients completed a survey on the day of procedure. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by two endoscopists and a nurse present during the procedure. RESULTS We randomized 150 patients (74 PEG-3350+SD+B and 76 PEG-AA). The PEG-AA group had significantly higher BBPS scores in the right colon by Endoscopist 1, Nurse, and Endoscopist 2 (p 0.005, <0.000, 0.001) and in the left and transverse colon by Nurse and Endoscopist 2 (p 0.004, 0.26, 0.000, 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction or change in serum electrolytes between the two groups. CONCLUSION Use of single-dose PEG-3350+SD+B results in inferior bowel preparation for colonoscopy compared with split-dose PEGAA and does not provide any advantage in regards to patient satisfaction. We therefore recommend discontinuing the use of PEG 3350 for bowel preparation.
-
5.
Impact of patient audiovisual re-education via a smartphone on the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a single-blinded randomized study.
Back, SY, Kim, HG, Ahn, EM, Park, S, Jeon, SR, Im, HH, Kim, JO, Ko, BM, Lee, JS, Lee, TH, et al
Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2018;(3):789-799.e4
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Education on preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of audiovisual (AV) re-education via a smartphone on bowel preparation quality before colonoscopy. METHODS A prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled study was performed. Patients who underwent colonoscopy with 3 purgatives, including 4 L of polyethylene glycol (4-L PEG), 2 L of PEG with ascorbic acid (2-L PEG/Asc), and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), were enrolled and randomized into the AV re-education via smartphone group (AV group, n = 160) and a control group (n = 160). The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The secondary outcomes included instruction adherence using adherence score (AS) and patient satisfaction with education using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS A total of 283 patients (AV group, n = 139; control group, n = 144) were analyzed per protocol. The mean BBPS (7.53 vs 6.29, P < .001) and the proportion with adequate preparation were higher in the AV group. The mean BBPS of the AV group was significantly higher than that of the control group for the 2-L PEG/Asc and SPMC preparations, but not for the 4-L PEG preparation. The mean AS and the mean VAS score were all significantly higher in the AV group. Among the 3 purgatives, the mean AS was lowest in the 4-L PEG group (P = .041). CONCLUSIONS AV re-education via smartphone was easy and convenient, and enhanced preparation quality, patient adherence to instructions, and patient satisfaction.
-
6.
Comparative efficacy of combination of 1 L polyethylene glycol, castor oil and ascorbic acid versus 2 L polyethylene glycol plus castor oil versus 3 L polyethylene glycol for colon cleansing before colonoscopy: Study protocol of a randomized, double-blind, single-center study.
Tian, X, Chen, WQ, Liu, XL, Chen, H, Liu, BL, Pi, YP
Medicine. 2018;(17):e0481
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Colonoscopy has been regarded as an important method of early diagnosing and treating gastrointestinal lesions; however adequate bowel preparation is critical one of many factors needed for successful colonoscopy. Although several modified or novel regimes have been developed, desired quality of bowel preparation has not yet been generated. Scattered evidences revealed that castor oil may have potential of effectively cleansing colon. It is noted that, however, prospective trial of exploring the value of castor oil in preparing bowel before colonoscopy is lacking. The aims of this study are to test the hypotheses that low dose castor oil (30 mL) may enhance potential of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and combination of low castor oil and ascorbic acid may halve the volume of PEG.This is a randomized, double-blind (endoscopist and assessor), single center trial with three-arm design. We will randomly assign 282 adult patients (≥18 years but < 75 years), who are scheduled to undergo colonoscopy, to receive either 3 L PEG alone, 2 L PEG plus 30 mL castor oil or combination of 1 L PEG, 30 mL castor oil and 5 g ascorbic acid. The bowel preparation quality based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes include the first defecation time, total number of defecation, time of cecal intubation, detection rate of polyp and adenoma, willing to repeat the same regime, tolerance to regime, and adverse events.The study protocol has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committees of Chongqing University Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Institute & Chongqing Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Center (2017[107]). The results from this trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and will be presented at national and international conferences.
-
7.
Impact of diet restriction on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Nam, SJ, Kim, YJ, Keum, B, Lee, JM, Kim, SH, Choi, HS, Kim, ES, Seo, YS, Jeen, YT, Lee, HS, et al
Medicine. 2018;(41):e12645
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Diet restriction is one of the difficult parts of bowel preparation for colonoscopy, and many patients do not follow instructions properly. Few studies have evaluated the impact of dietary restriction in real clinical setting. The aim of this study was to study the effect of diet control on bowel preparation with detailed investigation of unacceptable food list in order to reveal what kind of foods are most problematic in clinical practice.Prospective observational study was carried out at a university-affiliated hospital. Around 4 L polyethylene glycol solution was used for bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy. Patients were allowed to have regular diet until lunch the day before colonoscopy and educated to control diet from 3 days before colonoscopy with information regarding an unacceptable foods list. Factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation were analyzed using univariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis.Of the 245 patients included in the study, 68 patients (27.8%) followed the diet instructions. Fiber-rich vegetables were the most commonly taken unacceptable foods (N = 143, 58.4%). Inadequate bowel preparation (fair and poor by Aronchick scale) was 47.3%. In multivariate analysis, diabetes [odds ratio (OR) 2.878, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.242-6.671], preparation to colonoscopy interval (OR 1.003, 95% CI 1.000-1.005) and consumption of foods disturbing bowel preparation (OR 2.142, 95% CI 1.108-4.140) were independent predictors of inadequate bowel preparation.We could identify substantially low compliance to diet instructions in real clinical practice. Consumption of any foods disturbing bowel preparation was significant factor predicting inadequate bowel preparation, even though we could not select specific food list compromising preparation significantly. Favorable bowel preparation was achieved in the subgroup compliant to diet restriction, suggesting that regular diet avoiding specific kinds of foods can be possible option for diet restriction before colonoscopy.
-
8.
Do adjuvants add to the efficacy and tolerance of bowel preparations? A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Restellini, S, Kherad, O, Menard, C, Martel, M, Barkun, AN
Endoscopy. 2018;(2):159-176
Abstract
UNLABELLED BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Recommendations on adjuvant use with bowel preparations remain disparate. We performed a meta-analysis determining the clinical impact of adding an adjuvant to polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate (PICO), or oral sulfate solutions (OSS)-based regimens. METHODS Systematic searches were made of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge for randomized trials from January 1980 to April 2016 that assessed preparations with or without adjuvants, given in split and non-split dosing, and PEG high- (> 3 L) or low-dose (≤ 2 L) regimens. Bowel cleansing efficacy was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to repeat the procedure, and polyp and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS Of 3093 citations, 77 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, addition of an adjuvant compared with no adjuvant, irrespective of the type of preparation and mode of administration, yielded improvements in bowel cleanliness (odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.01 - 1.51]) without greater willingness to repeat (OR 1.40 [0.91 - 2.15]). Adjuvants combined with high-dose PEG significantly improved colon cleansing (OR 1.96 [1.32 - 2.94]). The odds for achieving adequate preparation with low-dose PEG with an adjuvant were not different to high-dose PEG alone (OR 0.95 [0.73 - 1.22]), but yielded improved tolerance (OR 3.22 [1.85 - 5.55]). However, split high-dose PEG yielded superior cleanliness to low-dose PEG with adjuvants (OR 2.53 [1.25 - 5.13]). No differences were noted for OSS and PICO comparisons, or for any products regarding polyp or adenoma detection rates. CONCLUSIONS Critical heterogeneity precludes firm conclusion on the impact of adjuvants with existing bowel preparations. Additional research is required to better characterize the methods of administration and resulting roles of adjuvants in an era of split-dosing.
-
9.
Comparing reduced-dose sodium phosphate tablets to 2 L of polyethylene glycol: A randomized study.
Ako, S, Takemoto, K, Yasutomi, E, Sakaguchi, C, Murakami, M, Sunami, T, Oka, S, Kenta, H, Okazaki, N, Baba, Y, et al
World journal of gastroenterology. 2017;(24):4454-4461
Abstract
AIM: To compare the tolerability and quality of bowel cleansing between 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) and reduced-dose sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets as a preparation for colonoscopy. METHODS Two hundred patients were randomly assigned to the PEG or NaP groups at the same ratio. The NaP group patients took 30 tablets with 2 L of clear liquid, while the PEG group patients took 2L of PEG. Tolerability was assessed by a questionnaire about taste, volume, and the overall impression. The bowel cleansing quality was evaluated by colonoscopists. RESULTS Although NaP showed better tolerability in terms of taste, volume and overall impression (P < 0.01, P < 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively), the overall cleansing quality was better in the PEG group (P < 0.01). A subgroup analysis, stratified by sex and age, indicated that NaP was associated with better tolerability and equivalent bowel cleansing quality in females of < 50 years of age. CONCLUSION Despite the better tolerability, the use of 30 NaP tablets with 2 L of clear liquid should be limited due to its lower cleansing quality; however, in certain cases the regimen may deserve consideration, particularly in cases involving young women.
-
10.
Bowel Preparation Improves the Accuracy of Transvaginal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Rectosigmoid Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: A Prospective Study.
Ros, C, Martínez-Serrano, MJ, Rius, M, Abrao, MS, Munrós, J, Martínez-Zamora, MÁ, Gracia, M, Carmona, F
Journal of minimally invasive gynecology. 2017;(7):1145-1151
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) with and without bowel preparation (BP) to detect and describe intestinal nodules of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) with laparoscopic findings. DESIGN A prospective study of paired data (Canadian Task Force classification II.1). SETTING A tertiary university hospital from November 2014 to November 2015. PATIENTS A cohort of women awaiting surgery for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS The wall of the rectum and the lower sigmoid colon of the patients were evaluated by 2 TVUSs: the first ultrasound was performed without previous BP, and the second was done after a 3-day low-residue diet and two 250-mL enemas 12 hours and 3 hours before TVUS. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The presence or absence of rectosigmoid nodules visualized by TVUS with and without BP was compared with laparoscopic results. Forty patients with a mean age of 36.8 ± 5.0 years were included in the study. By comparing the surgical findings histologically confirmed (the presence or absence of bowel nodules and localization) with those of the 2 TVUSs with and without BP, the sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen kappa were 100%, 96%, and 0.95 and 73%, 88%, and 0.61, respectively. Laparoscopy showed that up to 37.5% of patients (15/40) presented bowel involvement. Variables were clearly more evaluable with than without BP. CONCLUSION TVUS with BP has a higher accuracy than TVUS without BP. BP allows and facilitates the detection of more rectal nodules of DIE in patients with suspected endometriosis and surgical criteria.