Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG + ascorbate

Background and study aims Polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are effective but associated with high ingestion volume. In this study, 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG preparations were compared in a randomized, colonoscopist-blinded, single-center trial. Patients and methods Patients were aged > 18 years, required colonoscopy, and provided informed consent. Randomization was 1:1 to 1-L PEG or 2-L PEG, based on hospital identification number (odd or even). Preparations were administered using same-day dosing adjusted for colonoscopy start time. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (no segment scored < 2). Results A total of 852 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, significantly more patients had diabetes in the 2-L PEG arm, resulting in the creation of the modified-ITT population (mITT) that excluded diabetic patients to correct the imbalance (1-L PEG, n = 239; 2-L PEG, n = 238). In the mITT, there was no significant difference in successful cleansing between 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG (88.3 % vs. 82.4 %; P = 0.067). Excellent cleansing (BBPS 7–9; no segment < 2) was significantly improved with 1-L PEG (60.7 % vs. 50.4 %; P < 0.024), as were mean scores in the right and left colon (right: 2.47 vs. 2.30; P < 0.008; left: 2.55 vs. 2.39; P = 0.008). Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and none resulted in discontinuation. Rates of nausea and vomiting were significantly higher with 1-L PEG, but that did not affect successful cleansing. Conclusions The lower-volume 1-L PEG was associated with higher levels of excellent bowel cleansing and greater mean segmental scores on the BBPS than 2-L PEG.

Bowel Preparation for Pediatric Colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool in evaluating and treating gastrointestinal tract pathologies. Adequate visualization of the intestinal lumen is necessary for detection of lesions, and thus bowel preparation is a key component of the process. It is estimated that over 25% percent of pediatric patients have sub-optimal bowel preparations, which can lead to longer procedure times, missed pathology, unsuccessful ileal intubation, and possibly repeat procedure/anesthesia. There is no universal protocol for bowel preparation in pediatrics and there is a wide variability of practices around the world. The purpose of this paper is to review the recent published literature regarding bowel preparations for pediatric colonoscopy with focus on published work in the last decade exploring a number of factors involved in bowel preparation including the role of patient education, types of bowel preparation, and their efficacy and safety.

688 Cancellation Rate of Prostate Template Biopsy: Are There Any Merits to Implementing Pre-Operative Bowel Preparations?

Introduction The aim of this quality improvement project was to analyse the cancellation rates of the template biopsy done at the George Eliot Hospital. The focus was mainly on those due to poor bowel prep whereby manual evacuations have failed. Locally we have sometimes noted the failure rate of transperineal prostate biopsy as a result of the poor quality of the ultrasound due to inadequately evacuated rectum. Unfortunately, there are very limited studies which have looked into this issue hence the significance of this problem is not universally acknowledged. Method Retrospective review of all the template biopsies that were planned from April 2019 to April 2020 using the operation notes and local theatre management software. Results There was a total of 105 planned template biopsies from April 2019 to April 2020. 72 cases were attempted and within this, 7 of these cases required manual evacuations in which 3 resulted in abandonment of procedure. There were 33 cases which were cancelled due various other reasons. Conclusions The results showed that the failure rates due to poor bowel prep were not significant (4%). Based on these findings we have decided not to proceed with the implementation of pre-operative bowel prep with phosphate enema as we felt that the potential benefits were not enough for it be initiated as a routine practice. We aim to address the other reasons identified for cancellations.

Patient experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, multicenter US survey

Background NER1006 (Plenvu®, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ) is a 1 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation indicated for colonoscopy in adults. A US online survey assessed real-world ease of use and treatment satisfaction in individuals who received NER1006. Methods Adults were recruited from 444 US community gastrointestinal practices and provided a kit number for enrollment into an online survey to be completed within 2 weeks. Survey questions evaluated colonoscopy history and prior bowel preparation(s) prescribed, patient experience during NER1006 administration, and patient satisfaction with the bowel preparation process. A 9-point predefined grading scale was used to evaluate ease of NER1006 preparation and consumption (range, 1 “very difficult” to 9 “very easy”); the perceived importance of volume requirement and clear liquid options (range, 1 “not important at all” to 9 “very important”); and patient satisfaction (range, 1 “not satisfied at all” to 9 “very satisfied”). Results 1630 patients were enrolled, 1606 underwent colonoscopy, and 1598 completed the survey between September 15, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Among 1606 patients who had a colonoscopy, 62.5% were female, and the mean patient age was 54.4 years (range 18–89 years). Most patients (74.7%) did not report a family history of colon cancer, 62.6% had undergone prior colonoscopy, and 64.8% were undergoing colonoscopy for routine colorectal cancer screening. A majority (76.1%) of patients who completed the survey reported that NER1006 was very easy to prepare and take, and 89.9% were very or moderately satisfied with NER1006 overall. Most (97.6%) patients reported consuming all or most of the bowel preparation. Among 1005 patients with previous bowel preparation use, 84.7% indicated that their experience with NER1006 was much better or better (65.3%) or about the same (19.4%) compared with previously used bowel preparations, while only 15.3% rated NER1006 as worse or much worse. Conclusions In this first real-world, US multicenter survey, patient-reported experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy was favorable and adherence was high. The majority of patients were very or moderately satisfied with the overall experience and found it much better/better than previously used bowel preparations. Trial registration: Not applicable

New Ultra Low Volume Bowel Preparation and Overview of Existing Bowel Preparations

Background: Adequate bowel cleansing is essential in achieving a good quality colonoscopy. However, one of the barriers to achieving high-quality bowel cleansing is the patient's tolerability. Different bowel preparations have been developed to improve tolerability while maintaining adequate bowel cleansing. Objectives: We aim to explore the pros and cons of commonly used bowel preparations, particularly highlighting the new ultra-low volume bowel preparation. Methods:: Extensive literature search was carried out on various databases to evaluate the effectiveness and side effects of different bowel cleansing agents, including findings of recent clinical trials on ultra-low bowel preparation. Results:: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been commonly used as a bowel prep. Due to its high volume required to ingest to achieve an adequate effect, it has been combined with various adjuncts to reduce the volume to make it more tolerable. Magnesium and phosphate-based preps can achieve low volume, but they can be associated with multiple side effects, mainly electrolyte disturbances. Ultra low volume prep (NER1006) was achieved by combing PEG with ascorbic acid, and its efficacy and side effects were demonstrated in three noninferiority studies. Conclusion: It is important to consider patient preferences, co-morbidities and tolerability, and efficacy and side effect profiles when choosing bowel prep for patients undergoing colonoscopy. New ultra-low bowel prep showed promising results in initial clinical trials, but further real-world post-marketing data will inform its value in clinical practice.

Ischemic Colitis after Colonoscopy with Bisacodyl Bowel Preparation: A Report of Two Cases

Background. Colonoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and management of colorectal disease and requires adequate bowel preparation. Ischemic colitis is a form of intestinal ischemia that presents with abdominal pain, diarrhea, and hematochezia. Risk factors include advanced age, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Both colonoscopy and bisacodyl bowel preparation have been described as rare causes of ischemic colitis with less than 35 cases collectively in the literature. Our review found that of these cases, there exists significant heterogeneity within individual patient characteristics. The majority of the cases are managed conservatively without complications or sequela. Due to the risk of ischemic colitis, the FDA has withdrawn bisacodyl bowel preparations from use in the USA. Bisacodyl bowel preparations are still used in Canada. Cases. Here, we present two cases of ischemic colitis in previously healthy women aged 57 and 69 who underwent screening colonoscopy using bisacodyl bowel preparation. Both were treated conservatively without complications. Conclusion. Thus far, there has been one documented case of ischemic colitis following colonoscopy with bisacodyl bowel preparation; here, we present two additional cases with one case occurring without the presence of known risk factors for ischemic colitis. Our literature review finds that there is limited evidence surrounding bisacodyl as a causative agent of ischemic colitis. Cases often contain confounding variables such as the presence of known risk factors for ischemic colitis. Our report aims to highlight the need for a more comprehensive analysis evaluating the safety of bowel preparations as well as increasing the clinical awareness surrounding the rare risk of colonoscopy-induced ischemic colitis.