Recent Advances in Colonic Preparation for an Accurate Colonoscopy - How to Improve Our Practice to Meet the Quality Criteria

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major problem of global health. Screening colonoscopy is the gold standard in detection of CRC. A quality colonoscopy needs good indication, adequate bowel preparation, adequate examination time (30 to 45 minutes), a minimum 6 minutes time for mucosal examination during colonoscopy descent, a good centre adenoma detection rate. In 28-33% of the colonoscopies, the bowel preparation is unsatisfactory which leads to several hidden costs including the rise of preventable and treatable death rate regarding colorectal carcinoma. The ESGE (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) recommends a maximum of 10% poor preparations, threshold that is diffi cult to reach in many centres. Newer low-volume laxative regimens for bowel cleansing are better in the fi elds of compliance and tolerability than the classic 4L PEG with 2L PEG-CS (Clensia ®) being one of the new promising low-volume formulas. The low fi bre diet is now preferred due to better compliance and tolerability.

Effectiveness in Bowel Cleansing and Patient Tolerability of Polyethylene Glycol versus Sodium Picosulphate in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Introduction. Colonoscopy is considered as a gold standard investigation for screening of colorectal cancer and other lower gastrointestinal pathologies. Adequate bowel preparation is absolutely necessary for a fruitful colonoscopy. Various bowel cleansing agents are being used for his purpose. The aim of the present study was to compare the two bowel cleansing agents: a single dose of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) solution and a split dose of Sodium Picosulfate (Na PICOSUL) tablet with regards to cleansing efficacy and tolerability among the patients scheduled for colonoscopy. Methods. It is an open-label hospital-based observational study. A total of sixty-four patients were grouped randomly into two groups of bowel cleansing agents that are PEG and Na PICOSUL during the study period between 1st December 2015 and 30th November 2016. Patients’ tolerability was evaluated using a structured questionnaire, and the bowel cleansing efficacy was evaluated using the Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale (ABPS). Results. The group that received PEG solution was found to have better efficacy than that which received Na PICOSUL tablet (63.3% versus 29.4%, respectively, with a P value < 0.028) with excellent grade as per ABPS. The Na PICOSUL group was found better in terms of tolerability than the PEG group as nausea/vomiting was encountered significantly higher in the PEG group than in the Na PICOSUL group (43.3% versus 11.8%, respectively, with a P value < 0.01). Conclusions. Colonic preparation with a split dose of Na PICOSUL tablet was better tolerated than the evening before regimen of PEG solution. However, PEG solution was found to be more efficacious in bowel cleansing, but procedural performance and lesion detection were similar for both agents.

P160 A novel PillCam Crohn’s capsule score (Eliakim score) for quantification of mucosal inflammation in Crohn’s disease

Background Capsule endoscopy (CE) is an important modality for monitoring of Crohn’s disease (CD). We recently established that small bowel (SB) inflammation on CE quantified by a Lewis score &gt;350 accurately predicts risk of relapse within 2 years in CD patients in clinical remission. Recently, a novel pan-enteric capsule (PillCam Crohn’s (PCCE), Medtronic, USA) was approved for use. However, no quantitative index for pan-enteric PCCE is currently available. The current study was undertaken as a sub-study of a prospective randomised controlled CURE-CD trial aiming to optimise treatment of CD patients in remission using a PCCE- based treat-to-target approach; the aim of this ancillary study was to compare the correlation and reliability of the novel PCCE inflamatory score (Eliakim score) with the Lewis score as performed by 2 independent experienced CE readers. Methods The study cohort includes CD patients in clinical remission (CDAI&lt;150). The patients were prospectively enrolled and underwent patency capsule evaluation; if excreted within 30 h, PCCE was performed following bowel preparation. PCCE was repeated every 6 months; if no colonic disease was detected on first PCCE, subsequent examinations were performed without colonic preparation. Each PCCE was independently reviewed by 2 experienced readers (RE (reader 1);UK (reader 2)). All studies were scored using the Lewis score and Eliakim score (comprised of a sum of scores for most common and most severe lesions multiplied by percentage of involvement per bowel segment (3 for small bowel and 2 for colon) with an additional stricture score). Pearson’s and Spearman’ correlation, Cohen’s kappa and inter-rater reliability coefficient (IRC) between the scores and the readers were calculated as appropriate. Results Forty PCCE exams were included. The median LS was 225 for both readers (interquartile range (IQR)—157–815 for reader 1, 33- 1125 for reader 2). Both readers identified significant SB inflammation (LS&gt;350) in 17/40 (42.5%) of the patients with strong agreement between the readers (Spearman’s r = 0.87, p &lt; 0.0001). The median PCCE score was 6 (4–14.75) and 4 (2–14.75) for reader 1 and 2, respectively. There was a high IRC between the two readers for LS (0.88, p &lt; 0.0001 for absolute agreement) and PCCE score (0.91, p &lt; 0.0001). For the small bowel, the correlation between LS and PCCE was moderate for reader 1 (Pearson’s r = 0.72, p &lt; 0.0001 and strong for reader 2 Pearson’s r = 0.84, p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion There is a need for a quantitative pan-enteric score for the novel Pillcam Crohns capsule. The presently proposed score, while mandating further clinical validation, has strong inter-reader reliability and moderate-to-strong correlation with the validated small bowel capsule score (LS)

Systematic Review: Outcomes by Duration of NPO Status prior to Colonoscopy

Background/Aims. Variation exists among anesthesia providers as to acceptable timing of NPO (“nothing by mouth”) for elective colonoscopy procedures. There is a need to balance optimal colonic preparation, patient convenience, and scheduling efficiency with anesthesia safety concerns. We reviewed the evidence for the relationship between NPO timing and aspiration incidence and colonoscopy rescheduling. Methods. We searched MEDLINE (1990–April 2015) for English language studies of any design and included them if at least one bowel preparation regimen was completed within 8 hours of colonoscopy. Study characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes were abstracted and verified by investigators. We determined risk of bias for each study and overall strength of evidence for primary and secondary outcomes. Results. We included 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 controlled clinical trials, and 10 observational reports. Six studies reported on aspiration; none found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk, though studies were not designed to assess this outcome (low strength of evidence). One RCT found fewer rescheduled procedures following split-dose preparation but NPO status was not well-documented (insufficient evidence). Conclusions. Aspiration incidence requiring hospitalization during colonoscopy with moderate or deep sedation is very low. No study found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk. We did not find direct evidence of the effect of NPO status on colonoscopy rescheduling.

A Single or Split Dose Picosulphate/Magnesium Citrate Before Colonoscopy: Comparison Regarding Tolerance and Eficacy with Polyethylene Glycol. A Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: To compare the eficacy and tolerance of sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate(PMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a single or split dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation.Methods: A prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicenter study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive PMC (PMC4/0) or PEG (PEG4/0) in a single dose 4L day before colonoscopy or a split dose 2+2L PMC (PMC2/2) or 3+1L PEG (PEG3/1) one day before and in the morning before the colonoscopy. Each patient was interviewed to determine his/her subjective tolerance of the preparation before the procedure. The quality of bowel cleansing was assessed in a blinded test performed by multiple endoscopists using the Aronchick scale.Results: A total of 600 patients were enrolled, 88.2% were included in the analysis. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 and 2) was signicantly more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (81.6% PMC2/2, 87.3% PEG3/1 vs. 73.0% PEG4/0, p = 0.024). In single dose regimens, PMC performed better than PEG (82.6% vs. 73.0%). Single or split dose PMC preparations were comparable. A PMC based solution was generally better tolerated than PEG regardless of the regimen used (p < 0.001). Nausea was reported mostly after the 4L PEG (32.8%, p < 0.001), incontinence after a split PMC dose (34.4%, p = 0.002), and bloating after the 4L PEG (38.0%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of vomiting.Conclusion: Colonic preparation with PMC yields similar results as a split PEG dose, regardless of whether PMC is administered in single or separate doses. PMC is better tolerated than any PEG-based preparation. A single 4L PEG the day before the colonoscopy is less appropriate for bowel cleansing.