Adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy.

Investigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.

In this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power.

Overall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group.

SPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation.

[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011-000587-10].

The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.

Elobixibat is a novel ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the combination of elobixibat and 1 L of polyethylene glycol formulation containing ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) solution versus the combination of sodium picosulfate and 1-L PEG-Asc solution as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

This multi-center, randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority study recruited 210 outpatients who were assigned to either the elobixibat plus 1-L PEG-Asc group (group A) or the sodium picosulfate plus 1-L PEG-Asc group (group B). The quality of the bowel cleansing level was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and compared the bowel cleansing level between the groups. Data regarding bowel preparation time, patients' tolerability, and adverse events were also analyzed.

Data for 196 patients (99 in group A and 97 in group B) were analyzed finally. BBPS was comparable between group A and B (8.3 ± 0.9 vs. 8.3 ± 0.7; P = 0.88). Consequently, the adequate bowel preparation rate in groups A and B was 95.0% and 99.0%, respectively (-4.0%, 95% CI -9.3 to 1.5). Bowel preparation time in group A was similar to that in group B (348.2 ± 79.8 min vs. 330.8 ± 82.5 min; P = 0.13), whereas, sleep disturbance was significantly less frequent in group A than in group B (10.2% vs. 22.7%; P = 0.02).

The combination of elobixibat and 1-L PEG-Asc can be considered an alternative bowel preparation for colonoscopy considering the equivalent bowel cleansing effect and less frequent sleep disturbance. The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs41180026).

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Bowel preparation is an important determinant of the quality of colonoscopy. The traditional split-dose regimen of 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions for bowel preparation is effective but poorly tolerated. The aim of this was to study the efficacy and tolerability of using linaclotide as an adjunctive agent with low-volume PEG for bowel preparation.

This was an endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 432 patients randomly assigned to three groups: 2 L PEG, 4 L PEG and 2 L PEG + 290 µg linaclotide (2 L PEG + L group). The primary outcome measure was efficacy of bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), with secondary outcomes of patients' tolerance, defecating frequency, complications, sleeping quality, cecal intubation rate, preparation-to-colonoscopy interval, withdrawal time, cecal intubation time, and adenoma and polyp detection rates.

The percentage of adequate bowel preparation in the 2 L PEG + L group was higher than that of the 2 L PEG group (87.9% vs. 77.0%; P = 0.017), but not the 4 L PEG group (87.9% vs. 91.4%; P = 0.339). In terms of the mean (SD) BBPS score for the total and segmental colons, the bowel cleansing efficacy of 2 L PEG + L was superior to that of 2 L PEG and similar to that of 4 L PEG. Patient's tolerance (including complications, willingness to repeat and sleeping quality) were compatible between the 2 L and 2 L + L group, and the 4 L group was the worst among these three groups.

Two liters of PEG combined with 290 µg linaclotide was an effective and well-tolerated bowel preparation regimen.

an adequate bowel preparation is essential for good mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two validated oral lavage solutions for colonoscopy preparation in African patients.

a prospective observational study of patients undergoing colonoscopy in a referral endoscopy facility in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, using sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 4L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG). Variables collated were sociodemographic, primary indication, comorbidities, Aronchick bowel preparation scale, polyp/adenoma detection, caecal intubation and outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 20.

one hundred and twenty-four patients received PEG prior to colonoscopy and SPMC in 175 patients. The age range was from 22 to 92 years; mean age of 53.8 ± 14.2 years for PEG group and 55.3 ± 13.2 years for SPMC group (p=0.361). There were 215 males and 84 females. An excellent/good bowel preparation scale was recorded in 77 (62%) PEG group and 130 (74.3%) for SPMC group (p=0.592). PEG was predominantly used in the early years of endoscopists practice with the odds ratio (OR) of no polyp detection in the PEG vs SPMC groups as 1.64 (confidence interval CI 1.06-2.55) versus 0.76 (CI 0.62-0.92), respectively (p=0.016). For no adenoma detection, OR was 4.18 (CI 1.12-15.60) versus OR 0.63 (CI 0.52-0.75), respectively (p=0.012).

there is similar efficacy profile using either split volume PEG or SPMC prior to colonoscopy in these African patients. Polyp and adenoma detection rates are highly dependent on the expertise of the endoscopist.

Carbon dioxide is increasingly used in insufflation during colonoscopy in adult patients; however, air insufflation remains the primary practice among pediatric gastroenterologists. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate insufflation using CO2 versus air in colonoscopies in pediatric patients.

Individualized search strategies were performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane working methodology. Randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis. Pooled proportions were calculated for outcomes including procedure time and abdominal pain immediately and 24 hours post-procedure.

The initial search yielded 644 records, of which five RCTs with a total of 358 patients (CO2: n=178 versus air: n=180) were included in the final analysis. The procedure time was not different between the CO2 and air insufflation groups (mean difference, 10.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.55 to 24.22; p=0.11). Abdominal pain immediately post-procedure was significantly lower in the CO2 group (risk difference [RD], -0.15; 95% CI; -0.26 to -0.03; p=0.01) while abdominal pain at 24 hours post-procedure was similar (RD, -0.05; 95% CI; -0.11 to 0.01; p=0.11).

Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data, CO2 insufflation reduced abdominal pain immediately following the procedure, while pain was similar at 24 hours post-procedure. These results suggest that CO2 is a preferred insufflation technique when performing colonoscopy in pediatric patients.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.

Split-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

Background and study aims  Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) have higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Guidelines recommend dysplasia surveillance with dye-spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available and compare the efficacy of different endoscopic methods of surveillance for dysplasia in patients with UC and CD. Methods  Databases searched were Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and SCIELO/LILACS. It was estimated the risk difference (RD) for dichotomous outcomes (number of patients diagnosed with one or more dysplastic lesions, total number of dysplastic lesions diagnosed and number of dysplastic lesions detected by targeted biopsies) and mean difference for continuous outcomes (procedure time). Results  This study included 17 RCTs totaling 2,457 patients. There was superiority of DCE when compared to standard-definiton white light endoscopy (SD-WLE). When compared with high-definition (HD) WLE, no difference was observed in all outcomes (number of patients with dysplasia (RD 0.06; 95 % CI [-0.01, 0.13])). Comparing other techniques, no difference was observed between DCE and virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE - including narrow-band imaging [NBI], i-SCAN and flexible spectral imaging color enhancement), in all outcomes except procedure time (mean difference, 6.33 min; 95 % CI, 1.29, 11.33). DCE required a significantly longer procedure time compared with WLE (mean difference, 7.81 min; 95 % CI, 2.76, 12.86). Conclusions  We found that dye-spraying chromoendoscopy detected more patients and dysplastic lesions than SD-WLE. Although no difference was observed between DCE and HD-WLE or narrow-band imaging, the main outcomes favored numerically dye-spraying chromoendoscopy, except procedure time. Regarding i-SCAN, FICE and auto-fluorescence imaging, there is still not enough evidence to support or not their recommendation.

Optimal bowel preparation is essential for a more accurate, comfortable, and safe colonoscopy. The majority of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers can be explained by procedural factors, mainly missed polyps or inadequate examination. Therefore the most important goal of optimal bowel preparation is to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. Although adequate preparation should be achieved in 85-90% or more of all colonoscopy as a quality indicator, unfortunately 20-30% shows inadequate preparation. Laxatives for oral colonoscopy bowel preparation can be classified into polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte lavage solution, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives, and divided into high-volume solution (≥3 L) and low-volume solution (<3 L). The updated 2019 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline is broadly similar to the 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and reaffirms the importance of split-dosing. However, new ESGE guideline, unlike the 2014 ASGE recommendation, suggests the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG based agents that have been clinically validated for most outpatient scenarios. For effective, safe, and highly adherent bowel preparation, physicians who prescribe and implement colonoscopy should properly know the advantages and limitations, the dosing, and the timing of regimens. Recently many studies have attempted to find the most ideal regimens, and more convenient, effective, and safe regimens have been developed by reducing the dosing volume and improving the taste. The high tolerability and acceptability of the new low-volume regimens suggest us how we should use it to increase the participation of the national colorectal cancer screening program.

A gastrointestinal (GI) transmural defect is defined as total rupture of the GI wall, and these defects can be divided into three categories: perforations, leaks, and fistulas. Surgical management of these defects is usually challenging and may be associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Recently, several novel endoscopic techniques have been developed, and endoscopy has become a first-line approach for therapy of these conditions. The use of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is increasing with favorable results. This technique involves endoscopic placement of a sponge connected to a nasogastric tube into the defect cavity or lumen. This promotes healing via five mechanisms, including macrodeformation, microdeformation, changes in perfusion, exudate control, and bacterial clearance, which is similar to the mechanisms in which skin wounds are treated with commonly employed wound vacuums. EVT can be used in the upper GI tract, small bowel, biliopancreatic regions, and lower GI tract, with variable success rates and a satisfactory safety profile. In this article, we review and discuss the mechanism of action, materials, techniques, efficacy, and safety of EVT in the management of patients with GI transmural defects.