Search

Background and Aims: Recently, a low-volume polyethylene glycol formulation containing ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) has proven as safe and effective as traditional 4-L PEG solutions for colonoscopy preparation. However, currently available aqueous purgative formulations are poorly tolerated. The aim of this study was to compare a split-dose 2-L PEG-Asc formulation and a 1-L PEG-Asc formulation with bisacodyl (10 mg) to determine the quality of bowel cleansing and patient tolerability., Methods: A single-center, randomized, observer-blinded study was performed between May 2015 and September 2015. Two hundred outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled and assigned to either the split-dose 2-L PEG-Asc group or the 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl 10-mg group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale (ABPS) were used to evaluate bowel cleansing. The tolerability of the regimens and satisfaction of patients was determined based on a questionnaire., Results: Two hundred patients received either 2-L PEG-Asc or 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl. Regarding colon cleansing outcome (BBPS and ABPS), the 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl group showed similar but non-inferior results compared with the 2-L PEG-Asc group on both BBPS (6.92 ± 1.63 vs 6.57 ± 1.37; P = .103) and ABPS (96% vs 95%; P = 1.000) scales. Tolerability was similar for both 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl and 2-L PEG-Asc., Conclusions: 1-L PEG-Asc is a suitable alternative to low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Our study showed that the 1-L PEG-Asc plus bisacodyl preparation has comparable tolerability and results in adequate colon cleansing. Bowel preparation with bisacodyl and 1-L PEG-Asc is a suitable alternative to low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02980562.)., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low-volume bowel preparations are ideal to ensure patient compliance, thus enabling high-quality examinations to be achieved., Objectives: To examine the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose 2 L PEG3350 + electrolytes (PEG3350e) with 15 mg bisacodyl versus split-dose 4 L PEG3350e., Design: Single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial., Setting: Single site, university-affiliated tertiary care center., Patients: A total of 325 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy., Intervention: 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl versus 4 L of PEG3350e, both given in a split-dose fashion., Main Outcome Measurements: Efficacy and tolerability of a split dose of 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl. Efficacy was assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Patient satisfaction and tolerability were assessed by using a short survey., Results: A total of 325 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (51% male) with a mean ± standard deviation age of 56 ± 11.2 years. No statistically significant difference in cleanliness was found by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (intention-to-treat, P = .381; per-protocol, P = .387) and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (intention-to-treat, P = .285; per-protocol, P = .334). Participants receiving 2 L of PEG3350e found the preparation easy to consume and were willing to repeat the procedure more often than the 4-L group (P < .001)., Limitations: Single-center study looking at outpatient colonoscopies; unable to comment on adenoma detection rate., Conclusions: Bowel-cleansing efficacy was similar in both the 2-L and 4-L PEG3350e groups; however, patient tolerability and willingness to repeat preparation were statistically greater with the 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl regimen., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The best and most cost-effective bowel cleansing regimen for patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy is not known. The aim of this study was to compare patient tolerance, quality of preparation, and cost of 2 bowel cleansing regimens for flexible sigmoidoscopy., Methods: Two hundred fifty consecutive patients referred for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy were randomized to receive an oral preparation (45 mL oral sodium phosphate and 10 mg bisacodyl) or an enema preparation (2 Fleet enemas and 10 mg bisacodyl). Tolerance of the preparation was graded as easy, tolerable, slightly difficult, extremely difficult, or intolerable. The endoscopist was blinded to which preparation the patient received and graded the quality of the preparation as poor, fair, good, or excellent. Cost was calculated by adding the cost of the medications and the cost for the nursing time required to prepare the patient for endoscopy., Results: Patients in the oral preparation group were more likely to grade the preparation as easy or tolerable when compared with the enema group (96.8% vs. 56.4%, p < 0.001). The endoscopist graded the quality of the preparation as good or excellent in 86.5% of the patients in the oral preparation group compared with 57.3% in the enema group (p < 0.001). In the oral preparation group, the mean nursing time (34.6 vs. 65.3 minutes, p < 0.001) and cost ($16.39 vs. $31.13, p < 0.001) were significantly less than in the enema group., Conclusions: An oral sodium phosphate preparation results in a superior quality endoscopic examination that is better tolerated and more cost-effective than enemas in patients undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Background: Laxative pretreatment decreases the volume of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) required for colonoscopy without compromising preparation quality. We compared the use of 4 L of PEG-ELS with the use of 2 L plus a laxative., Methods: One hundred fifty consecutive patients (148 men) undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly selected for one of three preparations (Prep 1: 4 L PEG-ELS; Prep 2: 2 L PEG-ELS plus 296 mL magnesium citrate 1 hour prior; Prep 3: 2 L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl 20 mg). Endoscopists were blinded as to the type of preparation., Results: Colonoscopy times were 37, 33, and 29.5 minutes (p = 0.02). Satisfaction scores (0 to 11) during preparation were 2.75, 1.84, and 2.54 (p = 0.05). Preparation times were 519, 397, and 379 minutes (p < 0.001). Preparation satisfaction scores (0 to 10) were 6.2, 7.7, and 7.4 (p < 0.001). Endoscopists' scores of preparation quality (1 to 10) were 7.3, 7.8, and 8.1 (p = 0.03). Volumes of liquid stool aspirated were 181, 103, and 90 mL (p < 0.001). Twenty-four patients receiving Prep 2 and 16 receiving Prep 3 had previous colonoscopy using full volume PEG-ELS; 88% who received Prep 2 and 56% who received Prep 3 preferred the newer preparation (p = 0.006)., Conclusions: Two liters of PEG-ELS plus laxative improved preparation quality and patient satisfaction and reduced preparation time. Magnesium citrate pretreatment had fewer symptoms and was preferred to bisacodyl. PEG-ELS in 2 L quantities could reduce costs, and consideration should be given to making it available commercially.

Background: Several recent trials have shown that colonoscopy preparation with sodium phosphate solution is as effective and at least as well tolerated as conventional PEG-ES lavage. These trials utilized two 1.5-fluid oz doses, one given on the evening before colonoscopy and the other early the next morning., Methods: We devised a new sodium phosphate regimen in which the entire dose was given on the evening before examination (1.5 fl oz at 4 PM, 1.5-fl oz at 7 PM and 10 mg of bisacodyl at 10 PM) and performed a prospective, randomized trial that compared it with conventional PEG-ES lavage in terms of quality of colon cleansing, patient tolerance, and safety in an outpatient colonoscopy population with normal renal function. Seventy-two patients received sodium phosphate-bisacodyl and 75 PEG-ES lavage., Results: The overall quality of colon cleansing and frequency of unsatisfactory preparations were similar with both methods. Patients found preparation with sodium phosphate-bisacodyl to be easier than PEG-ES lavage (p = 0.005). No clinically important adverse effects were seen with either method of preparation. The average cost of sodium phosphate-bisacodyl was $4.32 per patient compared with $18.15 for PEG-ES lavage preparation., Conclusion: Preparation with sodium phosphate-bisacodyl, given on the evening before colonoscopy, is a well-tolerated, efficacious, and cost-effective alternative to conventional PEG-ES lavage.

Bisacodyl causes acute injury to the human rectal mucosa. Our objectives were to test whether pretreating the human rectum with an enema of 400 micrograms of a prostaglandin E1 analog (misoprostol) would ameliorate the mucosal injury provoked by an enema of 10 mg of bisacodyl, and to follow the evolution of the bisacodyl-induced injury in normal volunteers. Mucosal biopsies were taken 10 cm from the anus with an endoscopic forceps through a straight sigmoidoscope. Histological sections were interpreted blindly. In a preliminary experiment without bisacodyl, biopsies obtained from six subjects after misoprostol administration were indistinguishable from those taken from another six subjects after enemas of saline. In a parallel treatment experiment involving 30 subjects, all subjects sustained injury to the superficial epithelium and upper third of the crypt within 30 min after bisacodyl. Pretreatment with misoprostol also failed to prevent deeper injury to the lower third of colonic crypts. In a cross-over trial, a subset of four volunteers had biopsies at five different intervals after an enema of bisacodyl or saline. For up to 30 hours after bisacodyl, there was histological evidence of mild inflammation. Bisacodyl-induced colitis might confound the assessment of patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease.