Search

Background: Cecal intubation is essential during colonoscopy, and observation of the terminal ileum is performed in most clinical practices. However, data on terminal ileal (TI) ulcers observed incidentally during colonoscopy are rare., Aim: We aimed to identify the characteristics and clinical course of TI ulcers observed incidentally during colonoscopy., Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2018, medical records from multi-centers reporting asymptomatic subjects who underwent biopsy on TI ulcers during colonoscopy were retrospectively reviewed. The characteristics of endoscopic findings and clinical course of TI ulcers were analyzed, and the factors affecting the clinical course of TI ulcers were evaluated., Results: The median follow-up durations from first to second colonoscopy and from second to third colonoscopy were 20 months (interquartile range, 12-36) and 24 months (interquartile range, 12-34), respectively. A total of 134 subjects were included in the analysis. The histopathologic findings of TI ulcers were mostly chronic or active ileitis/inflammation (92.7%). On the second colonoscopy, 59 (44.0%) patients had no ulcers, 38 (28.4%) showed a decrease in size or number, and 37 (27.6%) patients showed no change in ulcers. Among 62 subjects who underwent a third colonoscopy, 14 (10.4%) had decreased size or number, 10 (7.5%) had no ulcer change, and two (1.5%) had increased ulcer size or number. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, a star shape was the only factor affecting continuation without improvement of incidental TI ulcers., Conclusions: Most TI ulcers observed incidentally showed no unusual findings on biopsy and improved on follow-up colonoscopy without treatment., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Background/aims: Old age is a risk factor of suboptimal bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) before they underwent a colonoscopy., Materials and Methods: This prospective investigator-blinded randomized study was conducted from November 2017 to October 2018. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups, a mosapride group (mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid) or a non-mosapride group (a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid alone). Mosapride citrate 15 mg (Gastin CR) was administered once with each split-dose of the bowel preparation. The bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS)., Results: A total of 257 patients were finally included and analyzed in our study. The total BBPS score was significantly higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (8.53 vs 8.24, P = .033). The BBPS scores of the right colon and mid-colon were 2.75 vs 2.61 (P = .044) and 2.89 vs 2.79 (P = .030), respectively. The rate of adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) was similar in both groups (98.4% vs 98.5%, P = .968), while the rate of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS = 9) was higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (73.8% vs 61.1%, P = .029). The total incidence of adverse events during the administration of the bowel cleansing agent, particularly abdominal fullness, was lower in the mosapride group (11.9% vs 30.5%, P < .001)., Conclusion: The administration of mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid in elderly patients showed an increase in bowel preparation efficacy and reduced adverse events, particularly abdominal fullness, during the administration of a bowel cleansing agent.

Background/aims: The use of a low-volume bowel cleansing agent is associated with a greater willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopy. Oral sulfate solution (OSS) is a recently approved low-volume agent; however, its efficacy and safety in the elderly population remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of the OSS preparation, in comparison to those of a standard polyethylene glycol (PEG; 4 L) preparation, in elderly patients., Methods: A multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded study was conducted. Participants were randomized to receive OSS or 4-L PEG with a split-dose regimen. Bowel cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Acceptance, satisfaction, and preparation-related symptoms were recorded. Additionally, blood parameters were analyzed for electrolyte abnormalities and nephrotoxicity., Results: A total of 193 patients were analyzed. No group differences in overall bowel cleansing efficacy were observed, with "adequate"preparations achieved in 95.9% (93/97) and 94.8% (91/96) of patients in the OSS and 4L PEG groups, respectively (p=0.747). However, mean BBPS scores for the entire (p=0.010) and right colon (p=0.001) were significantly higher in the OSS group than in the 4-L PEG group. The severity of clinical adverse events and frequency of acute kidney injury were similarly low, and no clinically meaningful electrolyte changes were identified. Self-reported scores regarding amount (p<0.001) and feeling (p=0.007), as well as overall satisfaction (p=0.001) and willingness to repeat the preparation (92.8% vs 67.7%, p<0.001), were significantly better in the OSS group than in the 4-L PEG group., Conclusions: In elderly individuals, OSS with a split-dose regimen has greater acceptability and comparable efficacy in bowel cleansing compared to 4-L PEG. (Clinical trials registration number: NCT03112967).

Objectives: Surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after polypectomy because adenoma recurrence is common. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictors of high-risk adenoma occurrence at surveillance colonoscopy in patients who undergo colorectal adenoma removal and to clarify the association between age and recurrent colorectal adenoma., Methods: This retrospective study included 563 patients who had colorectal adenomas at baseline colonoscopy and who underwent surveillance colonoscopy. The risk factors for recurrent adenoma were evaluated and the 5-year cumulative incidence rates of overall and high-risk adenoma were compared according to age group., Results: During a mean follow-up period of 3.1 years, 305 (54.2%) patients had overall adenoma recurrence, and 80 (14.2%) patients had high-risk adenoma at surveillance colonoscopy. In a multivariate analysis, old age (≥60 years) and presence of multiple adenomas (3 or more) were significantly associated with high-risk adenoma (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006 respectively). The 5-year cumulative incidence rates of high-risk adenoma were 7.4, 16.7, and 24.1% in the < 50, 50-59, and ≥60 years group respectively (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Old age (≥60 years) and presence of multiple adenomas (3 or more) were strongly associated with the occurrence of high-risk adenoma at surveillance colonoscopy. The 5-year cumulative incidence of high-grade adenoma was significantly high in the old age group., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background and Aim: The role of screening or diagnostic colonoscopy to detect advanced neoplasia in young cohorts of age < 50 is unclear. This study compared the risk of colorectal neoplasia in a young age cohort against that in 50-54s screening cohort., Methods: A multi-center retrospective study was conducted at 14 university hospitals to compare the detection rates of neoplasia and advanced neoplasia in screening or diagnostic colonoscopy in the young cohort of < 50s against those in screening colonoscopy in the 50-54s cohort., Results: Among 10 477 eligible subjects, 9765 subjects were enrolled after excluding 712 subjects. Advanced neoplasia detection rates in the young screening cohort was significantly lower than that in the 50-54s screening cohort (5.9% vs 9.3%, P < 0.001). Compared with 50-54s screening cohort, the risk of advanced neoplasia was significantly reduced by 23%, 53%, and 54% in the 45-49s, 40-44s, and 20-39s screening cohorts, respectively. The detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the young diagnostic cohort was 5.0%, which was much lower than 11.8% in 50-54s screening cohort (P < 0.001). Compared with the 50-54s screening cohort, the risk of advanced neoplasia was significantly reduced by 50%, 66%, and 71% in the 45-49s, 40-44s, and 20-39s diagnostic cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: Colonoscopy to detect advanced neoplasia in young adults aged < 50 years should be reconsidered as their risk of advanced neoplasia on screening or diagnostic colonoscopy was much lower than those of 50-54s screening cohort; however, colonoscopy screening may be justified for high-risk 45-49s cohorts., (© 2017 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Goals and Background: Colonoscopy with consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopy (CCEGD) can be more convenient than performing each procedure individually. There has been no randomized controlled trial comparing carbon dioxide (CO2) versus air insufflations during CCEGD in sedated patients. CO2 insufflation instead of air during CCEGD may reduce abdominal pain and be more comfortable. We investigated the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation during CCEGD in moderately sedated outpatients., Study: This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. A total of 96 outpatients were randomly assigned to the groups of CO2 or air insufflation. Postprocedure pain was assessed using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale, and the proportion of pain-free patients was compared between the groups. Waist circumferences and end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) were measured., Results: Among 96 patients, cecal intubation failed in 2 patients, who were excluded from the analysis. Forty-eight patients in the CO2 and 46 patients in the air group completed the study. There was significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the proportion of pain-free patients 30 minutes after the procedures [air group, 35/46 (76.1%) vs. CO2 group, 44/48 (91.6%)] (P=0.03). However, there was no significant difference in the proportion at 6 and 24 hours after the procedures. The mean increase in waist circumference was greater with air than with CO2 (1.54 vs. 0.18 cm, P<0.001). The ETCO2 measured immediately after the procedures was slightly higher in the CO2 group than in the air group (38.6 vs. 37.2 mm Hg, P=0.02), but the values were within the normal range. No significant adverse events occurred., Conclusions: CO2 insufflation during CCEGD reduced postprocedural pain and distension compared with air. It was comfortable and safe to use in moderately sedated outpatients.

Background/aims: Split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a standard bowel preparation regimen for colonoscopy, but the large volume is burdensome to ingest and the night dose causes sleep disturbance. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a bowel preparation protocol using low-volume morning-only PEG with specially designed low-residue test meals (LV-PEG with TM) compared to a standard-volume split-dose PEG bowel preparation with a standard diet (SV-PEG with SD)., Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority study. The primary end point was bowel preparation quality according to the Ottawa scale. Tolerability, compliance, adverse events, sleep quality and polyp/adenoma detection were also assessed., Results: Among 197 patients analyzed (mean age 54.6 years, 51.3% men), 97 received LV-PEG with TM and 100 received SV-PEG with SD. The Ottawa score for the total colon was 3.76 ± 2.07 in the LV-PEG with TM group and 3.67 ± 1.57 in the SV-PEG with SD group (p = 0.723; difference 0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.60 to 0.42). The compliance was high (more than 95%) in both groups (p = 0.621). PEG was easier to ingest for patients in the LV-PEG with TM group compared to the SV-PEG with SD group [visual analogue scale (VAS) for difficulty: 4.64 ± 2.46 vs. 5.97 ± 2.42, respectively; p < 0.001]. Diet instructions were also easier to comply with for patients in the LV-PEG with TM group compared to the SV-PEG with SD group (VAS for difficulty: 3.11 ± 2.25 vs. 4.00 ± 2.39, respectively; p = 0.008). Patients in the LV-PEG with TM group had a lower incidence of abdominal bloating (p = 0.012) and better sleep quality (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups regarding polyp and adenoma detection., Conclusions: LV-PEG with TM and SV-PEG with SD have similar efficacy with regard to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. LV-PEG with TM provided easier PEG intake and diet compliance, less abdominal bloating and better sleep quality than SV-PEG with SD., (Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Several factors influence bowel preparation quality. Recent studies have indicated that the time interval between bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy is also important in determining bowel preparation quality., Objective: To evaluate the influence of the preparation-to-colonoscopy (PC) interval (the interval of time between the last polyethylene glycol dose ingestion and the start of the colonoscopy) on bowel preparation quality in the split-dose method for colonoscopy., Design: Prospective observational study., Setting: University medical center., Patients: A total of 366 consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy., Intervention: Split-dose bowel preparation and colonoscopy., Main Outcome Measurements: The quality of bowel preparation was assessed by using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale according to the PC interval, and other factors that might influence bowel preparation quality were analyzed., Results: Colonoscopies with a PC interval of 3 to 5 hours had the best bowel preparation quality score in the whole, right, mid, and rectosigmoid colon according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. In multivariate analysis, the PC interval (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI, 1.18-2.86), the amount of PEG ingested (OR 4.34; 95% CI, 1.08-16.66), and compliance with diet instructions (OR 2.22l 95% CI, 1.33-3.70) were significant contributors to satisfactory bowel preparation., Limitations: Nonrandomized controlled, single-center trial., Conclusions: The optimal time interval between the last dose of the agent and the start of colonoscopy is one of the important factors to determine satisfactory bowel preparation quality in split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aims: Currently, a split-dose of polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the mainstay of bowel preparation due to its tolerability, bowel-cleansing action, and safety. However, bowel preparation with PEG is suboptimal because residual fluid reduces the polyp detection rate and requires a more thorough colon inspection. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the efficacy of a sufficient dose of prokinetics on bowel cleansing together with split-dose PEG., Methods: A prospective endoscopist-blinded study was conducted. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: prokinetic with split-dose PEG or split-dose PEG alone. A prokinetic [100 mg itopride (Itomed)], was administered twice simultaneously with each split-dose of PEG. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was measured by endoscopists using the Ottawa scale and the segmental fluidity scale score. Each participant completed a bowel preparation survey. Mean scores from the Ottawa scale, segmental fluid scale, and rate of poor preparation were compared between both groups., Results: Patients in the prokinetics with split-dose PEG group showed significantly lower total Ottawa and segmental fluid scores compared with patients in the split-dose of PEG alone group., Conclusion: A sufficient dose of prokinetics with a split-dose of PEG showed efficacy in bowel cleansing for morning colonoscopy, largely due to the reduction in colonic fluid., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background and Aims: Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for a high-quality, effective, and safe colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of split-dose polyethylene glycol with aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatients who underwent scheduled colonoscopy., Methods: In this prospective trial, 207 outpatients (aged between 18 and 65 years, with normal renal function, at low risk for renal damage) were randomized to receive split-dose preparation of PEG (2 L/2 L) (N = 103) or NaP (45 mL/45 mL, 12 h apart) (N = 104) without strict diet restriction the day before colonoscopy. The bowel cleansing efficacy of preparations was rated according to the Ottawa scale and the patient tolerability was assessed using a patient questionnaire., Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups for the mean total score using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (P = 0.181). Significantly greater residual colonic fluid was observed in the split-dose PEG group (1.24 ± 0.49) than in the NaP group (1.04 ± 0.53) (P = 0.007). Patient compliance, preference, and acceptance of a two preparation regimen were similar with no significant differences (P = 0.095, P = 0.280 and P = 0.408, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the split-dose PEG group tended to have fewer adverse events (52/103 [50.5%], 66/104 [63.5%], P = 0.059) and had significantly less nausea and vomiting (P = 0.036)., Conclusions: Split-dose PEG, compared with split-dose NaP, is associated with more residual colonic fluid, but produces equivalent colon cleansing efficacy and results in less nausea and vomiting, which might improve patient tolerability (clinical trial registration number NCT01229800).

Background/Aims. The preparation-to-colonoscopy (PC) interval is one of several important factors for the bowel preparation. Short message service (SMS) reminder from a cellular phone has been suggested to improve compliance in various medical situations. We evaluated the effectiveness of SMS reminders to assure the PC interval for colonoscopy. Methodology. This prospective randomized study was investigator blinded. In the No-SMS group, patients took the first 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) between 6 and 8 PM on the day before colonoscopy and the second 2 L PEG approximately 6 hours before the colonoscopy without SMS. In the SMS group, patients took first 2 L PEG in the same manner as the No-SMS group and the second 2 L PEG after receiving an SMS 6 hours before the colonoscopy. Results. The SMS group had a lower score than the No-SMS group, according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that compliance with diet instructions (odds ratio (OR) 2.109; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–3.99, P=0.022) and intervention using SMS ((OR) 2.329; 95% (CI), 1.34–4.02, P=0.002) were the independent significant factors for satisfactory bowel preparation. Conclusions. An SMS reminder to assure PC interval improved the bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy with bowel preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]