Comparing Impacts of Different Bowel Cleansing Agents and Oral Probiotics After Cleansing On Symptom and Microbiota: a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background: Sodium sulfate-based purge has shown better quality of bowel preparation than polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a large retrospective study. However, its side effects and impact to gut microbiota have not been assessed. Besides, evidence from intestinal microecology that probiotics were beneficial to individuals who received bowel preparation is still lacking. The aims are to evaluate the side effects and microecological impact of two bowel cleansing agents (PEG and mirabilite), as well as the regulating effect of probiotics on microecosystem perturbed by bowel preparation.Results: Mirabilite preparation appeared superior to PEG preparation in terms of side effects, consumed time and volume of solutions. Quantitative PCR results showed that the recovery rate of total microbial load in mirabilite group was faster than that in PEG group. 16S rRNA sequencing showed that there were no significant differences in effects of two bowel cleansing agents on multiple microbiota diversity metrics. And both laxatives may affect the relative abundance of core microbiota until 28 days after bowel preparation. Probiotics supplementation was beneficial to recovery of perturbed microecosystem and the maintenance of homeostasis in the gut according to our results. Moreover, probiotics supplementation relieved abdominal symptoms and few individual events induced by bowel preparation during long-term follow-up.Conclusions: Mirabilite could be an optimal bowel cleansing agent for healthy people and can be applied broadly. Besides, probiotics are suggested to administrate after bowel cleansing as it brings multiple benefits in our study.

Identification of diverticular bleeding needs early colonoscopy rather than preparation

Background and study aims When patients present with acute colonic diverticulum bleeding (CDB), a colonoscopy is performed to identify stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH), but valuable time can be lost in bowel preparation. This study retrospectively examined groups of patients who either had a standard pre-colonoscopy regimen or no preparation. Patients and methods This study compared data from 433 patients who either followed a lengthy regimen of bowel preparation (prepared group, 266 patients) or had no preparation (unprepared group, 60 patients). We compared the association between time (hours) between admission before starting a colonoscopy (TMS) and identification of SRH using a chi-square test. Results In 48 of 60 cases (80.0 %) in the unprepared group, a total colonoscopy was performed and the time to identify SRH was decreased. The respective rates of SRH identification in the unprepared and prepared groups were 55.2 % (16/29) vs. 46.7 % (7/15) if the TMS was < 3 hours; 47.1 % (8/7) vs. 36.8 % (35/95) in 3 to 12 hours; 0 % (0/3) vs. 22.0% (13/59) in 12 to 18 hours; and 21.8 % (3/11) vs. 20.6% (42/204) in > 18 hours. There were no significant differences between the two groups. However, the SRH identification rates before and after 12 hours were 42.3 % (66/156) and 20.9 % (58/277) (P < 0.001). Conclusions Our data suggest that the bowel preparation method before colonoscopy is an independent variable predicting success in identifying SRH among patients with CDB. Decreasing the time before colonoscopy to no more than 12 hours after admission played an important role in identifying SRH.

Factors Affecting the Quality of Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy in Outpatient: A Prospective Observational Study

Colonoscopy is an effective method for screening colorectal cancer and adenoma, but the adenoma detection rate depends on the quality of bowel preparation. Our study investigates the influencing factors of the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy in outpatients and the influence of the number of walking steps on the quality of bowel preparation. We prospectively collected the clinical data of 150 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy in our department in 2019. Ordinal logistic regression shows that the overweight, not drinking, the number of walking steps before colonoscopy, and the time interval between start PEG and colonoscopy (4–6 hours) were independent factors affecting bowel preparation quality. There was a curving relationship between the reciprocal of Ottawa score and the number of walking steps before colonoscopy, and the regression equation is 1/ Ottawa score = −0.198 + 0.062 × ln steps ( p = .035), a minimum of 5,270 walking steps before a colonoscopy is required for a high quality of bowel preparation.

Validation and Application of Predictive Models for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopies in a Tertiary Hospital Population

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery). <b><i>Results:</i></b> We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibacterials in the prevention of complications of surgery for rectal and rectosigmoid junction cancer

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) combined with oral antibacterials for the prevention of postoperative complications when preparing a patient for anterior rectal resection.Materials and methods: We analyzed shortterm results in 77 patients who had undergone anterior rectal resection for rectal and rectosigmoid junction cancer. Forty five (45) patients were prepared for surgery only with MBP. In 32 patients, in addition to MBP, oral antibacterial agents ciprofloxacin and metronidazole were used preoperatively.Results: The overall rate of postoperative complications was 6.25% (2/32 patients) in the group of combined preparation for surgery and 15.5% (7/45) in the group using only MBP. Surgical wound infection occurred in 1 patient in the combined preparation group and in 4 patients in the MBP only group. There was no anastomotic leak in the combined preparation group, whereas in the MBP only group, anastomotic leak occurred in 2 patients.Conclusion: Combined use of oral antibacterials and MBP before anterior rectal resection makes it possible to achieve an extremely low rate of the colorectal anastomosis leak. Further studies into the efficacy of this preparation regimen are needed, along with their discussion in the professional communities.

Applicability of colon capsule endoscopy as pan-endoscopy: From bowel preparation, transit, and rating times to completion rate and patient acceptance

Background and study aims Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has the potential to explore the entire gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of CCE as pan-endoscopy. Patients and methods Healthy participants received CCE with bowel preparation (bisacodyl, polyethylene electrolyte glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid) and booster regimen (metoclopramide, oral sulfate solution (OSS)). For each segment of the gastrointestinal tract, the following quality parameters were assessed: cleanliness, transit times, reading times, patient acceptance and safety of the procedure. When all gastrointestinal segments had cleansing score good or excellent, cleanliness of the whole gastrointestinal tract was assessed as good. Participants’ expected and perceived burden was assessed by questionnaires and participants were asked to grade the procedure (scale 0–10). All serious adverse events (SAEs) were documented. Results A total of 451 CCE procedures were analyzed. A good cleansing score was achieved in the stomach in 69.6%, in the SB in 99.1 % and in the colon in 76.6 %. Cleanliness of the whole gastrointestinal tract was good in 52.8 % of the participants. CCE median transit time of the whole gastrointestinal tract was 583 minutes IQR 303–659). The capsule reached the descending colon in 94.7 %. Median reading time per procedure was 70 minutes (IQR 57–83). Participants graded the procedure with a 7.8. There were no procedure-related SAEs. Conclusions CCE as pan-endoscopy has shown to be a safe procedure with good patient acceptance. When cleanliness of all gastrointestinal segments per patient, completion rate and reading time will be improved, CCE can be applied as a good non-invasive alternative to evaluate the gastrointestinal tract.