Assessment of tolerance and acceptability between mannitol solution and polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a three-center study / Evaluación de tolerancia y aceptabilidad entre la solución de manitol y el polietilenglicol como preparación intestinal para la colonoscopía: un estudio de tres centros

ABSTRACT Introduction: Adequate bowel preparation is one of the most important factors related to the yield of colonoscopy. Low quality bowel preparation has been associated with lower adenoma detection rates and increased healthcare expenses. Bowel preparation is a major impediment to undergo colonoscopy since it is perceived as an unpleasant experience by patients. Objective: This study was aimed to assess tolerance and acceptability of the bowel preparation using either polyethylene glycol (PEG) or mannitol solution. Materials and methods: We enrolled 140 patients with indications of screening for colorectal cancer or with suspected large bowel diseases. They received either mannitol solution or PEG as bowel preparation. Patients were asked to fill a questionnaire about the bowel preparation experience. Results: Patients perceived more burdensome the preparation with PEG than mannitol for the variables nausea overall experience, post-procedure discomfort, disagreeable flavor, volume ingested and cost (p<0.05). A similar tolerance was reported for abdominal pain, bloating and anal irritation (p>0.05). The acceptability was 82.9% and 71.4% in the Mannitol group and in the PEG group, respectively (p=0.10). Conclusion: Acceptance of the bowel preparation between mannitol solution and PEG was comparable. However, mannitol was better tolerated by the patients in regard to most of the evaluated items.

RESUMEN Introducción: La preparación intestinal adecuada es uno de los factores más importantes relacionados con el rendimiento de la colonoscopía. La preparación intestinal de baja calidad se ha asociado con tasas de detección de adenoma más bajas y mayores gastos de atención sanitaria. La preparación intestinal es un impedimento importante para someterse a una colonoscopía, ya que los pacientes la perciben como una experiencia desagradable. Objetivo: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la tolerancia y la aceptabilidad de la preparación intestinal utilizando polietilenglicol (PEG) o solución de manitol. Materiales y métodos: Fueron incluidos 140 pacientes con indicación de pesquisa de cáncer colorrectal o con sospecha de enfermedades del intestino grueso. Los pacientes recibieron solución de manitol o PEG como preparación intestinal. Se pidió a los pacientes que completaran un cuestionario sobre la experiencia de preparación intestinal. Resultados: Los pacientes percibieron más agobiante la preparación con PEG que el manitol para las variables náuseas, experiencia general, molestias posteriores al procedimiento, sabor desagradable, volumen ingerido y costo (p<0,05). Se informó una tolerancia similar para el dolor abdominal, distensión abdominal e irritación anal (p>0,05). La aceptabilidad fue de 82,9% y 71,4% en el grupo de manitol y en el grupo de PEG, respectivamente (p=0,10). Conclusión: La aceptación de la preparación intestinal entre la solución de manitol y el PEG fue comparable. Sin embargo, el manitol fue mejor tolerado por los pacientes con respecto a la mayoría de las variables evaluadas.

Eficacia y tolerabilidad de la reducción del volumen de polietilenglicol para la preparación para colonoscopia / Effectiveness and tolerability of low volume bowel cleansing polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy

Background: A successful colonoscopy depends, among other factors, on a proper colon cleansing. This variable also affects the acceptance of the patient to carry out the study. Aim: To analyze the efficacy and tolerability of a low volume polyethylene glycol formulation (2 liters), compared to the conventional presentation of 4 liters. Material and Methods: Patients referred for a colonoscopy were randomly divided to receive either two or four liter of polyethylene glycol as bowel cleansing, which was assessed using the Boston score. Raters of the latter were blinded to the volume of polyethylene glycol that the patients used. Results: Seventy-four patients participated in the study. Subjects who received a 4 liters preparation had an average Boston score of 7.78, versus 8.16 for patients who received a volume of 2 liters (p = 0.267). No significant differences in tolerability were observed between both groups. No significant differences in the efficacy and tolerability between a conventional or a reduced volume of polyethylene glycol solution for the preparation of a colonoscopy were observed. These findings may be especially important for subgroups of patients with difficulties for oral administration of fluids.

Efficacy of low residue enteral formula versus clear liquid diet during bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomised controlled pilot trial / Eficácia da fórmula enteral pobre em resíduo versus dieta líquida clara durante o preparo intestinal para colonoscopia: um estudo piloto controlado e randomizado

ABSTRACT Objectives: Conventional bowel preparation for colonoscopy confines patient to clear liquid diet the day before and such non-nutritive dietary regimen often caused discomfort and hunger. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of feeding patient with low-residue, lactose-free semi-elemental enteral formula (PEPTAMEN®) compare to conventional clear liquid diet during bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Methods: This was a randomised, endoscopist-blinded study. Patients were randomised into two groups, those receiving oral PEPTAMEN® and mechanical bowel preparation (A) and those receiving clear liquid while undergoing mechanical bowel preparation (B). Documentation was made with regard to the type of bowel cleansing agents used, completeness of the colonoscopy, cleanliness quality score, and hunger score. Results: A total of 97 patients were included in the study, A = 48 and B = 49. Eight patients, who were not compliant to the bowel-cleansing agent or had an incomplete colonoscopic examination, were excluded from the study. In terms of the overall cleanliness score, no statistical significant difference was seen (p = 0.25) between the two groups, A (fair or poor 37.5%, good or excellent 62.5%) and B (fair or poor 49%, good or excellent 51%) whereas the hunger score showed a significant difference (p = 0.016), A (no hunger 41.7%, slight hunger 12.5%, hungry 12.5%) and B (no hunger 24.5%, slight hunger 38.8%, hungry 36.7%). Conclusions: These data suggest that the addition of oral PEPTAMEN® as part of the bowel preparation regimen did not significantly alter the luminal cleanliness score during colonoscopy while alleviating hunger.

RESUMO Objetivo: A preparação intestinal convencional para a colonoscopia confina o paciente à dieta líquida clara no dia anterior; esse regime dietético não nutritivo frequentemente causa desconforto e fome. O presente estudo teve como objetivo determinar a viabilidade de alimentar o paciente com fórmula enteral semielementar sem lactose e pobre em resíduos (PEPTAMEN®) em comparação com a dieta líquida clara convencional no preparo intestinal para colonoscopia. Métodos: Este foi um estudo randomizado no qual o endoscopista foi cego quanto ao tipo de preparo. Os pacientes foram randomizados em dois grupos: aqueles que receberam PEPTAMEN® oral e preparo intestinal mecânico (A) e aqueles que receberam dieta líquida clara e preparo intestinal mecânico (B). Os pacientes foram avaliados quanto ao tipo de agente de limpeza intestinal utilizado, a completude da colonoscopia, o escore de qualidade de limpeza e o escore de fome. Resultados: Um total de 97 pacientes foram incluídos no estudo, 48 no grupo A e 49 no grupo B. Oito pacientes foram excluídos por não aderirem ao agente de limpeza intestinal ou apresentarem um exame incompleto de colonoscopia. Quanto ao escore geral de limpeza, não se observou diferença estatisticamente significativa (p = 0,25) entre os grupos A (resultado regular ou ruim, 37,5%; bom ou excelente, 62,5%) e B (resultado regular ou ruim, 49%; bom ou excelente, 51%). Por outro lado, o escore de fome apresentou diferença significativa (p = 0,016) entre os grupos A (sem fome, 41,7%; fome leve, 12,5%; fome, 12,5%) e B (sem fome, 24,5%; fome leve, 38,8%; fome, 36,7%). Conclusões: Os dados sugerem que a adição de PEPTAMEN® oral como parte do regime de preparo intestinal não altera significativamente o escore de limpeza luminal durante a colonoscopia, mas alivia a fome.

New bowel preparation technique for colonoscopy: clinical trial comparing aquanet and mannitol / Nova técnica de preparo intestinal para colonoscopia: estudo clínico comparativo entre aquanet e manitol

ABSTRACT Background: Fifty-five percent of Americans aged 50-65 are submitted to colonoscopy. For over 65-year, this number increases to 64%. In Brazil, it is forecast that the population submitted to colonoscopy will grow, even though inadequate preparation is still a major problem. Aim: To analyze the quality of a new intestinal preparation technique, Aquanet EC-2000®, compared to oral Mannitol solution. Methods: This prospective longitudinal study enrolled 200 patients with indication for colonoscopy. The sample was randomly allocated to two groups of 100; one group received Aquanet EC-2000® to prepare for colonoscopy and the other Mannitol solution. The Boston scale was used to analyze the results. Results: As expected both preparations produced similar results with the bowel cleansing of the different regions of the colon being classified as Boston scale 3 (excellent) in most patients (p>0.05). Conclusion: The results of bowel preparation using Aquanet EC-2000® were similar to using Mannitol solution.

RESUMO Racional: Cinquenta e cinco por cento dos norte-americanos entre 50-65 anos fazem colonoscopia. Acima de 65 anos o número foi de 64%. No Brasil, estima-se crescente aumento da população submetida à colonoscopia, apesar da preparação inadequada ainda ser um grande problema. Objetivo: Analisar e comparar a qualidade do novo método de preparo intestinal por meio do Aquanet EC-2000® frente ao uso de solução oral de Manitol. Método: Por randomização 200 pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos de 100. Um recebeu Aquanet EC-2000® e o outro Manitol. O presente estudo seguiu modelo prospectivo longitudinal por meio da seleção de 200 pacientes com indicação à colonoscopia, formando dois grupos de 100. Para analisar os resultados foi utilizada a escala de Boston. Resultados: Ambos os preparos foram estatisticamente significativos com p<0,05. A escala 3 de Boston foi a mais frequente para ambos os métodos.Além disso, na estatística aplicada às diferentes regiões do cólon para ambos os procedimentos as proporções observadas concordaram com o esperado (3-excelente). Conclusão: Os resultados do preparo intestinal utilizando Aquanet EC-2000® foram semelhantes aos do Manitol.

Evaluación comparativa de efectividad y tolerabilidad con polietilenglicol y picosulfato de sodio-citrato de magnesio como agentes de preparación intestinal para colonoscopia / Comparative evaluation of effectiveness and tolerability with polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate as intestinal preparation agents for colonoscopy

Resumen Introducción La efectividad de la colonoscopia depende de múltiples factores, destacando la calidad de preparación intestinal y la tolerabilidad que tenga el paciente a la preparación administrada. Objetivo Comparar dos agentes de preparación intestinal, el polietilenglicol (PEG) y el picosulfato de sodiocitrato de magnesio (PSCM) en términos de efectividad y tolerabilidad de la preparación. Pacientes y Método Ensayo clínico aleatorizado en pacientes ambulatorios sometidos a colonoscopia en Clínica INDISA. Evaluando efectividad y tolerabilidad con el Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) y cuestionario de Lawrence [compuesto por escala Likert, dos preguntas cualitativas y escala visual análoga (EVA)], respectivamente. Resultados 189 pacientes, de los cuales 123 se aleatorizaron a PEG y 66 a PSCM. El BBPS en los pacientes que utilizaron PEG, la media fue 7,51 (DS 1,66) y con PSCM fue 7,12 (DS 1,71) (p = 0,111). Al analizar la tolerabilidad con escala Likert, la media con PEG fue 0,94 (DS 0,68) y con PSCM fue 0,63 (DS 0,61) (p = 0,0004). La EVA con PEG tuvo una media de 7,68 (DS 2,4) y con PSCM de 9,04 (DS 1,59) (p < 0,0001). Al preguntar ausentismo laboral, no hubo diferencias significativas en ambos grupos y al preguntar si ocuparía la misma preparación en una futura colonoscopia, hubo significancia estadística a favor del PSCM (p = 0,026). Conclusión No encontramos diferencias en la efectividad de preparación intestinal al comparar PEG y PSCM, sin embargo, el PSCM es mejor tolerado.

Introduction The effectiveness of colonoscopy depends on multiple factors, being two of the most important ones an adequate bowel preparation and the patient's tolerability to the preparation. Objectives Compare effectiveness and tolerability of two bowel preparation agents, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC). Patients and Methods Randomized clinical trial on outpatients that went into colonoscopy in INDISA Clinic. We evaluated effectiveness and tolerability with Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) and Lawrence questionnaire [composed by Likert scale, two qualitative questions and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain], respectively. Results 189 patients, 123 were randomized to PEG and 66 to SPMC. BBPS average in patients in the PEG branch was 7.51 (SD 1.66) and for SPMC 7.12 (SD 1.71) (p = 0.111). Likert scale for evaluating tolerability average for PEG was 0.94 (SD 0.68) and for SPMC 0.63 (SD 0.61) (p = 0.0004). VAS scale for PEG had an average of 7.68 (SD 2.4) and for PSCM 9.04 (SD 1.59) (p < 0.0001). When we asked for workplace absenteeism, there were no significant differences between both groups and when we asked about using the same intestinal preparation in a future colonoscopy there was statistical significance in favor to SPMC (p = 0.026). Conclusions No differences were noted on effectiveness between the PEG and SPMC bowel preparations. Nevertheless, SPMC appeared to be better tolerated by patients.

Tolerancia, seguridad y eficacia de la preparación intestinal con un día de PEG3350 + bisacodilo en comparación con 2 días de PEG3350 + bisacodilo en pacientes pediátricos / Tolerance, safety and efficacy of the one-day preparation of PEG3350 + bisacodyl compared to 2 days of PEG3350 + bisacodyl in pediatric patients

Resumen: Introducción: Múltiples preparaciones intestinales se han utilizado en niños sometidos a una colonoscopia, con limitación variable debido a la aceptación, tolerancia y la limpieza adecuada. El objetivo del estudio fue comparar la tolerancia seguridad y eficacia de la preparación intestinal para colonoscopia de 1 día con PEG 3350 (polietilenglicol) (4 g/kg/día) + bisacodilo y el tratamiento con 2 días de preparación con PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/día) + bisacodilo en pacientes pediátricos. Métodos: Se realizó un ensayo clínico, aleatorizado y ciego. Se incluyeron pacientes de 2 a 18 años, que ameritaron colonoscopia en forma programada. Los pacientes se asignaron de manera aleatoria en dos grupos: 1 día de preparación con PEG 3350 4 g/kg/día + bisacodilo y 2 días de preparación con PEG 3350 2 g/kg/día + bisacodilo. Por medio de un cuestionario, exploración física y valoración endoscópica (escala de Boston), se determinó la tolerancia, seguridad y eficacia de las 2 preparaciones a evaluar. Se realizó una prueba t de Student para variables cuantitativas y χ2 para variables cualitativas. Resultados: No hubo diferencias significativas en las tasas de cumplimiento, los efectos adversos y la extensión de la evaluación colonoscópica. Conclusiones: La tolerancia y seguridad entre la preparación intestinal para colonoscopia de 1 día con PEG 3350 (polietilenglicol) (4 g/kg/día) + bisacodilo y la preparación de 2 días con PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/día) + bisacodilo fue semejante. La calidad de la limpieza fue buena en ambos grupos, siendo parcialmente más eficaz en el grupo de 1 día con PEG 3350 (polietilenglicol) (4 g/kg/día).

Abstract: Background: Multiple intestinal preparations have been used in children undergoing colonoscopy, with variable limitation due to acceptance, tolerance, and proper cleaning. The objective of this study was to compare the tolerability, safety and efficacy of the colonoscopy preparation with 1 day with PEG 3350 (poliethylenglycol) (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl compared to 2 days of preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl in pediatric patients. Methods: A clinical, randomized, and blind trial was performed. Patients aged 2 to 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy were included. Patients were randomized into two groups: 1 day of preparation with PEG 3350 4 g/kg/day + bisacodyl and 2 days of preparation with PEG 3350 2 g/kg/day + bisacodyl. Through a questionnaire, physical examination and endoscopic evaluation (Boston scale), the tolerance, safety and efficacy of the 2 preparations to be evaluated were determined. Student's t test was performed for quantitative variables and χ2 for qualitative variables. Results: There were no significant differences in compliance rates, adverse effects, and extent of colonoscopic evaluation. Conclusions: Tolerance and safety between the intestinal preparation for 1-day colonoscopy with PEG 3350 (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl and the 2-day preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl were similar. The quality of cleanliness was good in both groups, being partially more effective in the 1-day group with PEG 3350 (4 g/kg/day).

Limpieza intestinal para colonoscopia en niños: efectividad, adherencia y efectos adversos de esquemas diferenciados por edad / Intestinal cleaning for colonoscopy in children: effectiveness, adherence and adverse effects of schemes differentiated by age

La adecuada limpieza intestinal (LI) es fundamental para lograr el máximo rendimiento diagnóstico durante una colonoscopia. Existen diversos esquemas de LI, y en pediatría aún no hay consenso respecto al más adecuado. OBJETIVO: Describir la efectividad, adherencia y efectos adversos de protocolos de LI diferenciados por edad en pacientes pediátricos sometidos a colonoscopia. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Estudio descriptivo que incluyó pacientes < 18 años sometidos a colonoscopia. Se aplicaron esquemas de LI diferenciados por edad: < 6 meses (supositorio de glicerina); 6 meses-3 años, 11 meses (polietilenglicol [PEG] 3.350 sin electrolitos); 4 años-9 años, 11 meses (PEG 3.350 sin electrolitos + bisacodilo); 10 años-18 años (PEG 3.350 con electrolitos). Se registraron datos demográficos, clínicos, adherencia y efectos adversos. La efectividad fue determinada durante colonoscopia de acuerdo con la escala previamente validada (Boston modificada). RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 159 pacientes, de los cuales 87 fueron varones (55%), mediana de edad de 4 años (rango un mes-17 años). Se logró LI exitosa en el 78% de los pacientes. La mayor efectividad se alcanzó en < 6 meses (96%) y 10-18 años (91%). El grupo de 4 años-9 años, 11 meses, que evidenció menor efectividad (69%) tuvo mayor proporción de estreñimiento previo (29%). Se obtuvo buena adherencia en el 87% de los pacientes. Se observaron efectos adversos en un tercio de los pacientes (especialmente en el grupo 10-18 años), que fueron leves y no determinaron la suspensión del medicamento. CONCLUSIONES: Con los esquemas de preparación utilizados se lograron resultados satisfactorios, obteniendo LI exitosa en 4 de cada 5 pacientes. Los resultados difirieron entre grupos, lo que podría deberse, al menos en parte, al protocolo utilizado y al hábito intestinal previo.

Adequate intestinal cleanliness is crucial to achieve optimal colonoscopy performance. Several bowel preparation (BP) schemes have been proposed, but there is still no consensus as regards which is the most suitable in paediatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness, adherence, and adverse effects of BP protocols differentiated by age group in paediatric patients subjected to colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Prospective, study that included patients < 18 years subjected to colonoscopy. BP protocols differentiated by age group were indicated as follows: < 6 m (glycerine suppository); 6 m-3y 11 m (poly-ethylene-glycol (PEG 3350 without electrolytes); 4y-9y 11 m (PEG 3350 without electrolytes + bisacodyl); 10 y-18 y (PEG 3350 with electrolytes). Demographic, clinical information, adherence and adverse effects were registered. Effectiveness was determined using a validated scale (Boston modified) during colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included, of which 87 (55%) were males, and with a median age of 4 years (range 1 m-17 years). Seventy eight percent of patients achieved successful BP. The higher effectiveness was observed in the groups of < 6 m (96%) and 10-18 y (91%). Constipation was significantly more frequent (29%) in the 4 yo-9 yo 11 m in which lower effectiveness was observed (69%). Good adherence was observed in 87% of patients. Adverse effects were observed in a third of patients, although they were mild and did not lead to the suspension of the BP. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory results were achieved with the BP schemes used, with a successful BP being obtained in 4 out of 5 patients. Results were different between groups, which is probably related to previous bowel transit and indicated medication.

Estudio comparativo entre el uso de manitol y el picosulfato sódico como preparación para colonoscopía / Comparison of colon-cleansing methods in preparation for colonoscopy- comparative of solutions of mannitol and sodium picosulfate

Objetivos: El objetivo del presente estudio es comparar la preparación adecuada del colon con manitol y picosulfato sódico. Evaluar la aceptación de los pacientes, los efectos secundarios y la capacidad de limpieza. Materiales y métodos: Este es un estudio no aleatorio, prospectivo, ciego, en que el evaluador no tenía información sobre la preparación aplicada. La muestra obtenida se dividió en dos grupos de acuerdo con la preparación adecuada del colon, con 153 pacientes preparados con manitol al 10% y 84 pacientes con picosulfato sódico. La evaluación de la preparación se realizó usando la Escala de Boston (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale - BBP) a través de un sistema de puntuación para cada región del colon puntuada con 3 puntos: derecha, izquierda y colon transverso. Resultados: De los 237 pacientes que fueron evaluados, 146 (61,60%) eran mujeres y 91 (38,4%) eran hombres. En el grupo que utilizó manitol, 98 (64,05%) eran mujeres y 55 (35,95%) eran varones. Entre los pacientes que utilizaron picosulfato sódico, 48 (57,14%)eran mujeres y 36 (42,86%) eran hombres, sin diferencias estadísticas de ambos grupos (p>0,32). Teniendo en cuenta que con la adecuada preparación del colon y con puntuación de 6 puntos en la Escala de Boston, la preparación intestinal fue satisfactoria en ambos grupos. El 93% de los pacientes que utilizaron manitol y el 81% de los pacientes que utilizaron picosulfato sódico tenían preparación adecuada (puntuación de 6). La puntuación media en la preparación con manitol fue de 9 y en la preparación con picosulfato sódico fue de 7. No hubo diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos. Conclusión: Ambas preparaciones, demostraron ser seguras y eficaces para la limpieza del intestino, de acuerdo con la Escala de Boston, así como, la aceptabilidad de los pacientes y libre de complicaciones

Objectives: The purpose of the present study is to compare intestinal preparation with mannitol and sodium picosulphate, assessing patient’s acceptance, side effects and cleaning capacity. Material and methods: This is a prospective, nom randomized, blind study, in which the evaluator had no information about the preparation applied. The sample obtained was divided into two groups according to the bowel preparation applied, with 153 patients prepared with 10% mannitol and 84 patients with sodium picosulfate. The evaluation of colon preparation was done using the Boston Scale (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale - BBP) through a three-point scoring system for each of the three regions of the colon: right, left and transverse colon. Results: Of the 237 patients that were evaluated, 146 (61.60%) were female and 91 (38.4%) were male. Regarding the group that used mannitol, 98 were female (64.05%) and 55 were male (35.95%). Among the patients who used sodium picosulfate, 48 were female (57.14%) and 36 were male (42.86%), with no statistical differences between both groups (p> 0.32). Considering that an adequate preparation scores ≥ 6 in the Boston Scale, the bowel cleansing preparation was satisfactory in both groups. 93% of the patients who used mannitol and 81% of the patients who used sodium picosulfate had adequate preparation (score of ≥ 6). Moreover, we consider that the average score in the preparation with Mannitol was 9, while the sodium picosulfate score was 7. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion: There is consensus among authors who state that colonoscopy’s safety and success are highly related to the cleansing outcome, regardless of the method used. The same can be observed in the present study, on which both preparations were proved safe and effective for bowel cleansing, according to the Boston scale, as well as accepted by patients and free of complications

Safety of mannitol use in bowel preparation: a prospective assessment of intestinal methane (CH4) levels during colonoscopy after mannitol and sodium phosphate (NaP) bowel cleansing / Segurança do uso do manitol no preparo para colonoscopia: avaliação prospectiva do nível de metano (CH4) intestinal durante colonoscopia após preparo com manitol e fosfato de sódio (NaP)

ABSTRACT Background - Adequate bowel preparation is critical for the quality of colonoscopy. Despite reported occurrence of colonic explosion due to methane and hydrogen production by bacterial fermentation during colonoscopy, gas exchange during the procedure is believed to be effective in lowering existing methane concentration, allowing for safe utilization of mannitol for bowel preparation. Thus, mannitol is widely used for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy, considering its low cost and effectiveness for bowel preparation. Objective - The aim of this study was to assess the safety of mannitol for bowel preparation, when compared to sodium phosphate (NaP). Methods - We conducted a prospective observational study in which 250 patients undergoing colonoscopy at Universidade Federal de São Paulo and Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil) were approached for inclusion in the study. Patients received either mannitol (n=50) or NaP (n=200) for bowel preparation, based on physician indication. Study was conducted from August 2009 to December 2009. The main outcome of interest was presence of detectable levels of methane (CH4) during colonoscopy and reduction in such levels after gas exchange during the procedure. Methane concentrations were measured in three intestinal segments during scope introduction and withdrawal. Safety was assessed as the absence of high levels of methane, defined as 5%. Measurements were made using a multi-gas monitor (X-am 7000, Dräger Safety AG & Co. KGaA, Lübeck, Germany) connected to a plastic catheter introduced into the working channel of the colonoscope. Additional outcomes of interest included levels of O2. Methane and O2 levels are reported as ppm. Mean, difference and standard deviation of levels of gas measured in both moments were calculated and compared in both groups. Proportions of patients with detectable or high levels of methane in both groups were compared. Continuous variables were analyzed using t test and categorical variables using qui-square tests. The Ethics Committee in both study sites approved the study protocol. Results - Patients in both groups were similar regarding demographics, colonoscopy indication, ASA status and quality of bowel preparation. Seven (3.5%) patients in the NaP group had methane detected during introduction of the endoscope. Methane levels became undetectable during withdrawal of the scope. None of the patients in the mannitol group had detectable levels of methane. O2 levels did not differ in the groups. Conclusion - This is the largest study to assess the safety of mannitol for bowel preparation, considering methane measurements. Our results indicate that mannitol use is as safe as NaP, and gas exchange was efficient in reducing methane concentrations.

RESUMO Contexto - Preparo adequado é fundamental para garantia de boa qualidade em colonoscopia. Apesar de relatos de explosão do cólon durante colonoscopia, secundários à produção de metano e hidrogênio pela fermentação bacteriana, acredita-se que a troca gasosa durante o procedimento diminua a concentração existente de metano, permitindo a utilização com segurança, de manitol para o preparo de cólon. Assim, manitol é largamente utilizado para limpeza dos cólons antes da colonoscopia, especialmente devido ao seu baixo custo e eficácia. Objetivo - O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a segurança do uso de manitol no preparo dos cólons, quando comparado ao uso de fosfo-soda (NaP). Métodos - Este foi um estudo observacional retrospectivo no qual foram incluídos 250 pacientes submetidos a colonoscopia na Universidade Federal de São Paulo e Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo - Brasil). Os pacientes receberam preparo de cólon com manitol (n=50) ou NaP (n=200), de acordo com preferências dos médicos que encaminharam os pacientes. O estudo foi realizado entre agosto e dezembro de 2009. O principal resultado pesquisado foi a presença de níveis detectáveis de metano (CH4) durante a colonoscopia, e a redução nestes níveis após troca gasosa durante o procedimento. As concentrações de metano foram dosadas com detector multi-gas (X-am 7000, Dräger Safety AG & Co., KGaA, Lübeck, Alemanha) conectado a um cateter plástico que foi introduzido no canal de instrumentação do colonoscópio. Outro achado de interesse foram níveis de O2. Níveis de metano e O2 foram relatados em ppm. Média, diferença entre as médias e desvio padrão nos níveis dos gases em ambos momentos foram comparados nos dois grupos. A proporção de pacientes com níveis detectáveis ou altos de metano em ambos os grupos foram comparados. Variáveis contínuas foram analisadas com teste t e variáveis categóricas com o teste do qui-quadrado. Os Comitês de Ética de ambas instituições aprovaram o protocolo do estudo. Resultados - Pacientes nos dois grupos foram comparáveis quanto aos dados demográficos, indicação para colonoscopia, classificação ASA e qualidade do preparo do cólon. Sete (3,5%) pacientes no grupo NaP tinham níveis detectáveis de metano durante a introdução do colonoscópio. Os níveis de metano se tornaram indetectáveis durante a retirada do aparelho. Nenhum dos pacientes no grupo manitol tinha níveis detectáveis de metano. Níveis de O2 foram semelhantes nos dois grupos. Conclusão - Este é o estudo com maior casuística que avaliou a segurança do uso de manitol para preparo de cólon, no que diz respeito a dosagem de metano. Nossos resultados indicam que o emprego do manitol é tão seguro quanto o NaP, e que a troca gasosa é eficaz na redução da concentração de metano.

Absence seizure associated with coloprep consumption in colonoscopy / Convulsão de ausência com o uso de Coloprep em colonoscopia

Coloprep is a bowel preparatory solution given before endoscopic procedures to get a unobscured internal vision. It has among its constituent's sodium sulphate, potassium sulphate and magnesium sulphate which produce an osmotic effect in the bowel. However, the use of such agents in hyponatremic and patients predisposed to seizures can have adverse ramifications. The current case outlines manifestation of absence seizure in a 52-year-old male patient who was administered Coloprep for colonoscopy. There was absence of other predisposing factors and the symptoms were ameliorated using timely identification and rectification of the underlying derangements.

Coloprep é uma solução preparatória intestinal administrada antes de procedimentos endoscópicos, com o objetivo de se ter uma visão interna não obscurecida. Entre os constituintes de Coloprep, observa-se sulfato de sódio, sulfato de potássio e sulfato de magnésio, que provocam efeito osmótico no intestino. Mas o uso de tais agentes em pacientes hiponatrêmicos e com predisposição para convulsões pode ter ramificações adversas. O caso em tela delineia uma manifestação de convulsão de ausência em paciente do gênero masculino com 52 anos e que recebeu Coloprep para colonoscopia. Não havia outros fatores predisponentes e os sintomas melhoraram graças à oportuna identificação e correção dos transtornos subjacentes.

Does Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Plus Ascorbic Acid Induce More Mucosal Injuries than Split-Dose 4-L PEG during Bowel Preparation?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the bowel-cleansing efficacy, patient affinity for the preparation solution, and mucosal injury between a split dose of poly-ethylene glycol (SD-PEG) and low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid (LV-PEG+Asc) in outpatient scheduled colonoscopies. METHODS: Of the 319 patients, 160 were enrolled for SD-PEG, and 159 for LV-PEG+Asc. The bowel-cleansing efficacy was rated according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. Patient affinity for the preparation solution was assessed using a questionnaire. All mucosal injuries observed during colonoscopy were biopsied and histopathologically reviewed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing between the groups. The LV-PEG+Asc group reported better patient acceptance and preference. There were no significant differences in the incidence or characteristics of the mucosal injuries between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SD-PEG, LV-PEG+Asc exhibited equivalent bowel-cleansing efficacy and resulted in improved patient acceptance and preference. There was no significant difference in mucosal injury between SD-PEG and LV-PEG+Asc. Thus, the LV-PEG+Asc preparation could be used more effectively and easily for routine colonoscopies without risking significant mucosal injury.

BOWEL PREPARATION BEFORE COLONOSCOPY FOR CHILDREN: comparison of efficacy of three different methods

Background - Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Adequate bowel preparation is mandatory. Several regimens were discussed in the literature. Among the drugs which has recently used, polyethylene glycol is one of the most popular agents. Objectives - The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of three different methods for 1 day preparation before colonoscopy. Methods - This study included children with the range of ages (2-21) who had an indication of colonoscopy. Exclusion criteria were based on the history of previous surgery, parental disagreement, and patients who did not use preparation protocol. Three methods for bowel preparation were studied: 1- Polyethylene glycol only; 2- Polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl suppositories; 3- Polyethylene glycol plus normal saline enema. Boston Bowel Preparation Score was used for evaluation of preparation. SPSS version 16.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) were used for data analysis. Results - In this study 83 cases completed the bowel preparation completely. Acceptable bowel preparation was seen in 24 (85.71%), 36 (94.73%), and 14 (82.35%) of cases in PEG, PEG + bisacodyl, and PEG + normal saline enema groups respectively. PEG + bisacodyl suppositories was more effective than PEG + normal saline for the preparation of the first segment ( P=0.05). For second and third segment of colon, BPPS score was higher in PEG + bisacodyl suppositories compared to other regimens, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion - There was no significant difference between 1 day colonoscopy regimens in terms of bowel preparation score. Lowest score was seen in PEG + enema group compared to other group.

Contexto - A colonoscopia é um procedimento diagnóstico e terapêutico importante. A preparação intestinal adequada é obrigatória. Vários esquemas são discutidos na literatura. Dentre as drogas que se têm usado recentemente, o polietilenoglicol é um dos agentes mais utilizados. Objetivo - O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a eficácia de três métodos diferentes para a preparação feita 1 dia antes de colonoscopia. Métodos - Este estudo incluiu crianças com a gama de idades entre 2 e 21 anos, que tinham indicação de colonoscopia. Os critérios de exclusão foram baseados em história da cirurgia anterior, não aprovação dos pais e pacientes que não utilizaram o protocolo de preparação. Três métodos para a preparação do intestino foram estudados: 1-polietilenoglicol; 2 - polietilenoglicol e bisacodil supositórios; 3 - polietilenoglicol e enema de solução salina. O escore de Boston para preparação intestinal foi usado para a avaliação e os dados foram analisados pelo SPSS versão 16.0 (Chicago, Il, USA). Resultados - Um total de 83 pacientes concluiu completamente o preparo intestinal. Houve preparo aceitável em 24 (85,71%), 36 (94,73%) e 14 (82,35%) dos casos, nos grupos PEG, PEG + bisacodil e PEG + enema salino, respectivamente. PEG + bisacodil supositórios foi mais eficaz do que a PEG + solução salina para a preparação do primeiro segmento ( P=0,05). Para segundo e terceiro segmento do cólon, a pontuação de BPPS foi maior no grupo PEG + bisacodil supositórios em comparação com outros regimes, mas essa diferença não foi estatisticamente significativa. Conclusão - Não houve nenhuma diferença significativa entre os regimes de preparo para colonoscopia de um dia em termos de pontuação de preparação do intestino. A nota mais baixa foi vista no grupo PEG + enema em comparação com outros grupos.

Sodium Picosulfate with Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Plus Laxative Is a Good Alternative to Conventional Large Volume Polyethylene Glycol in Bowel Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Single-Blinded Trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We investigated whether sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) plus bisacodyl compares favorably with conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) with respect to bowel cleansing adequacy, compliance, and safety. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded study in outpatients undergoing daytime colonoscopies. Patients were randomized into a split preparation SPMC/bisacodyl group and a conventional split PEG group. We compared preparation adequacy using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), ease of use using a modified Likert scale (LS), compliance/satisfaction level using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and safety by monitoring adverse events during the colonoscopy between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were evaluated by intention to treat (ITT) analysis, and 319 were evaluated by per protocol (PP) population analysis (153 for SPMC/bisacodyl, 166 for PEG). The mean total BBPS score was not different between the two groups in both the ITT and PP analyses (p>0.05). The mean VAS score for satisfaction and LS score for the ease of use were higher in the SPMC/bisacodyl group (p<0.001). The adverse event rate was lower in the SPMC/bisacodyl group than in the PEG group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SPMC/bisacodyl treatment was comparable to conventional PEG with respect to bowel preparation adequacy and superior with respect to compliance, satisfaction, and safety.

Importance of the Time Interval between Bowel Preparation and Colonoscopy in Determining the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Full-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Preparation

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The quality of bowel preparation (QBP) is the important factor in performing a successful colonoscopy. Several factors influencing QBP have been reported; however, some factors, such as the optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy time interval, remain controversial. This study aimed to determine the factors influencing QBP and the optimal time interval for full-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparation. METHODS: A total of 165 patients who underwent colonoscopy from June 2012 to August 2012 were prospectively evaluated. The QBP was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (Ottawa) score according to several factors influencing the QBP were analyzed. RESULTS: Colonoscopies with a time interval of 5 to 6 hours had the best Ottawa score in all parts of the colon. Patients with time intervals of 6 hours or less had the better QBP than those with time intervals of more than 6 hours (p=0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the time interval (odds ratio, 1.897; 95% confidence interval, 1.006 to 3.577; p=0.048) was the only significant contributor to a satisfactory bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal time was 5 to 6 hours for the full-dose PEG method, and the time interval was the only significant contributor to a satisfactory bowel preparation.

The Evolution of Bowel Preparation and New Developments / 대한소화기학회지

Bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy examination, and the most important factor is the bowel preparation agent used. However, selection of a bowel preparation agent invariably involves compromise. Originally, bowel preparation was performed for radiologic and surgical purposes, when the process involved dietary limitations, cathartics, and enemas, which had many side effects. Development of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution led to substantive advancement of bowel preparation; however, despite its effectiveness and safety, the large volume involved, and its salty taste and unpleasant odor reduce compliance. Accordingly, modified PEG solutions requiring consumption of lower volumes and sulfate-free solutions were developed. Aqueous sodium phosphate is more effective and better tolerated than PEG solutions; however, fatal complications have occurred due to water and electrolyte shifts. Therefore, aqueous sodium phosphate was withdrawn by the US Food and Drug Administration, and currently, only sodium phosphate tablets remain available. In addition, oral sulfate solution and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate are also available, and various studies have reported on adjunctive preparations, such as hyperosmolar or stimulant laxatives, antiemetics, and prokinetics, which are now in various stages of development.

A Clear Liquid Diet Is Not Mandatory for Polyethylene Glycol-Based Bowel Preparation for Afternoon Colonoscopy in Healthy Outpatients

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A dietary regimen consisting of a clear liquid diet (CLD) for at least 24 hours is recommended for colonoscopy preparation. However, this requirement results in problems in patient compliance with bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a CLD compared with a regular diet (RD) for colonoscopy preparation using a polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-blind prospective study. A total of 801 healthy outpatients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy were randomized to either a CLD or RD in addition to a 4 L PEG regimen. RESULTS: The quality of bowel cleansing was not different between the CLD and RD groups in terms of the proportion with excellent or good preparation. In addition, no significant differences were observed between the two groups for polyp and adenoma detection rates and overall adverse events. Good compliance with bowel preparation was higher in the RD group than in the CLD group. CONCLUSIONS: A CLD for a full day prior to colonoscopy should not be mandatory for PEG-based bowel preparation. Dietary education concerning the avoidance of high-fiber foods for 3 days before colonoscopy is sufficient, at least for healthy outpatients.

Bowel preparation for performing a colonoscopy: prospective randomized comparison study between a low-volume solution of polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl versus bisacodyl and a mannitol solution / Preparo de cólon para realização de colonoscopia: estudo prospectivo randomizado comparativo entre solução de polietilenoglicol baixo volume mais bisacodil versus solução de manitol mais bisacodil

CONTEXT: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard method to examine the colon, the rectum and the terminal ileum. In order to perform the colonoscopy, it is necessary to clean the bowel and use medications that are generally poorly tolerated by the patients. OBJECTIVE: Compare the tolerability, acceptability, safety and efficacy of two solutions used for intestinal preparation for a colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred patients matched for sex and age were prospective randomized into two groups. Polyethylene glycol group received bisacodyl 10 mg plus 1 L of polyethylene glycol the night before and 1 L on the day of the exam. Mannitol group received bisacodyl 20 mg the day before and 1 L of a 10% mannitol solution on the day of the exam. The diet was the same for both groups. Tolerability and acceptability were measured using previously validated questionnaires. In terms of safety, variations in vital signs before and after the preparation were recorded, in addition to any complications. The quality of the preparation was graded based on the Boston and Ottawa scales. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent (96%) completed the study. As for tolerability, the mannitol preparation group exhibited a significantly higher frequency of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension than polyethylene glycol group (P < 0.05). Acceptability was significantly better in polyethylene glycol group. The polyethylene glycol solution has also previously been shown to be safer than mannitol. No difference was observed in the quality of the preparation between the two preparation methods. CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions can be made: polyethylene glycol solution had higher tolerability, acceptability, and safety than the mannitol and should be used instead of mannitol. Both preparation solutions have similar efficacy.

CONTEXTO: O exame de colonoscopia é atualmente o padrão-ouro para investigação do cólon e íleo terminal. Para sua realização há necessidade de limpeza do cólon com soluções que, em geral, são mal toleradas pelos pacientes. OBJETIVO: Comparar duas soluções de preparo intestinal para colonoscopia quanto à tolerabilidade, aceitabilidade, segurança e efetividade. MÉTODOS: Cem pacientes pareados por sexo e idade foram randomizados prospectivamente em dois grupos. O grupo polietilenoglicol recebeu bisacodil 10 mg + 1 litro de polietilenoglicol na véspera e 1 litro no dia do exame. O grupo manitol recebeu bisacodil 20 mg na véspera e 1 litro de manitol 10% no dia do exame. A dieta foi a mesma nos dois grupos. A tolerabilidade e aceitabilidade foram aferidas por questionários previamente validados. Quanto à segurança foram avaliados: variação de sinais vitais antes e após o preparo e complicações, além de quaisquer sinais de complicação. A qualidade do preparo foi graduada através das escalas de Boston e Ottawa. RESULTADOS: Noventa e seis pacientes (96%) completaram o estudo. Quanto à tolerabilidade o grupo manitol apresentou manifestação significativamente maior de náusea, vômito, dor abdominal e distensão abdominal do que o grupo polietilenoglicol (P<0,05). Aceitabilidade foi significativamente melhor com o grupo polietilenoglicol. O grupo polietilenoglicol também se mostrou mais seguro. Não se observou diferença na qualidade do preparo entre os métodos. CONCLUSÕES: A solução de polietilenoglicol apresentou melhor tolerabilidade, aceitabilidade e segurança e deve ser usada ao invés da solução de manitol. Ambas as soluções são semelhantes em eficácia.

Fibras na dieta: tendências atuais e benefícios à saúde na síndrome metabólica e no diabetes melito tipo 2: [revisão] / Dietary fibers: current trends and health benefits in the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: [review]

As fibras dietéticas parecem contribuir tanto na prevenção quanto no tratamento do diabetes melito tipo 2 (DMT2). Em estudos epidemiológicos a ingestão de fibras insolúveis, e não de fibras solúveis, tem sido inversamente associada à incidência do DMT2. Por outro lado, em estudos pós-prandiais, refeições contendo quantidades suficientes de β-glucano, psyllium, ou goma-guar diminuíram as respostas da insulina e da glicose, tanto em indivíduos saudáveis como em pacientes com DMT2. Dietas enriquecidas com quantidade suficiente de fibras solúveis também parecem melhorar o controle glicêmico de uma forma geral no DMT2. As fibras insolúveis têm pouco efeito sobre as respostas pós-prandiais de insulina e glicose. As fibras da dieta aumentam a saciedade. Em alguns estudos, as fibras solúveis têm se associado com um menor aumento de peso corporal ao longo do tempo. Evidências limitadas, a partir de estudos transversais, sugerem uma associação inversa entre o consumo de fibras dos cereais e de grãos integrais e a prevalência de síndrome metabólica. Apesar da escassez de dados sobre estudos de mais longo prazo que foquem especificamente em fibras dietéticas, seguir a recomendação atual de 25 g de fibras ao dia, a partir de uma dieta rica em grãos integrais, frutas e legumes, provavelmente diminuirá o risco para a obesidade, síndrome metabólica e DMT2.

Dietary fiber may contribute to both the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In epidemiological studies the intake of insoluble fiber, but not the intake of soluble fiber, has been inversely associated with the incidence of T2DM. In contrast, in postprandial studies, meals containing sufficiently quantities of β-glucan, psyllium, or guar gum have decreased insulin and glucose responses in both healthy individuals and patients with T2DM. Diets enriched sufficiently in soluble fiber may also improve overall glycemic control in T2DM. Insoluble fiber has little effect on postprandial insulin and glucose responses. Fiber increases satiety. In some studies, insoluble fiber has been associated with less weight gain over time. Limited cross-sectional evidence suggests an inverse relationship between intake of cereal fiber and whole-grains and the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome. Although long-term data from trials focusing on specifically dietary fiber are lacking, meeting current recommendations for a minimum fiber intake of 25 g/d based on a diet rich in whole grains, fruits and legumes will probably decrease the risk of obesity, the metabolic syndrome and T2DM.

Prospective, randomized comparison of castor oil and sodium phosphate preparation for barium enema.

OBJECTIVE: To compare castor oil and sodium phosphate preparation (Swiff) in patients' satisfaction, efficacy for colon cleanness, side effects, and prices. MATERIAL AND METHOD: One hundred patients referred for barium enema were randomized to receive castor oil (n = 50) and sodium phosphate preparation (n = 50). They graded their satisfaction using a 5-point scale (easy, acceptable, slightly difficult, extremely difficult, and unacceptable). The efficacy for colon cleanness was graded by two radiologists using a 5-point scale (excellent, easy for evaluation, acceptable, difficult for evaluation, and unacceptable). Side effects were evaluated by patients' vital signs, total number of bowel frequency, and 10 associated symptoms. RESULTS: Both preparations revealed no difference in patients' satisfaction (p = 0.882) and efficacy of colon cleanness (p = 0.130). Sodium phosphate preparation was more expensive (79 vs. 10 Baht) and caused higher number of bowel frequency (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: With a cheaper price, castor oil was comparable with sodium phosphate preparation in patients' satisfaction and efficacy of colon cleanness.