Increasing the low residue diet to 3 days does not improve the bowel cleansing in hard to prepare patients: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial / Aumentar la dieta baja en residuos a 3 días no mejora la limpieza intestinal en pacientes difíciles de preparar: análisis post-hoc de un ensayo controlado aleatorizado

Background: Recent evidence suggests that the number of low residue diet (LRD) days does not influence the bowel cleansing quality in non-selected patients. However, there are not data in the subgroup of patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day LRD improved the bowel cleansing quality in patients with risk factors of poor bowel cleansing. Patients and methods: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial carried out between December 2017 and March 2018 in a tertiary care hospital. Patients with high risk of poor bowel cleansing were selected following a validated score. The patients were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the main outcome. Results: 135 patients (1-day LRD group=67, 3-day LRD=68) were included. The rate of adequate cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups in the ITT analysis: 76.1%, 95% CI: [64.6–84.8] vs. 79.4%, 95% CI: [68.2–87.4]; odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% CI [0.54–2.73]) or in the PP analysis: 77.3%, 95% CI: [65.7–85.8] vs. 80.3%, 95% CI: [69.0–88.3]; OR 1.2, 95% CI [0.52–2.77]). Compliance with the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulties with the LRD and the polyp/adenoma detection rates were not significantly different. Conclusion: Our results suggest that 1-day LRD is not inferior to 3-day LRD in patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing.(AU)

Antecedentes: La evidencia reciente sugiere que el número de días de dieta baja en residuos (DBR) no influye en la calidad de la limpieza intestinal en pacientes no seleccionados. Sin embargo, no hay datos en el subgrupo de pacientes con factores de riesgo de una limpieza intestinal insuficiente. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar si una DBR de 3 días mejoraba o no la calidad de la limpieza intestinal en pacientes con factores de riesgo de limpieza intestinal deficiente. Pacientes y métodos: Análisis post-hoc de un ensayo controlado aleatorizado realizado entre diciembre de 2017 y marzo de 2018 en un hospital de atención terciaria. Los pacientes con alto riesgo de limpieza intestinal deficiente se seleccionaron mediante una puntuación validada. Los pacientes se aleatorizaron a los grupos de DBR de un día o DBR de 3 días. Todos los pacientes recibieron una dosis dividida de 2l de polietilenglicol más ácido ascórbico. Se realizaron análisis por intención de tratar (IdT) y por protocolo (PP) para el criterio principal de valoración. Resultados: Se incluyeron 135 pacientes (grupo DBR de un día=67, DBR de 3 días=68). No se observaron diferencias significativas en la tasa de calidad de limpieza suficiente entre los grupos en el análisis por IdT (76,1%; IC del 95%: [64,6-84,8] frente al 79,4 7%, IC del 95%: [68,2-87,4]; razón de posibilidades (OR): 1,2; IC del 95%: [0,54-2,73]) o en el análisis PP: (77,3%; IC del 95 %: [65,7-85,8] frente al 80,3%, IC del 95%: [69,0-88,3]; OR: 1,2; IC del 95% [0,52 -2,77]). No se observaron diferencias significativas en el cumplimiento de la dieta o con la solución limpiadora, en la satisfacción o las dificultades con la DBR y en las tasas de detección de pólipos/adenomas. Conclusión: Nuestros resultados sugieren que la DBR de un día no es inferior a la DBR de 3 días en pacientes con factores de riesgo de limpieza intestinal insuficiente.(AU)

Increasing the low residue diet to 3 days does not improve the bowel cleansing in hard to prepare patients: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that the number of low residue diet (LRD) days does not influence the bowel cleansing quality in non-selected patients. However, there are not data in the subgroup of patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day LRD improved the bowel cleansing quality in patients with risk factors of poor bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial carried out between December 2017 and March 2018 in a tertiary care hospital. Patients with high risk of poor bowel cleansing were selected following a validated score. The patients were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the main outcome. RESULTS: 135 patients (1-day LRD group=67, 3-day LRD=68) were included. The rate of adequate cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups in the ITT analysis: 76.1%, 95% CI: [64.6-84.8] vs. 79.4%, 95% CI: [68.2-87.4]; odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% CI [0.54-2.73]) or in the PP analysis: 77.3%, 95% CI: [65.7-85.8] vs. 80.3%, 95% CI: [69.0-88.3]; OR 1.2, 95% CI [0.52-2.77]). Compliance with the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulties with the LRD and the polyp/adenoma detection rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 1-day LRD is not inferior to 3-day LRD in patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing.

Impact of a 1-day versus 3-day low-residue diet on bowel cleansing quality before colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day low-residue diet (LRD) improved bowel cleansing quality compared with a 1-day LRD regimen. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality as evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (adequate cleansing ≥ 2 points per segment). Secondary outcomes were adherence to and level of satisfaction with the LRD, difficulty following the dietary recommendations, and willingness to repeat the same LRD in the future. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the primary outcome. A superiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that a 3-day LRD regimen was superior to a 1-day LRD regimen with a margin of 10 %. RESULTS: 390 patients (1-day LRD group = 196, 3-day LRD = 194) were included. The cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups: ITT analysis 82.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 77.4 to 88.0) vs. 85.6 % (95 %CI 80.7 to 90.5), with odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95 %CI 0.72 to 2.15); PP analysis 85.0 % (95 %CI 79.9 to 90.1) vs. 88.6 % (95 %CI 84.0 to 93.2), with OR 1.4 (95 %CI 0.88 to 2.52). No differences were found regarding adherence to the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulty with the LRD, and the polyp/adenoma detection rates. CONCLUSION: 3-day LRD did not offer advantages over 1-day LRD in preparation for colonoscopy.

SeqTrim: a high-throughput pipeline for pre-processing any type of sequence read.

BACKGROUND: High-throughput automated sequencing has enabled an exponential growth rate of sequencing data. This requires increasing sequence quality and reliability in order to avoid database contamination with artefactual sequences. The arrival of pyrosequencing enhances this problem and necessitates customisable pre-processing algorithms. RESULTS: SeqTrim has been implemented both as a Web and as a standalone command line application. Already-published and newly-designed algorithms have been included to identify sequence inserts, to remove low quality, vector, adaptor, low complexity and contaminant sequences, and to detect chimeric reads. The availability of several input and output formats allows its inclusion in sequence processing workflows. Due to its specific algorithms, SeqTrim outperforms other pre-processors implemented as Web services or standalone applications. It performs equally well with sequences from EST libraries, SSH libraries, genomic DNA libraries and pyrosequencing reads and does not lead to over-trimming. CONCLUSIONS: SeqTrim is an efficient pipeline designed for pre-processing of any type of sequence read, including next-generation sequencing. It is easily configurable and provides a friendly interface that allows users to know what happened with sequences at every pre-processing stage, and to verify pre-processing of an individual sequence if desired. The recommended pipeline reveals more information about each sequence than previously described pre-processors and can discard more sequencing or experimental artefacts.