Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study.
Bisacodyl
Bowel preparation volume
Colonic adenomas
Colonoscopy
Polyethylene glycol
Tolerability
Journal
World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1948-5190
Titre abrégé: World J Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101532474
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Dec 2021
16 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
24
04
2021
revised:
25
06
2021
accepted:
02
12
2021
entrez:
24
1
2022
pubmed:
25
1
2022
medline:
25
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking. To compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting. Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed. Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% In a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting.
METHODS
METHODS
Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7%
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35070027
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v13.i12.659
pmc: PMC8716982
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
659-672Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Oct;98(10):2187-91
pubmed: 14572566
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):620-5
pubmed: 19136102
United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 Feb;7(1):114-124
pubmed: 30788123
Gut. 2017 Aug;66(8):1428-1433
pubmed: 27196589
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Apr;81(4):781-94
pubmed: 25595062
Endoscopy. 2017 Apr;49(4):378-397
pubmed: 28268235
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109(11):1714-23; quiz 1724
pubmed: 25135006
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Apr;8(4):364-70
pubmed: 19932768
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jan;32(1):12-18
pubmed: 27349220
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):677-687.e3
pubmed: 28803744
Endoscopy. 2019 Jan;51(1):73-84
pubmed: 30025415
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jun;29(6):1223-8
pubmed: 24955451
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 May;103(5):1122-30
pubmed: 18445096
World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Apr 28;26(16):1950-1961
pubmed: 32390705
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Nov;10(11):1225-31
pubmed: 22940741
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Apr;101(4):721-31
pubmed: 16494586
Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jul;97(7):1696-700
pubmed: 12135020
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Jan;27(1):76-80
pubmed: 21649720
Dig Liver Dis. 2017 Jun;49(6):651-656
pubmed: 28233684
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Oct;80(4):566-576.e2
pubmed: 25053529
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 05;9(6):e99092
pubmed: 24902028
Gastroenterology. 2015 Jul;149(1):79-88
pubmed: 25863216
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun;18(7):1454-1465.e14
pubmed: 31683057
Endoscopy. 2019 Jan;51(1):60-72
pubmed: 30025414
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar;16(3):357-369.e10
pubmed: 28826680
Endoscopy. 2019 Aug;51(8):775-794
pubmed: 31295746
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010 Nov;45(11):1380-6
pubmed: 20602568
Ann Gastroenterol. 2013;26(4):319-324
pubmed: 24714413
United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Nov;5(7):917-943
pubmed: 29163958
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;30(8):819-826
pubmed: 29847488
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 9;11(12):e0167452
pubmed: 27936028
Gut. 2013 Feb;62(2):236-41
pubmed: 22442161
Endoscopy. 2016 Mar;48(3):223-31
pubmed: 26760605
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Aug;46(7):595-601
pubmed: 22334219
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 03;11(6):e0154149
pubmed: 27257916