What Is the Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Colonoscopy and Pan-intestinal Capsule Endoscopy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The rate of adequate cleansing (ACR) and complete examinations (CR) are key quality indicators in capsule colonoscopy (CC) and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE). Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of bowel preparation protocols regarding ACR and CR. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, search terms regarding colon capsule preparation, publication date from 2006/01, and date of search 2021/12, in six bibliographic databases. Multiple steps of the cleansing protocol were assessed: diet, adjunctive laxatives, purgative solution, use of prokinetic agents, and "booster". The meta-analytical frequency of ACR and CR was estimated, and subgroup analyses performed. Strategies associated with higher ACR and CR were explored using meta-analytical univariable and multivariable regression models. Results: Twenty-six observational studies and five RCTs included (n = 4072 patients). The pooled rate of ACR was 72.5% (95% C.I. 67.8-77.5%; I2 = 92.4%), and the pooled rate of CR was 83.0% (95% C.I. 78.7-87.7%; I2 = 96.5%). The highest ACR were obtained using a low-fibre diet [78.5% (95% C.I. 72.0-85.6%); I2 = 57.0%], adjunctive laxatives [74.7% (95% C.I. 69.8-80.1%); I2 = 85.3%], and split dose < 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) as purgative [77.5% (95% C.I. 68.4-87.8%); I2 = 47.3%]. The highest CR were observed using routine prokinetics prior to capsule ingestion [84.4% (95% C.I. 79.9-89.2%); I2 = 89.8%], and sodium phosphate (NaP) as "booster" [86.2% (95% C.I. 82.3-90.2%); I2 = 86.8%]. In univariable models, adjunctive laxatives were associated with higher ACR [OR 1.81 (95% C.I. 1.13; 2.90); p = 0.014]. CR was higher with routine prokinetics [OR 1.86 (95% C.I. 1.13; 3.05); p = 0.015] and split-dose PEG purgative [OR 2.03 (95% C.I. 1.01; 4.09), p = 0.048]. Conclusions: Main quality outcomes (ACR, CR) remain suboptimal for CC and PCE. Despite considerable heterogeneity, our results support low-fibre diet, use of adjunctive sennosides, split dose < 4L PEG, and routine prokinetics, while NaP remains the most consistent option as booster.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

AIMS65 score: a new prognostic tool to predict mortality in variceal bleeding

(undefined

Bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy - The later, the better!

In small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the presence of residue may compromise diagnostic accuracy. Background In small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the presence of residue may compromise diagnostic accuracy. Aims To assess differences in quality of visualisation and diagnostic yield of SBCE using 3 different preparation protocols. Methods Prospective, randomized, blind, pilot study. Protocol A:Clear liquids diet the day before the examination with fasting from 8p.m.; Protocol B:Protocol A + 2 pouches of Moviprep®(polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution + sodium ascorbate) in 1 L of water from 8p.m. of the day before the examination; Protocol C: Protocol A + 2 pouches of Moviprep® in 1 L of water consumed after real-time confirmation of capsule arrival at small bowel. Small bowel preparation was classified by two experienced physicians, considering the percentage of the examination during which mucosal observation was adequate: Excellent(>90%); Good(90–75%); Fair(75–50%); Poor(<50%). Results 101 patients randomized to the 3 protocols (A 37, B 31, C 33 patients). Protocol C had an excellent/good small bowel preparation in a higher percentage of examinations for both readers(Reader 1-A:37.8% vs B:45.2% vs C:78.8%, p = 0.002 and Reader 2 –A:37.8% vs B:41.9% vs C:75.8%, p = 0.003). Also, protocol C had a higher detection of angioectasia (A:5.4% vs B:9.7% vs C:27.3%, p = 0.022). Conclusions The administration of Moviprep® after the capsule had reached the small bowel was associated with a better small bowel preparation and a higher detection of angioectasia

Discharge protocol in acute pancreatitis: an international survey and cohort analysis.

There are several overlapping clinical practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis (AP), however, none of them contains suggestions on patient discharge. The Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group (HPSG) has recently developed a laboratory data and symptom-based discharge protocol which needs to be validated. (1) A survey was conducted involving all members of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) to understand the characteristics of international discharge protocols. (2) We investigated the safety and effectiveness of the HPSG-discharge protocol. According to our international survey, 87.5% (49/56) of the centres had no discharge protocol. Patients discharged based on protocols have a significantly shorter median length of hospitalization (LOH) (7 (5;10) days vs. 8 (5;12) days) p < 0.001), and a lower rate of readmission due to recurrent AP episodes (p = 0.005). There was no difference in median discharge CRP level among the international cohorts (p = 0.586). HPSG-protocol resulted in the shortest LOH (6 (5;9) days) and highest median CRP (35.40 (13.78; 68.40) mg/l). Safety was confirmed by the low rate of readmittance (n = 35; 5%). Discharge protocol is necessary in AP. The discharge protocol used in this study is the first clinically proven protocol. Developing and testifying further protocols are needed to better standardize patients' care

Discharge protocol in acute pancreatitis : an international survey and cohort analysis

There are several overlapping clinical practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis (AP), however, none of them contains suggestions on patient discharge. The Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group (HPSG) has recently developed a laboratory data and symptom-based discharge protocol which needs to be validated. (1) A survey was conducted involving all members of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) to understand the characteristics of international discharge protocols. (2) We investigated the safety and effectiveness of the HPSG-discharge protocol. According to our international survey, 87.5% (49/56) of the centres had no discharge protocol. Patients discharged based on protocols have a significantly shorter median length of hospitalization (LOH) (7 (5;10) days vs. 8 (5;12) days) p < 0.001), and a lower rate of readmission due to recurrent AP episodes (p = 0.005). There was no difference in median discharge CRP level among the international cohorts (p = 0.586). HPSG-protocol resulted in the shortest LOH (6 (5;9) days) and highest median CRP (35.40 (13.78; 68.40) mg/l). Safety was confirmed by the low rate of readmittance (n = 35; 5%). Discharge protocol is necessary in AP. The discharge protocol used in this study is the first clinically proven protocol. Developing and testifying further protocols are needed to better standardize patients’ care.Peer reviewe