Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements

Multicenter, randomized study to optimize bowel for colon capsule endoscopy

AIM To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen. METHODS This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1st and 2nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (“diatrizoate solution”) (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion = 12 h. RESULTS Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often \u3c 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups. CONCLUSION A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved

Complete resolution of gastric amyloidosis after autologous stem cell transplantation.

A 48-year-old female with multiple myeloma (MM) and amyloidosis presented with massive upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding one week after autologous stem cell transplantation (autologous-SCT). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) demonstrated necrotic, purple, pigmented, friable lesions throughout the stomach (Figure 1a), along with a bleeding ulcer in the cardia (Figure 1b, Video 1) which was successfully treated with epinephrine (1:10,000) injections. Biopsies demonstrated nodular amyloid deposition (Figures 2) which was Congo red positive. The patient had no further hematemesis and was discharged home 4 days later. Ten months after autologous-SCT, EGD revealed a normal stomach (Figure 3, Video 2) with no histologic evidence of amyloid

The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution: a randomized single-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: Colonic bubbles associated with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) are common and obscure mucosal visualization. This study aimed to determine whether adding simethicone decreases the incidence of bubbles. METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized comparison of split dose PEG-ELS vs. PEG-ELS+simethicone (PEG-S) for outpatient colonoscopy. Bubble severity for colonic segments was assessed on withdrawal as A=no/minimal bubbles, B=moderate bubbles/interfere with detecting 5 mm polyp, C=severe bubbles/interfere with detecting 10 mm polyp. Primary end point was Grade B or C bubbles in any colon segment. Secondary end points were cleansing quality, incidence and severity of side effects, and polyp detection. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty nine patients enrolled; 13 withdrew before colonoscopy. Of 123 patients evaluated, 62 took PEG-S and 61 PEG-ELS. The incidence of grade B or C bubbles was much lower with PEG-S compared with PEG-ELS (2% vs. 38%; P=0.001). Overall cleansing (excellent or good) quality was not significantly different for either the whole colon (89% PEG-ELS, 94% of PEG-S, P=0.529) or right colon (88% PEG-ELS, 94% PEG-S, P=0.365). More PEG-S patients had excellent rather than good preps (whole colon 53% vs. 28%, P=0.004; right colon 53% vs. 35%, P=0.044). Need for any flushing was less with PEG-S (38% vs. 70%, P=0.001). The groups were not significantly different with respect to total procedure and withdrawal times, incidence or severity of side effects, or number of polyps/patient or adenomas/patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding simethicone to PEG-ELS effectively eliminates bubbles, substantially reduces the need for flushing, and results in more excellent preparations

A Single Academic Center\u27s Experience with Direct Access Colonoscopy

Introduction: Direct Access Colonoscopy (DAC) does not require pre-colonoscopy consultation and may improve access for patients needing screening and surveillance. DAC eligibility criteria vary widely, and we developed a novel, DAC program using EMR patient data to assess appropriateness for inclusion. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and quality of our DAC program and compare to traditional, Office-Scheduled Colonoscopy (OSC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of OSC and DAC patients ages 45-75 with a screening or surveillance indication over 13 months. Primary outcome was Complete Colonoscopy (CC): to cecum/ileum/anastomosis, adequate prep, \u3c 90 days from gastroenterology contact. Patients not meeting CC criteria were classified as Incomplete Colonoscopy (IC). Secondary endpoints: time to CC, adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: 2,651 patients met inclusion criteria: mean age 58, 57% female, 65% non-White, 86% neither Hispanic/Latino. 1,143 DAC patients (62%) vs. 473 OSC patients (57%) achieved CC: average interval 36 days (DAC) vs. 42 days (OSC), mean prep score 7.94/10 (DAC) vs. 7.45/10 (OSC), and ADR 38% (DAC) vs. 43% (OSC). Top reasons for IC: patient cancellation (35%), no show (28%), inadequate prep (9%). Non-Whites were less likely than Whites (59% vs. 69%; p \u3c 0.001) to achieve CC. Discussion: DAC is non-inferior to OSC for primary endpoint of CC (p \u3c 0.001) with no significant differences across age, gender, and indication. Failure to attend colonoscopy accounted for most ICs, and non-Whites were less likely to have a CC. Further work is needed to maximize CC rate across all demographics

Efficacy of morning-only compared with split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for afternoon colonoscopy: a randomized controlled single-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: Administering a purgative close to the time of colonoscopy is optimal for cleansing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of morning-only (AM-only) polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) to split-dose (PM/AM) PEG-ELS for afternoon colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, non-inferiority study comparing AM-only to PM/AM PEG-ELS for afternoon outpatient colonoscopy. The primary end point was whole colon prep adequacy. Tolerance and polyp detection were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 125 patients were randomized and 9 withdrew without taking any prep. Of 116 analyzed, 62 received AM-only prep and 54 received PM/AM prep. The whole colon prep was adequate in 92% in the AM-only group vs. 94% in the PM/AM group (95% lower confidence limit, LCL, for the difference=-11.3%, non-inferiority P=0.013), whereas the right colon prep was adequate in 93 and 92%, respectively (95% LCL=-7.8%, non-inferiority P=0.003). Polyp detection was greater, and not inferior, in the AM-only group (mean=1.57 vs. 0.94 polyps/patient, non-inferiority P=0.007). The overall incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.273), but the AM-only group had lower incidence of abdominal pain (P=0.024). The AM-only group also had better sleep quality (P=0.007) and less interference with the previous workday (P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: AM-only and PM/AM PEG-ELS are clinically equivalent with respect to cleansing efficacy and polyp detection. AM-only prep was associated with a lower incidence of abdominal pain, superior sleep quality, and less interference with workday before colonoscopy

A multicenter, prospective, randomized comparison of a novel signal transmission capsule endoscope to an existing capsule endoscope.

BACKGROUND: MiroCam, a capsule endoscope, uses a novel transmission technology, electric-field propagation, which uses the human body as a conduction medium for data transmission. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of the MiroCam (MC) and PillCam (PC) to identify sources of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, comparative study. SETTING: Six academic hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 105 patients with OGIB. INTERVENTION: Patients ingested both the MC and PC capsules sequentially in a randomized fashion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Concordance of rates in identifying a source of OGIB, operational times, and rates of complete small-bowel examination. RESULTS: Data analysis resulted in 43 (48%) abnormal cases identifying a source of OGIB by either capsule. Twenty-four cases (55.8%) were positive by both capsules. There was negative agreement in 46 of 58 cases (79.3%). The κ index was 0.547 (χ(2) = 1.32; P = .36). In 12 cases, MC positively identified a source that was not seen on PC, whereas in 7 cases, PC positively identified a source that was not seen on MC. MC had a 5.6% higher rate of detecting small-bowel lesions (P = .54). MC captured images at 3 frames per second for 11.1 hours, and PC captured images at 2 frames per second for 7.8 hours (P \u3c .0001). Complete small-bowel examination was achieved in 93.3% for MC and 84.3% for PC (P = .10). LIMITATIONS: Readers were not blinded to the particular capsule they were reading. CONCLUSION: A positive diagnostic finding for OGIB was identified by either capsule in 48% of cases. The concordance rate between the 2 capsules was comparable to that of prior studies in identifying sources of small-bowel bleeding. The longer operational time of the MC may result in higher rates of complete small-bowel examination, which may, in turn, translate into a higher rate of detecting small-bowel lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT00878982.)

The Incidence, Severity and Distribution of Colonic Bubbles after Bowel Preparation with Split Dose 2L Polyethylene Glycol-Electrolyte Solution with Sodium Sulfate, Sodium Ascorbate and Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ELS): A Pilot Study

Conclusions: 1. Colonic bubbles that could interfere with polyp detection are present in 35% of patients receiving split dose PEG-ELS. 2. Most bubbles occur in the right and transverse colon. 3. Advanced age is an independent risk for bubbles