Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background & Aims Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. Methods In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87–1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12–1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20–1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Conclusions Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance

Same-day regimen as an alternative to split preparation for colonoscopy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Background. Split bowel preparation is the best regimen for colonoscopy. However, the same-day regimen can represent a valid alternative, but its use is limited by concerns about its cleansing ability, and to date, no convincing data support its use for routine colonoscopies. Aim. To evaluate the cleansing, compliance, and adverse event rates of the same-day compared to the split regimen. Results. A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was performed. Ten studies were included for a total of 1807 patients (880 in the same-day group and 927 in the split group). Overall, 85.3% patients in the same-day group vs. 86.3% in the split group had an adequate cleansing. Compliance was high for both, although patients were more compliant with the split than with the same-day prep (89.7% for same-day vs. 96.6% for split regimen). Sleep disturbance was more frequent in the split group, while nausea and vomit were more frequent in the same-day group. In the subgroup analysis, polyethylene glycol obtained a better cleansing rate when given as a split dose, with similar compliance and adverse events rates with both regimens. Conclusion. Split and same-day regimens are both useful in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy with a different pattern of adverse events and better compliance for split preparations. Endoscopists can consider the same-day preparation as a valid alternative, especially when the split preparation does not fit the patients’ needs

Defining Time in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: When Should We Start the Clock?

Introduction: The execution of upper endoscopy at the proper time is key to correctly managing patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Nonetheless, the definition of “time” for endoscopic examinations in UGIB patients is imprecise. The primary aim of this study was to verify whether the different definitions of “time” (i.e., the symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes) impact mortality. The secondary purpose of this study was to evaluate the similarity between the two timeframes. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was performed on a prospective multicenter cohort study, which included UGIB patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals. We collected the timings from symptoms and presentation to endoscopy, together with other demographic, organizational and clinical data and outcomes. Results: Out of the 3324 patients in the cohort, complete time data were available for 3166 patients. A significant difference of 9.2 h (p p p < 0.001). Conclusions: The symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes referred to different timings during the management of upper endoscopy in bleeding patients, with the former being more accurate in correctly identifying the mortality risk of these patients. We suggest that further studies be conducted to validate our observations, and, if confirmed, a different definition of time should be adopted in endoscopy

Small bowel cleansing for capsule endoscopy, systematic review and meta- analysis: Timing is the real issue

Background: The optimal small bowel preparation modality before capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is still uncertain, regarding preparation type, dose and timing of administration. Aim: The aim of the study is to evaluate the small bowel cleansing in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy after fasting alone or active treatment with purgative solutions. Methods: We searched 4 major scientific databases from inception to December 2021 for studies evaluating small bowel preparation before SBCE. Different preparation efficacy was compared using fasting as reference. Main variables evaluated in the current study were: preparation type, administration schedule and timing. Results: 17 studies (27 treatment arms) with 2372 patients (male 47,4%) were included, mean age 54 years. Fasting alone VS overall purgative preparations pooled rate difference (RD) was 0.15 I2=81.5% p: 0.000. Sub-analysis for preparation schedule (day-before, split and same-day) and the time lapse showed that administration of PEG after the ingestion of capsule had the highest rate of adequate small bowel cleansing with a RD 0.33, administration between 1 and 6&nbsp;h before SBCE had a RD 0.28, 6 to 12&nbsp;h had a RD 0.21 and ≥12&nbsp;h had a RD 0.05. Conclusions: Timing of ingestion was found to be critical for bowel cleansing; the shorter time laps between the ingestion last dose of laxative and SBCE, the better was the mucosal visualization

Obscure recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding: a revealed mystery?

OBJECTIVE: Nowadays, capsule endoscopy (CE) is the first-line procedure after negative upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Approximately, two-thirds of patients undergoing CE for OGIB will have a small-bowel abnormality. However, several patients who underwent CE for OGIB had the source of their blood loss in the stomach or in the colon. The aim of the present study is to determine the incidence of bleeding lesions missed by the previous gastroscopy/colonoscopy with CE and to evaluate the indication to repeat a new complete endoscopic workup in subjects related to a tertiary center for obscure bleeding before CE. METHODS AND METHODS: We prospectively reviewed data from 637/1008 patients underwent to CE for obscure bleeding in our tertiary center after performing negative gastroscopy and colonoscopy. RESULTS: CE revealed a definite or likely cause of bleeding in stomach in 138/637 patients (yield 21.7%) and in the colon in 41 patients (yield 6.4%) with a previous negative gastroscopy and colonoscopy, respectively. The lesions found were outside the small bowel in only 54/637 (8.5%) patients. In 111/138 patients, CE found lesions both in stomach and small bowel (small-bowel erosions in 54, AVMs in 45, active small-bowel bleeding in 4, neoplastic lesions in 3 and distal ileum AVMs in 5 patients). In 24/41 (58.5%) patients, CE found lesions both in small bowel and colon (multiple small-bowel erosions in 15; AVMs in 8 and neoplastic lesion in 1 patients. All patients underwent endoscopic therapy or surgery for their nonsmall-bowel lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Lesions in upper or lower GI tract have been missed in about 28% of patients submitted to CE for obscure bleeding. CE may play an important role in identifying lesions missed at conventional endoscopy

Real-time diagnosis of H. pylori infection during endoscopy: Accuracy of an innovative tool (EndoFaster)

Background: EndoFaster is novel device able to perform real-time ammonium measurement in gastric juice allowing H. pylori diagnosis during endoscopy. This large study aimed to validate the accuracy of EndoFaster for real-time H. pylori detection. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent upper endoscopy in two centres were prospectively enrolled. During endoscopy, 4 ml of gastric juice were aspirated to perform automatic analysis by EndoFaster within 90 seconds, and H. pylori was considered present (>62 ppm/ml) or absent ( 6462 ppm/ml). Accuracy was measured by using histology as gold standard, and 13C-urea breath test (UBT) in discordant cases. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Results: Overall, 189 patients were enrolled, but in seven (3.4%) the aspirated gastric juice amount was insufficient to perform the test. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 87.4%, 90.3%, 85.5%, 80.2%, 93.1%, respectively, and 92.6%, 97.1%, 89.7%, 85.9%, 98.0%, respectively, when H. pylori status was reclassified according to the UBT result in discordant cases. Conclusions: This study found a high accuracy/feasibility of EndoFaster for real-time H. pylori diagnosis. Use of EndoFaster may allow selecting those patients in whom routine gastric biopsies could be avoided

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.status: publishe

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with Meckel's diverticulum : clinical features, diagnostic workup, and findings. A European multicenter I-CARE study

Background and Aims: Meckel's diverticulum (MD) may remain silent or be associated with adverse events such as GI bleeding. The main aim of this study was to evaluate indicative small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) findings, and the secondary aim was to describe clinical presentation in patients with MD. Methods: This retrospective European multicenter study included patients with MD undergoing SBCE from 2001 until July 2021. Results: Sixty-nine patients with a confirmed MD were included. Median age was 32 years with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 3:1. GI bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia was present in nearly all patients. Mean hemoglobin was 7.63 ± 1.8 g/dL with a transfusion requirement of 52.2%. Typical capsule endoscopy (CE) findings were double lumen (n = 49 [71%]), visible entrance into the MD (n = 49 [71%]), mucosal webs (n = 30 [43.5%]), and bulges (n = 19 [27.5%]). Two or more of these findings were seen in 48 patients (69.6%). Ulcers were detected in 52.2% of patients (n = 36). In 63.8% of patients (n = 44), a combination of double lumen and visible entrance into the MD was evident, additionally revealing ulcers in 39.1% (n = 27). Mean percent SB (small bowel) transit time for the first indicative image of MD was 57% of the total SB transit time. Conclusions: Diagnosis of MD is rare and sometimes challenging, and a preoperative criterion standard does not exist. In SBCE, the most frequent findings were double-lumen sign and visible diverticular entrance, sometimes together with ulcers