Bowel Preparation, the First Step for a Good Quality Colonoscopy

Ho-Su Lee; Jeong-Sik Byeon

doi:10.5217/ir.2014.12.1.1

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 12(1); 2014 > Article

Editorial Bowel Preparation, the First Step for a Good Quality Colonoscopy: Ho-Su Lee, Jeong-Sik Byeon; Intestinal Research 2014;12(1):1-2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2014.12.1.1
Published online: January 28, 2014

Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence to Jeong-Sik Byeon, Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3010-3180, Fax: +82-2-476-0824, jsbyeon@amc.seoul.kr

• Received: November 18, 2013 • Revised: November 20, 2013 • Accepted: November 21, 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

6,529 Views
61 Download
13 Web of Science
12 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

NOTES
REFERENCES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death in Western countries.1 In addition, the incidence of and mortality from CRC are increasing in Asian countries.2,3 CRC has become one of important worldwide public health issues. Therefore CRC screening in asymptomatic subjects is crucial for the reduction of incidence of CRC and colonoscopy is an important screening modality.4

In an effort to further lower CRC mortality, many approaches to quality improvement in colonoscopy have been proposed. They include adequate withdrawal time, optimal withdrawal technique, cecal intubation rate, optical enhancement and measurement of adenoma detection rate. In addition to these various quality indicators, the success of colonoscopy further depends on the quality of bowel preparation. Suboptimal bowel preparation is associated with a longer cecal intubation time, a lower cecal intubation rate, and a lower polyp detection rate.5 They also lead to increased costs associated with colonoscopy because suboptimal colonoscopy often necessitates more frequent, shorter screening and surveillance intervals than recommended.6 It remains to be seen what is the best method of bowel preparation for a good quality colonoscopy. An ideal bowel preparation should be small in volume, acceptable and tolerable to patients, reliable in cleansing efficacy, and safe.7

In this issue of Intestinal research, Kang et al. investigate the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy.8 Study subjects were randomized to one of two therapeutic dosing strategies: the same-day two sachets of picosulfate group (n=97, group A) vs. conventional split-dose 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) group (n=99, group B). The primary endpoint was bowel preparation success assessed by using the Ottawa scale. Patients' tolerability was assessed using a questionnaire immediately before colonoscopy to evaluate patient tolerability, adverse events, and sleep quantity. The number of polyps and adenomas detected were measured.

The Ottawa score of the total colon was 4.05±1.56 in the group A and 3.80±1.55 in the group B (P=0.255). Bowel preparation success was achieved in 61.5% of the same-day picosulfate group vs. 71.3% of 4 L PEG group, which failed to reach statistical significance (P=0.133). However, tolerability of the group A regimen was superior to the group B regimen (P<0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events was fewer in the same-day picosulfate group (P=0.037). In addition, the proportion of patients who slept at least 80% of their usual sleeping hours was higher in group A than group B (87.8 vs. 56.4%, P<0.001). Adenoma detection rate was similar between the two groups (31.3% for group A vs. 34.3% for group B; P=0.651). These results suggest that bowel preparation with the same-day picosulfate regimen may be similar in cleansing efficacy and superior in the tolerability and adverse event profile to the conventional split-dose 4 L PEG regimen.

The conclusion of this study may have several implications. First, safety is an important virtue. Therefore, safer adverse event profile of the same-day picosulfate regimen is meaningful by itself. Second, shortening of bowel preparation duration within a single day will less severely disturb a patient's daily life, which may be beneficial in the viewpoint of cost-effectiveness such as economic and social activity of the patient. Third, experience of difficult bowel preparation may lead to the poorer compliance for the next colonoscopy such as surveillance after initial polypectomy, which makes colonoscopy screening and surveillance program ineffective for adequate CRC prevention. In this regard, more tolerable bowel preparation regimen may be better in terms of optimal CRC prevention by improving compliance for repeated colonoscopy examinations.

Despite these positive implications of the same-day picosulfate regimen in this study, there are several issues to be addressed before the conclusion and implications would be completely admitted. First, as the authors mentioned, this study did not analyze the biochemical profile including the electrolyte and renal function before and after bowel preparation. Because of the potential possibility of hyponatremia, dehydration and other electrolyte imbalance after bowel cleansing with laxative, meticulous evaluation of biochemical profile should be performed, especially in the high risk population such as elderly patients and those with congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, or kidney disease. Second, it should be noted that the score of the right colon was 1.65±0.70 in the same-day picosulfate group and 1.43±0.77 in the 4 L PEG group (P=0.046). Without adequate right colon preparation, one can miss more right colon polyps. Although overall adenoma detection rate was not different between the two preparation regimen, we do not know the adenoma detection rate according to the location in colorectum. Third, this study did not analyze the adenoma detection according to the morphology and histology of polyps. Considering the fact that sessile serrated adenoma/polyp which is usually flat is common in the right colon and the result that the right colon preparation was poorer in the same-day picosulfate group in this study, certain types of polyps in the right colon may have been missed more commonly in the same-day picosulfate group. Because right colon is associated more frequently with the interval cancer,9 this assumption may be clinically important. Therefore, improvement of right colon preparation quality with the same-day picosulfate regimen and analysis of adenoma detection according to the morphology and histology should be performed.

There are several bowel cleansing regimen for colonoscopy. However, most of them are not completely satisfactory in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability. Therefore, new regimen should be developed and investigated for better bowel preparation. The study by Kang et al. in this issue of Intestinal research analyzed the clinical usefulness of the same-day picosulfate regimen, which enlarged the armamentarium for bowel preparation. Further studies are warranted to confirm the usefulness of this regimen and to clarify methods to improve the quality of bowel preparation by this regimen. Investigations for better bowel preparation may ultimately lead to the more effective CRC screening and surveillance and decreased CRC incidence and mortality.

NOTES

Financial support: None.

Conflict of interest: None.

REFERENCES

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:11–30.PMID: 23335087.Article PubMed
2. Byeon JS, Yang SK, Kim TI, et al. Colorectal neoplasm in asymptomatic Asians: a prospective multinational multicenter colonoscopy survey. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:1015–1022.PMID: 17531636.Article PubMed
3. Sung JJ, Lau JY, Goh KL, Leung WK. Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in Asia: implications for screening. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:871–876.PMID: 16257795.Article PubMed
4. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–1981.PMID: 8247072.Article PubMed
5. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Vader JP. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:378–384.PMID: 15758907.Article PubMed
6. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1696–1700.PMID: 12135020.Article PubMed
7. Brown AR, DiPalma JA. Bowel preparation for gastrointestinal procedures. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2004;6:395–401.PMID: 15341716.Article PubMed
8. Kang MS, Kim TO, Seo EH, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability between same-day picosulfate and split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial. Intest Res 2014;12:53–59.Article PubMed PMC
9. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, Hoffmeister M. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. Gut 2012;61:1576–1582.PMID: 22200840.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer
Joo Hye Song, Eun Ran Kim
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2024; 39(4): 547. CrossRef
Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy within 6 Hours Following Bowel Preparation with Polyethylene Glycol Shows Improved Small Bowel Visibility
Chang Wan Choi, So Jung Lee, Sung Noh Hong, Eun Ran Kim, Dong Kyung Chang, Young-Ho Kim, Yun Jeong Lim, Ki-Nam Shim, Hyun-Seok Lee
Diagnostics.2023; 13(3): 469. CrossRef
Efficacy of elobixibat as bowel preparation agent for colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multi‐center study
Daisuke Yamaguchi, Hidenori Hidaka, Takuya Matsunaga, Takashi Akutagawa, Yuichiro Tanaka, Amane Jubashi, Yuki Takeuchi, Nanae Tsuruoka, Yasuhisa Sakata, Koichi Miyahara, Naoyuki Tominaga, Hiroharu Kawakubo, Ayako Takamori, Ryo Shimoda, Takahiro Noda, Shin
Digestive Endoscopy.2022; 34(1): 171. CrossRef
Postgastrectomy gastric cancer patients are at high risk for colorectal neoplasia: a case control study
Tae-Geun Gweon, Kyu-Tae Yoon, Chang Hyun Kim, Jin-Jo Kim
Intestinal Research.2021; 19(2): 239. CrossRef
How to Choose the Optimal Bowel Preparation Regimen for Colonoscopy
Ji Eun Na, Eun Ran Kim
The Ewha Medical Journal.2021; 44(4): 122. CrossRef
Comparison of bowel-cleansing efficacy of split-dose and same-day dose bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy in patients with gastrectomy: a prospective randomized study
Tae-Geun Gweon, Cheal Wung Huh, Jeong Seon Ji, Chang Hyun Kim, Jin-Jo Kim, Seung-Man Park
Surgical Endoscopy.2020; 34(10): 4413. CrossRef
Efficacy of 1.2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparations
Hiroyuki Tamaki, Teruyo Noda, Masahiro Morita, Akina Omura, Atsushi Kubo, Chikara Ogawa, Toshihiro Matsunaka, Mitsushige Shibatoge
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2019; 7(4): 452. CrossRef
Comparison of Bowel Cleansing Efficacy, Safety, Bowel Movement Kinetics, and Patient Tolerability of Same-Day and Split-Dose Bowel Preparation Using 4 L of Polyethylene Glycol: A Prospective Randomized Study
Myeongsook Seo, Tae-Geun Gweon, Cheal Wung Huh, Jeong Seon Ji, Hwang Choi
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2019; 62(12): 1518. CrossRef
Can water insufflation and carbon dioxide overcome the difficulties of colonoscope insertion?
Choong-Kyun Noh, Kee Myung Lee
Intestinal Research.2018; 16(2): 166. CrossRef
Comparable Efficacy of a 1-L PEG and Ascorbic Acid Solution Administered with Bisacodyl versus a 2-L PEG and Ascorbic Acid Solution for Colonoscopy Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized and Investigator-Blinded Trial
Ji Eun Kwon, Jung Won Lee, Jong Pil Im, Ji Won Kim, Su Hwan Kim, Seong-Joon Koh, Byeong Gwan Kim, Kook Lae Lee, Sang Gyun Kim, Joo Sung Kim, Hyun Chae Jung, John Green
PLOS ONE.2016; 11(9): e0162051. CrossRef
Low Volume Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Plus Ascorbic Acid, a Valid Alternative to Standard PEG
Su Hwan Kim, Ji Won Kim
Gut and Liver.2016; 10(2): 160. CrossRef
Does Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Plus Ascorbic Acid Induce More Mucosal Injuries than Split-Dose 4-L PEG during Bowel Preparation?
Min Sung Kim, Jongha Park, Jae hyun Park, Hyung Jun Kim, Hyun Jeong Jang, Hee Rin Joo, Ji Yeon Kim, Joon Hyuk Choi, Nae Yun Heo, Seung Ha Park, Tae Oh Kim, Sung Yeon Yang
Gut and Liver.2016; 10(2): 237. CrossRef

PubReader

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Bowel Preparation, the First Step for a Good Quality Colonoscopy

Intest Res. 2014;12(1):1-2. Published online January 28, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2014.12.1.1

XML Download

Bowel Preparation, the First Step for a Good Quality Colonoscopy