Split dosing with a low-volume preparation is not inferior to split dosing with a high-volume preparation for bowel cleansing in patients with a history of colorectal resection: a randomized trial

Background and study aim: The study compared the efficacy of bowel cleansing using a low-volume mixed preparation (15 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L polyethylene glycol [PEG] solution) versus a standard high-volume preparation (4 L PEG) in patients with previous colorectal resection.

Patients and methods: A total of 120 patients with prior colorectal resection for cancer undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to receive either a split-dose low-volume (n = 60) or high-volume (n = 60) preparation for bowel cleansing. The quality of bowel preparation, rated according to a modified Ottawa Bowel Preparation scale (mOBPS), represented the primary outcome measure. Tolerability, safety, and lesion detection rates were secondary outcomes.

Results: No significant difference was observed between the low-volume and high-volume preparations in achievement of adequate cleansing (i. e. mOBPS ≤ 4; low-volume vs. high-volume group, 85.0 % vs. 81.7 %, P = 0.624). The low-volume preparation showed a higher success rate for cleansing of the right colon (P = 0.025); better tolerability in terms of intake of the whole amount of the preparation (P < 0.001) was also observed. According to the logistic regression analysis, the only predictors of unsuccessful cleansing were previous left colectomy (P = 0.012) and a longer elapsed time since the intervention (P = 0.034). Lesion detection rates were comparable between the groups. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion: A low-volume preparation is not inferior to a high-volume preparation for adequate bowel cleansing in patients with prior colorectal resection for cancer. If larger, multicenter, prospective studies confirm our findings, a low-volume preparation will represent a more tolerable option for such patients.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT01887158.

• References

• 1 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J et al. 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
• 2 Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 76-79
• 3 Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1207-1214
• 4 Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142-150
• 5 Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM et al. Impact of fair bowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 463-470
• 6 Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1865-1871
• 7 Labianca R, Nordlinger B, Beretta GD et al. Primary colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: v70
• 8 Meyerhardt JA, Mangu PB, Flynn PJ et al. Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 4465
• 9 Chung YW, Han DS, Park KH et al. Patient factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol: a prospective study in Korea. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 43: 448-452
• 10 Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M et al. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 501-506
• 11 Lim SW, Seo YW, Sinn DH et al. Impact of previous gastric or colonic resection on polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 1554-1559
• 12 Aoun E, Abdul-Baki H, Azar C et al. A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 213-218
• 13 El Sayed AM, Kanafani ZA, Mourad FH et al. A randomized single-blind trial of whole versus split-dose polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 36-40
• 14 Enestvedt BK, Fennerty MB, Eisen GM. Randomised clinical trial: MiraLAX vs. Golytely – a controlled study of efficacy and patient tolerability in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 33-40
• 15 Cesaro P, Hassan C, Spada C et al. A new low-volume isosmotic polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl versus split-dose 4 L polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: A randomised controlled trial. Dig Liv Dis 2013; 45: 23-27
• 16 Brahmania M, Ou G, Bressler B et al. 2 L versus 4 L of PEG3350 + electrolytes for outpatient colonic preparation: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 408-416
• 17 Di Palma JA, McGowan J, Cleveland MV. Clinical trial: an efficacy evaluation of reduced bisacodyl given as part of a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution preparation prior to colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 26: 1113-1119
• 18 Repici A, Cestari R, Annese V et al. Randomised clinical trial: low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy – a comparison between two different PEG-based formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 36: 717-724
• 19 Rex DK. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: entering an era of increased expectations for efficacy. Clinical Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 458-462
• 20 Xie Q, Chen L, Zhao F et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid versus standard-volume polyethylene glycol solution as bowel preparations for colonoscopy. PLoS One 2014; 5; 9: e99092
• 21 Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton 3rd LJ. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 3186-3194
• 22 Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch HJ et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 883-893
• 23 Corporaal S, Kleibeuker JH, Koornstra JJ. Low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid versus high-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 1380-1386
• 24 Bucci C, Rotondano G, Hassan C et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 566-576
• 25 Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC, Harrison ME et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 603-608
• 26 Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1240-1245
• 27 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750 Erratum in: Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 1613
• 28 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
• 29 Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 543-562
• 30 Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
• 31 Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH et al. Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 2667
• 32 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
• 33 Manabe N, Cremonini F, Camilleri M et al. Effects of bisacodyl on ascending colon emptying and overall colonic transit in healthy volunteers. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30: 930-936
• 34 Fuccio L, Spada C, Frazzoni L et al. Higher adenoma recurrence rate after left- versus right-colectomy for colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; Mar 27. [epub ahead of print]
• 35 Phillips SF. Functions of the large bowel: an overview. Scand J Gastroenterol 1984; 93 Suppl 1-12
• 36 Menees SB, Elliott E, Govani S et al. The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 148-154
• 37 Spiegel BM, Talley J, Shekelle P et al. Development and validation of a novel patient educational booklet to enhance colonoscopy preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 875-883
• 38 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625