Impact of a 1-day versus 3-day low-residue diet on bowel cleansing quality before colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day low-residue diet (LRD) improved bowel cleansing quality compared with a 1-day LRD regimen.

Methods Consecutive patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality as evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (adequate cleansing ≥ 2 points per segment). Secondary outcomes were adherence to and level of satisfaction with the LRD, difficulty following the dietary recommendations, and willingness to repeat the same LRD in the future. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the primary outcome. A superiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that a 3-day LRD regimen was superior to a 1-day LRD regimen with a margin of 10 %.

Results 390 patients (1-day LRD group = 196, 3-day LRD = 194) were included. The cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups: ITT analysis 82.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 77.4 to 88.0) vs. 85.6 % (95 %CI 80.7 to 90.5), with odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95 %CI 0.72 to 2.15); PP analysis 85.0 % (95 %CI 79.9 to 90.1) vs. 88.6 % (95 %CI 84.0 to 93.2), with OR 1.4 (95 %CI 0.88 to 2.52). No differences were found regarding adherence to the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulty with the LRD, and the polyp/adenoma detection rates.

Conclusion 3-day LRD did not offer advantages over 1-day LRD in preparation for colonoscopy.

• References

• 1 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L. et al. Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 709-717
• 2 Doubeni CA, Weinmann S, Adams K. et al. Screening colonoscopy and risk for incident late-stage colorectal cancer diagnosis in average-risk adults: a nested case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 312-320
• 3 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 4 Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Baute JL, Hernandez G. et al. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation: a validated predictive score. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 536-543
• 5 Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142-150
• 6 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
• 7 Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H. et al. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 1797-1802
• 8 Rivero-Sanchez L, Pellise M. [Bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Any significant progress on the horizon?]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 38: 287-300
• 9 Nguyen DL, Jamal MM, Nguyen ET. et al. Low-residue versus clear liquid diet before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 499-507. e491
• 10 Song GM, Tian X, Ma L. et al. Regime for bowel preparation in patients scheduled to colonoscopy: low-residue diet or clear liquid diet? Evidence from systematic review with power analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e2432
• 11 Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB. et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1528-1545
• 12 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
• 13 Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD. et al. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1480-1491
• 14 Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC. et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982; 5: 649-655
• 15 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
• 16 Reeves MM, Winkler EAH, Eakin GE. Fat and fibre behaviour questionnaire: reliability, relative validity and responsiveness to change Australian adults with type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension. Nutr Diet 2015; 72: 368-376
• 17 Hatoum HT, Lin SJ, Joseph RE. et al. Validation of a patient satisfaction scale in patients undergoing bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. Patient 2016; 9: 27-34
• 18 Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH. et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 346-352
• 19 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
• 20 Borg BB, Gupta NK, Zuckerman GR. et al. Impact of obesity on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 670-675
• 21 Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 2014-2020