Next Article in Journal
Multifocal Electroretinogram Photopic Negative Response: A Reliable Paradigm to Detect Localized Retinal Ganglion Cells’ Impairment in Retrobulbar Optic Neuritis Due to Multiple Sclerosis as a Model of Retinal Neurodegeneration
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Adjuvant Single Postoperative Instillation of Gemcitabine for Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/diagnostics12051155
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting

by
Olga Bednarska
1,*,†,
Nils Nyhlin
2,*,†,
Peter Thelin Schmidt
3,4,
Gabriele Wurm Johansson
5,
Ervin Toth
5 and
Perjohan Lindfors
6,7
1
Department of Gastroenterology, Linköping University Hospital, S-581 85 Linköping, Sweden
2
Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, S-701 85 Örebro, Sweden
3
Department of Medicine, Ersta Hospital, S-116 91 Stockholm, Sweden
4
Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, S-171 77 Solna, Sweden
5
Department of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, S-205 02 Malmö, Sweden
6
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, S-171 77 Solna, Sweden
7
Aleris Gastromottagningen City, S-111 37 Stockholm, Sweden
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(5), 1155; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/diagnostics12051155
Submission received: 31 March 2022 / Revised: 30 April 2022 / Accepted: 30 April 2022 / Published: 6 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advancements in Colonoscopy)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a new very low-volume 1 litre (1L) polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbate solution (ASC) has been introduced. Our aims were to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of this product compared to low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG solutions, in a real-life setting. In six endoscopy units in Sweden, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were either prescribed solutions according to local routines, or the very low-volume solution in split dose regimen. Bowel cleansing effectiveness and patient experience was assessed using the Boston Bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and a patient questionnaire. A total of 1098 patients (mean age 58 years, 52% women) were included. All subsegment and the total BBPS scores were significantly greater for 1L PEG-ASC in comparison to other solutions (p < 0.05 for 1L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG for transverse and left colon, otherwise p < 0.001). Nausea was more frequent with 1L PEG-ASC compared to 2L PEG-ASC (p < 0.001) and vomiting were more often reported compared to both other solutions (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 for 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG, respectively). Smell, taste, and total experience was better for 1L PEG-ASC compared to 4L PEG (p < 0.001), and similar compared to the 2L PEG-ASC. In conclusion, 1L PEG-ASC leads to better bowel cleansing compared to 2L PEG-ASC or 4L PEG products, with similar or greater patient satisfaction.

1. Introduction

High-quality colonoscopy has proved to reduce both the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer when applied in the general population [1,2,3]. Adequate bowel preparation assures accuracy of the colonoscopy examination. Meta-analyses show significant association between inadequate bowel preparation and decreased adenoma detection rates (ADR) including advanced adenomas [4,5], as well as threefold greater miss rate for ≥5 mm sized adenomas [6]. In fact, for subtle, flat lesions such as sessile serrated polyps the detection rates are negatively impacted by even a small decrease in bowel preparation quality below high-quality [7].
Additionally, caecal intubation rate [8,9,10] and satisfactory patient experience [11] are shown to be significantly correlated to adequate bowel cleansing. Poor bowel preparation results in re-scheduling of the procedure, which increases healthcare costs [12,13]. Therefore, the limit of ≥90%, with a quality target of ≥95% of adequate bowel preparation assessed using validated scales has been one of the most important quality indicators according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) [14]. The recommended split-dose regimen for the routine bowel preparation, shown to improve the quality of bowel cleansing [15,16], divides the amount of the liquids to be consumed in two parts. Nevertheless, the high-volume 4 litre (L) polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution to be ingested as 2 L at each dose results in diminished patients’ compliance [17]. There are two different high-volume PEG solutions on the market in Sweden, one containing sulphate (Laxabon) and another sulphate free and with citrus taste (Vistaprep). Both preparations showed the same cleansing effectiveness, while the sulphate free version has been proven to be superior in smell, taste, and total experience of laxation. However, no significant difference in patients’ compliance was seen [18,19]. In order to reduce the volume of the PEG solution to be consumed, different adjuvants can be used, as for instance high doses of ascorbate added to 2 L PEG (2L PEG-ASC, Movprep). In some older studies, no differences in efficacy or patient compliance between 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG could be shown [20,21] despite the proven better palatability [20] of the 2L PEG-ASC. However, a recent metanalysis demonstrated greater acceptability, better compliance, and willingness to repeat the same regime of 2L PEG-ASC versus 4L PEG [22].
Recently, a very low-volume 1 litre PEG solution with adjuvant ascorbate (1L PEG-ASC, Plenvu, Norgine) has been introduced in Europe and has shown to be at least noninferior to both low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG solutions [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32], with a favourable patient experience, tolerability, and high adherence [23,28,33].
The aim of our study is to validate the effectiveness and tolerability of very low-volume 1L PEG-ASC, newly established at the Swedish market, against the widely used high-volume and low-volume PEG solution in real-life clinical settings.

2. Materials and Methods

We designed a qualitative, prospective, multicentre, comparative, single-blinded, observational study that was performed at six Swedish Gastroenterology and Endoscopy units in out-patients prepared with high-volume or low-volume versus very low-volume PEG solution as bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2020-05983) and registered in an international clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05192551). All collected patient data during the study were unidentified.
Adult out-patients undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy, with intention to conduct a complete colonoscopy, were consecutively enrolled from both the external (referred from another health centre) and internal (referred from the outpatient clinic at the same centre) referral lists at the study centres. The exclusion criteria were age below 18 years and illegibility. The patients were consecutively assigned to one of the two study groups: the standard group (bowel preparation with 2L PEG-ASC or 4L PEG solutions according to local routines) and the very low-volume group (bowel preparation with 1L PEG-ASC), aiming at approximately 100 patients in each group. The colonoscopists were blinded to the study product used. The overnight split-dosing bowel cleansing regimen was applied throughout the study. For both the 2L PEG-ASC and the very low-volume PEG solution preparation included 500 mL additional clear fluids after each dose, apart from additional clear fluids “ad libitum” that were recommended up to two hours before the procedure in both study arms. A low-fibre diet was recommended one week before the procedure, while on the day before the colonoscopy light breakfast and lunch were permitted.
The study was conducted according to standard procedures with no additional intervention apart from the pre-procedural patient questionnaire including information on age, gender, and patient’s personal experience with the study preparation (smell, taste, total volume of laxative ingested, total fluid ingested, total experience) using a 5-point Likert scale as well as tolerability regarding nausea and vomiting. Patients were asked to attend the study at the time of arrival to the endoscopy unit. If they accepted, an informed consent was signed, and the patient answered the pre-procedural questionnaire.
Experienced colonoscopists, blinded to treatment allocation, performed all colonoscopies and allocated initial segmental cleansing scores using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score [34]. Adequate bowel cleansing was defined as a total BBPS ≥ 6 with a partial BBPS ≥ 2 in each colon segment. The right-sided and total high-quality bowel cleansing were defined as BBPS Right colon = 3 and total BBPS = 9, respectively. The information about BBPS score, caecal intubation rate, the need and reason for re-scheduling of the colonoscopy assessed by the colonoscopist, as well as the laxative used, were documented at the patient’s questionnaire by the endoscopy staff and collected without notifying the colonoscopist.
Results are presented as mean values with standard deviations, except for the Likert-scale results, where medians and percentiles are reported. One-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc analyses were used for comparisons with continuous variables, Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections were used for ordinal variables and Pearson Chi-Square test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate and univariate Logistic regression models were constructed to assess predictors for the outcomes: (a) adequate bowel cleansing (BBPS total score ≥ 6), (b) high-quality bowel cleansing (BBPS total score = 9) and (c) high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS Right colon = 3). Covariates were selected based on their potential biological association with this outcome. The following covariates were included in the regression models: age (>65 or <65); gender (male or female), and type of bowel preparation (1L PEG-ASC, 2L PEG-ASC, or 4L PEG). In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed with the following covariates: age categorized into quartiles, ingestion of the entire amount of laxative, drinking of 1 litre or more of additional fluids or report of vomiting. All tests were two-tailed, and p-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics for Windows version 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA, 2020).

3. Results

3.1. Study Population and Characteristics

A total of 1121 patients were included in the study. However, for 23 patients, information on the bowel preparation agent was missing and these patients were therefore excluded from the analyses. For the remaining 1098, mean age was 58 years, 52% women and 48% men. Four patients did not report their age and 45 patients did not report their gender.
The endoscopy units participating in this study included three university hospitals (Linköping, Malmö, and Örebro), one local hospital (Karlskoga), and two large endoscopy units in Stockholm with mainly outpatients referred from primary care (Stockholm Ersta and Stockholm GMC-Aleris Gastromottagning City).
No statistical differences in patients’ characteristics were seen between the different endoscopy units regarding gender, but age differed. Patients from Stockholm GMC were significantly younger compared to all other endoscopy centres apart from Linköping, and Linköping’s patients were younger than those from Karlskoga and Malmö (Table A1, Appendix A).
No statistical difference in bowel cleansing efficacy was observed between the two different high-volume PEG-solutions (Vistaprep and Laxabon), nor were there any significant differences in gender, caecal intubation rates, nausea rates, or vomiting rates. Smell was graded better for Vistaprep compared to Laxabon (p = 0.011), but not taste or total experience. Moreover, Vistaprep patients were significantly younger than Laxabon patients: mean 56 years compared to 63 (p < 0.001).

3.2. Bowel Cleansing Efficacy

BBPS total score was calculated in 1059 of the cases, i.e., if all three subsegments were reported. All BBPS subsegment scores and total score were significantly better for the 1L PEG-ASC group compared to both 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG groups (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Adequate cleansing, as defined by a BBPS score of ≥6 with no segment less than 2, was overall very good and was achieved in 97% of cases in the 1L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG group and 95% of cases in the 2L PEG-ASC group. There were no statistical differences between the groups. When a total score of 9 was used to define a high-quality cleansing of the colon, there was a significantly better result in the 1L PEG-ASC compared to both 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG groups. High-quality cleansing of the right colon, defined as a BBPS subscore of 3, was also seen significantly more often in the 1L PEG-ASC compared to both 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG groups.
Caecal intubation rate was 95% for the 4L PEG group and the 1L PEG-ASC group, whereas for the 2L PEG-ASC group it was 90%.
A total of 61 colonoscopies were reported to be incomplete. The reason was inadequate cleansing in 21 cases, technical difficulties in 21 cases, and for the remaining 19, “other reason” was reported as the cause, including patients with previous right sided hemicolectomy, finding of a tumour or inflammation. There were no statistically significant differences between the different treatment groups for reasons of incompletion.

3.3. Predictors of Overall Cleansing Success and High-Quality Cleansing of the Right Colon

Univariate and multivariate logistic multiple regression models for overall adequate cleansing success and high-quality cleansing of total colon and the right colon were created with predictors set to bowel preparation, gender, and age categorized into two cohorts: younger than 65 or 65 and older. Including additional predictors such as age categorized into quartiles, ingestion of the entire amount of laxative, drinking of 1 L or more of additional fluids, or vomiting did not change the multivariate results.
As shown in Table 2A, the odds ratios for adequate bowel cleansing were lower, both in the univariate and multivariate analyses if the patient was over 65 years of age. Apart from that, no other significant predictor for adequate bowel cleansing was identified. For high-quality bowel cleansing, there were lower odds ratios both for the 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG groups compared to the 1L PEG-ASC group (Table 2B). Similarly, the odds ratios for high-quality cleansing of the right colon were lower for both the 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG groups compared to the 1L PEG-ASC group (Table 2C). Age ≥ 65 was also a negative predictive factor for high-quality colon cleansing, for both total score and in the right colon.

3.4. Adherence and Tolerability

Data on adherence and tolerability are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. There were significant differences between the treatment groups regarding adherence (ingestion of all the bowel preparation). Complete intake of the solution was most often reported in the 2L PEG-ASC group, and the smallest proportion was ingested in the 4L PEG group. Similarly, ingestion of 1 litre or more of additional fluids was most often reported in the 2L PEG-ASC group and least often in the 4L PEG group.
Nausea was significantly more commonly reported in the 1L PEG-ASC group compared to the 2L PEG-ASC group but did not significantly differ from the 4L PEG group, whereas vomiting was more common in the 1 L PEG-ASC group compared to both 2L and 4L groups.
The patients graded smell, taste, and total experience of the cleansing process from 1 to 5 in the patient enquiry. There was no significant difference between the 1L PEG-ASC and 2L PEG-ASC groups regarding smell, taste, or total experience, whereas significantly lower scores were seen for these parameters in 4L PEG group compared to the other groups.

4. Discussion

The present study is the first head-to head post-marketing study in Scandinavia of very low-volume 1L PEG-ASC with other well-established low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG solutions. This prospective, multicentre audit illustrates several important aspects relevant to practicing colonoscopists. In our study, 1L PEG-ASC, 2L PEG-ASC, and 4L PEG groups achieved adequate bowel cleansing, exceeding the minimum standard of 90% set by ESGE and meeting the quality target limit of ≥95% [14]. Statistically greater total BBPS scores as well as subsegment scores were demonstrated for 1L PEG-ASC compared to other PEG products. Moreover, the odds ratios for total high-quality bowel cleansing (BBPS = 9) were greater for 1L PEG-ASC compared to both 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG products. The only identifiable risk factor for inadequate bowel cleansing, low total high-quality, and low right-sided high-quality bowel preparation, was age ≥65 years old. The adherence for ingesting the entire amount of laxative was lower in the 1L PEG-ASC compared to the 2L PEG-ASC group, but greater than the 4L PEG group. This could possibly be explained by the fact that nausea and vomiting were more frequently reported in the 1L PEG-ASC group. Nevertheless, patient satisfaction was as high or higher for 1L PEG-ASC compared to 2 L PEG-ASC and 4 L PEG preparations.
During colonoscopy, complete visualization of the entire mucosa is one of the most important end points of this procedure, and it is associated with lower incidence of colorectal cancer [35,36]. BBPS is a validated scale for bowel cleansing evaluation [34], measuring bowel cleanliness after completing all the cleansing manoeuvres, and therefore it is considered to express the real-world way colonoscopy is performed [37]. An adequate level of bowel cleanliness, that is sufficient for identification of polyps >5 mm, has been established as total BBPS ≥ 6 [6]; however, high-quality colon cleansing (total BBPS score 7–9 or segmental BBPS = 3) proved to increase adenoma detection and is considered to be a clinical priority in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation [38]. Attaining adequate cleansing in the right colon is proven to be more difficult to achieve than in the distal colon [39]. Our results of 1L PEG-ASC cleansing effectiveness are in line with other studies, showing at least noninferiority of 1L PEG-ASC compared to both low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG solutions [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Moreover, the odds ratios for high-quality colon cleansing, including high-quality right-sided colon preparation, were greater in our study for 1L PEG-ASC compared to other PEG products, reproducing the results from other studies [23,28,32,40,41].
Bowel preparation is known to be one of the most worrisome factors for patients scheduled for colonoscopy [42,43]. Theoretically, diminishing the volume of the bowel preparation formulation should result in improved patient compliance and acceptability due to the lower volume of fluid to be consumed. In several studies, the 1L PEG-ASC demonstrated favourable patient experience, tolerability, and high adherence [23,25,26,28,33,44]. In our study, patient compliance for laxative ingesting was superior for 1L PEG-ASC versus high-volume PEG but inferior to 2L PEG-ASC. A meta-analysis by Maida et al., 2020 [45] showed a lower tolerability profile of 1L PEG-ASC in comparison to 2L PEG, mostly due to nausea and vomiting, although this was not reproduced in the following real-life study conducted by the same research group [23].
The lower volume of 1L PEG-ASC causes greater osmolality load, further increased by a ten-fold higher dose of ascorbate, compared to 2L PEG-ASC, applied in only 500 mL of fluid, which presumably contributed to the observed increased nausea and vomiting reported in our study [46]. However, hyperosmolality is a plausible cleanliness drive, effectuating high quality bowel preparation, particularly in the proximal colon [47]. Hence the factor probably causing poorer adherence is at the same time feasibly resulting in improved bowel cleanliness. Poor palatability is a major drawback of all bowel preparation solutions and a significant obstacle as far as the very low volume-product is concerned. It was our experience when conducting this study that the patients reported a significantly worse taste of the second dose of the very low volume-preparation, presumably due to the pungent artificial flavour added to minimize the chemical taste of ascorbate. Chilling the solution as well as ingestion of more free water may help to circumvent both poor palatability and nausea. Interestingly, in our study nausea was more frequently reported in the 1L PEG-ASC group than in the 2L PEG-ASC group, but did not reach statistical significance versus the 4L PEG preparate not containing ascorbate, which could suggest complexity of this subjective symptom. Despite more frequent side effects, which likely resulted in the observed lower adherence, patient satisfaction of 1L PEG-ASC was at least not inferior to other study products. As suggested previously [47], this spurious inconsistency suggests that patient tolerance might be considerably better for the very low volume-product than for the standard products, provided comparable side effects, as nausea and vomiting are a serious impediment to patients’ compliance. Moreover, patient assessment, based on evaluation of only one type of bowel cleansing product, was per se not objective. Oliviera et al. demonstrated that more than 75% of the patients in their study who took both preparations preferred 1L PEG-ASC to 2L PEG-ASC [48]. In addition, Maida at al. confirmed using multiple regression that 1L PEG-ASC is an independent predictor of patient tolerance over standard PEG solutions, both low and high volume [23], which further strengthens the hypothesis that lower volume of the bowel preparation may improve adherence.
Our study has several strengths. This is a prospective, real-life study conducted both in tertiary centre-settings and non-university centres, ensuring sufficient diversity of patients and resulting in the adequate generalizability of the study results to the outpatient settings. The colonoscopists were all well-trained and blinded for the bowel preparation, avoiding the obstacle of individual bias on subjectivity in evaluation of bowel preparation quality. The split dose regimen, applied in all study arms as recommended by the recent ESGE guidelines [49], has consistently been considered to improve the quality of bowel preparation [15,16], and therefore represents one of the benefits of the study.
An important limitation of the study was the lack of randomization as well as not considering other potential patient-related risk factors of poor bowel preparation, such as history of constipation, comorbid conditions, body mass index, and medications [50]. Nonetheless, the lack of randomization is secondary to the nature of the study, which was designed to be observational and thus clinically more relevant. Furthermore, one of the inclusion criteria for the study was legibility of the Swedish language, which may have resulted in certain selection bias. Although both the patients, the endoscopy staff, and the colonoscopists were instructed not to discuss the individual’s bowel preparation regimen, this might be a potential source of bias as the process was not possible to be fully controlled by the investigators. Moreover, the study design did not account for the comparable number of endoscopies conducted by each colonoscopist in each study arm, which could result in differences in BBPS scoring [37]. Finally, there were significant age differences between the study sites.
In summary, this multicentre study of more than one thousand outpatients proved superiority in bowel cleanliness of very low-volume 1L PEG-ASC compared to low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG products, as far as both total BBPS scores and most importantly the right-sided subsegment BBPS scores are concerned. The total patient satisfaction was as great as or greater with very low-volume versus other PEG formulations, despite more frequent nausea and vomiting caused by the very low-volume product. Future developments should focus on improving the palatability and reducing the nausea and vomiting side-effects of the bowel preparation formations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.B., N.N., P.T.S., E.T. and P.L.; investigation, O.B., N.N., P.T.S., G.W.J., E.T. and P.L.; formal analysis, N.N.; writing—original draft preparation, O.B. and N.N.; writing—review and editing, O.B., N.N., P.T.S., G.W.J., E.T. and P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors, except G.W.J., disclosed receipt of an unrestricted financial grant of 50,000 Swedish krona from Norgine prior to conducting this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2020-05983, 10 February 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author (N.N.). The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all the endoscopy staff from all study sites for help with conducting the study, with special thanks to research nurses Anette Forsell and Cecilia Lindberg, Anders Magnuson and Carl Eriksson for statistical advice, and Juha Halonen for valuable language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

All the authors, apart from Gabriele Wurm-Johansson, declare acting as consultants and advisory board participants for Norgine. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Comparison between the different endoscopy units.
Table A1. Comparison between the different endoscopy units.
ÖrebroKarlskogaMalmöLinköpingStockholm GMCStockholm Ersta
Age60 (22–85)61 (21–89)62 (21–91)55 (18–85)54 (18–84)59 (19–89)
Gender m/f66/6857/5988/10991/118108/10999/95
CIR134/144 (93%)118/129 (92%)186/197 (94%)201/211 (95%)208/217 (96%)180/197 (92%)
Movprep
(n = 104)		Plenvu
(n = 37)		Laxabon
(n = 46)		Plenvu
(n = 75)		Laxabon
(n = 100)		Plenvu
(n = 97)		Vistaprep
(n = 101)		Plenvu
(n = 109)		Vistaprep
(n = 117)		Plenvu
(n = 100)		Movprep
(n = 93)		Plenvu
(n = 100)
Smell4.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–3.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0) **3.0 (2.0–3.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0) ***3.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)
Taste 3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3 (1.5–3.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–3.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)
Overall experience 4.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0) *4.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0) ***4.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)
Ingestion of all laxative104 (95%)37 (93%)40 (89%)71 (95%)85 (86%)90 (93%)82 (81%)97 (88%)100 (86%)92 (92%)89 (96%)87 (88%)
Nausea27 (25%)17 (43%)16 (35%)34 (45%)36 (36%)38 (39%)34 (34%)55 (50%) *48 (41%)42 (42%)18 (20%)37 (38%) *
Vomiting4 (4%)8 (20%) **4 (9%)9 (12%)9 (9%)10 (10%)2 (2%)15 (14%) **9 (8%)10 (10%)4 (4%)8 (8%)
BBPS Right2.5 (0.7)3.0 (0.2) ***2.5 (0.5)2.7 (0.6) *2.6 (0.6)2.7 (0.5)2.5 (0.6)2.8 (0.5) ***2.6 (0.5)2.7 (0.6)2.3 (0.7)2.6 (0.6) ***
BBPS Transverse2.6 (0.7)3.0 (0.0) ***2.6 (0.5)2.7 (0.7)2.7 (0.5)2.8 (0.4)2.7 (0.5)2.8 (0.5)2.7 (0.5)2.8 (0.5)2.4 (0.6)2.7 (0.5) ***
BBPS Left2.6 (0.7)3.0 (0.2) ***2.5 (0.5)2.6 (0.7)2.7 (0.6)2.7 (0.5)2.6 (0.5)2.8 (0.6) *2.7 (0.5)1.8 (0.5)2.3 (0.6)2.7 (0.5) ***
BBPS Total7.6 (2.0)8.9 (0.3) ***7.3 (1.9)7.7 (2.4)8.1 (1.4)8.3 (1.3)7.8 (1.2)8.4 (1.2) ***8.0 (1.4)8.3 (1.5)6.9 (1.8)8.2 (1.3) ***
BBPS ≥ 6102 (94%)40 (100%)45 (98%)17 (93%)96 (96%)96 (99%)97 (96%)107 (97%)116 (99%)97 (97%)89 (96%)97 (97%)
BBPS = 954 (54%)36 (92%)19 (42%)49 (67%) **61 (65%)69 (73%)37 (39%)79 (75%) ***68 (58%)73 (73%) *30 (35%)64 (68%) ***
BBPS Right = 364 (63%)37 (95%) ***20 (46%)53 (74%) **64 (68%)72 (76%)47 (50%)87 (83%) ***71 (61%)76 (76%) *31 (37%)66 (69%) ***
CIR95 (91%)36 (97%)44 (96%)67 (92%)93 (93%)93 (96%)95 (62%)105(96%)114 (97%)94 (94%)80 (94%)94 (94%)
CIR, caecal intubation rate, BBPS, Boston Bowel Preparation Score. PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ASC, polyethylene glycol + Ascorbate. For continuous variables, mean values with Standard deviation (SD) are presented, for ordinal values the medians and 25th and 75th percentiles, and for categorical values number and percentage. p-values are presented when there are significant differences between standard laxation and 1L-PEG-ASC. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. To enable a comparison of 1L PEG-ASC with standard laxatives used at the endoscopy unit, three patients on Laxabon in Örebro, five patients on Movprep in Karlskoga, three patients on Vistaprep and one on Laxabon at Ersta were excluded.

References

  1. Bechtold, M.L.; Mir, F.; Puli, S.R.; Nguyen, D.L. Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A guide to enhance quality of visualization. Ann. Gastroenterol. 2016, 29, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Brenner, H.; Stock, C.; Hoffmeister, M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014, 348, g2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Baxter, N.N.; Warren, J.L.; Barrett, M.J.; Stukel, T.A.; Doria-Rose, V.P. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 2664–2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Clark, B.T.; Rustagi, T.; Laine, L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 109, 1714–1723, quiz 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Sulz, M.C.; Kröger, A.; Prakash, M.; Manser, C.N.; Heinrich, H.; Misselwitz, B. Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Bowel Preparation on Adenoma Detection: Early Adenomas Affected Stronger than Advanced Adenomas. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Clark, B.T.; Protiva, P.; Nagar, A.; Imaeda, A.; Ciarleglio, M.M.; Deng, Y.; Laine, L. Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men. Gastroenterology 2016, 150, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Clark, B.T.; Laine, L. High-quality Bowel Preparation Is Required for Detection of Sessile Serrated Polyps. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 14, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Hsu, C.M.; Lin, W.P.; Su, M.Y.; Chiu, C.T.; Ho, Y.P.; Chen, P.C. Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 27, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Radaelli, F.; Meucci, G.; Sgroi, G.; Minoli, G. Technical performance of colonoscopy: The key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2008, 103, 1122–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aslinia, F.; Uradomo, L.; Steele, A.; Greenwald, B.D.; Raufman, J.P. Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: An analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 721–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bugajski, M.; Wieszczy, P.; Hoff, G.; Rupinski, M.; Regula, J.; Kaminski, M.F. Modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after screening colonoscopy. Gut 2018, 67, 1958–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Yadlapati, R.; Johnston, E.R.; Gregory, D.L.; Ciolino, J.D.; Cooper, A.; Keswani, R.N. Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2015, 60, 3482–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Rex, D.K.; Imperiale, T.F.; Latinovich, D.R.; Bratcher, L.L. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2002, 97, 1696–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kaminski, M.F.; Thomas-Gibson, S.; Bugajski, M.; Bretthauer, M.; Rees, C.J.; Dekker, E.; Hoff, G.; Jover, R.; Suchanek, S.; Ferlitsch, M.; et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017, 49, 378–397. [Google Scholar]
  15. Martel, M.; Barkun, A.N.; Menard, C.; Restellini, S.; Kherad, O.; Vanasse, A. Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2015, 149, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Shah, H.; Desai, D.; Samant, H.; Davavala, S.; Joshi, A.; Gupta, T.; Abraham, P. Comparison of split-dosing vs non-split (morning) dosing regimen for assessment of quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. World J. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2014, 6, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Spadaccini, M.; Frazzoni, L.; Vanella, G.; East, J.; Radaelli, F.; Spada, C.; Fuccio, L.; Benamouzig, R.; Bisschops, R.; Bretthauer, M.; et al. Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 1454–1465.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. DiPalma, J.A.; Marshall, J.B. Comparison of a new sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution versus a standard solution for colonoscopy cleansing. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1990, 36, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wirström, G.; Lindfors, T.; Lindfors, P. Patient Satisfaction and Efficiency of Sulphate-Free High-Volume Makrogol Laxative Compared to Standard High-Volume Makrogol Laxative as Preparation to Colonoscopy, a Pseudo-Randomized Controlled Study; Abstract: A-946-0128-02233, UEG Week 2018; 2018; Available online: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/2050640618792832 (accessed on 16 March 2022).
  20. Marmo, R.; Rotondano, G.; Riccio, G.; Marone, A.; Bianco, M.A.; Stroppa, I.; Caruso, A.; Pandolfo, N.; Sansone, S.; Gregorio, E.; et al. Effective bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: A randomized study of split-dosage versus non-split dosage regimens of high-volume versus low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2010, 72, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ell, C.; Fischbach, W.; Bronisch, H.J.; Dertinger, S.; Layer, P.; Rünzi, M.; Schneider, T.; Kachel, G.; Grüger, J.; Köllinger, M.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yi, L.J.; Tian, X.; Shi, B.; Chen, H.; Liu, X.L.; Pi, Y.P.; Chen, W.Q. Low-Volume Polyethylene Glycol Improved Patient Attendance in Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis. Front. Med. 2019, 6, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maida, M.; Sinagra, E.; Morreale, G.C.; Sferrazza, S.; Scalisi, G.; Schillaci, D.; Ventimiglia, M.; Macaluso, F.S.; Vettori, G.; Conoscenti, G.; et al. Effectiveness of very low-volume preparation for colonoscopy: A prospective, multicenter observational study. World J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 26, 1950–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Baile-Maxia, S.; Amlani, B.; Martínez, R.J. Bowel-cleansing efficacy of the 1L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 (PLENVU) in patient subgroups in two phase III trials. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2021, 14, 17562848211020286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Clayton, L.B.; Tayo, B.; Halphen, M.; Kornberger, R. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation (NER1006): Proof of concept assessment versus standard 2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbate—A randomized, parallel group, phase 2, colonoscopist-blinded trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019, 19, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Epstein, M.; Halonen, J.; Sharma, P. Bowel preparation with 1L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate NER1006 doubles the chance to detect three or more adenomas in overweight or obese males. Endosc. Int. Open 2021, 9, E1324–E1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kang, S.H.; Jeen, Y.T.; Lee, J.H.; Yoo, I.K.; Lee, J.M.; Kim, S.H.; Choi, H.S.; Kim, E.S.; Keum, B.; Lee, H.S.; et al. Comparison of a split-dose bowel preparation with 2 liters of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and 1 liter of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and bisacodyl before colonoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 86, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bisschops, R.; Manning, J.; Clayton, L.B.; Ng Kwet Shing, R.; Álvarez-González, M. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: A randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Frazzoni, L.; Spada, C.; Radaelli, F.; Mussetto, A.; Laterza, L.; La Marca, M.; Piccirelli, S.; Cortellini, F.; Rondonotti, E.; Paci, V.; et al. 1L- vs. 4L-Polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients: A propensity score-matching analysis. Dig. Liver Dis. 2020, 52, 1486–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, S.H.; Kim, E.R.; Kim, K.; Kim, T.J.; Hong, S.N.; Chang, D.K.; Kim, Y.H. Combination of bisacodyl suppository and 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid is a non-inferior and comfortable regimen compared to 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. Dig. Endosc. 2020, 32, 600–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kwon, J.E.; Lee, J.W.; Im, J.P.; Kim, J.W.; Kim, S.H.; Koh, S.J.; Kim, B.G.; Lee, K.L.; Kim, S.G.; Kim, J.S.; et al. 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. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0162051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hong, S.N.; Lee, C.K.; Im, J.P.; Choi, C.H.; Byeon, J.S.; Cho, Y.S.; Jung, S.A.; Kim, T.I.; Jeen, Y.T. Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: A phase IV, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2022, 95, 500–511.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cash, B.D.; Moncrief, M.B.C.; Epstein, M.S.; Poppers, D.M. Patient experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A prospective, multicenter US survey. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021, 21, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lai, E.J.; Calderwood, A.H.; Doros, G.; Fix, O.K.; Jacobson, B.C. The Boston bowel preparation scale: A valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2009, 69 Pt 2, 620–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Doubeni, C.A.; Corley, D.A.; Quinn, V.P.; Jensen, C.D.; Zauber, A.G.; Goodman, M.; Johnson, J.R.; Mehta, S.J.; Becerra, T.A.; Zhao, W.K.; et al. Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: A large community-based study. Gut 2018, 67, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Oh, C.H.; Lee, C.K.; Kim, J.W.; Shim, J.J.; Jang, J.Y. Suboptimal Bowel Preparation Significantly Impairs Colonoscopic Detection of Non-polypoid Colorectal Neoplasms. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2015, 60, 2294–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Jacobson, B.C.; Calderwood, A.H. Measuring bowel preparation adequacy in colonoscopy-based research: Review of key considerations. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2020, 91, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hassan, C.; Manning, J.; Álvarez González, M.A.; Sharma, P.; Epstein, M.; Bisschops, R. Improved detection of colorectal adenomas by high-quality colon cleansing. Endosc. Int. Open 2020, 8, E928–E937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pohl, J.; Halphen, M.; Kloess, H.R.; Fischbach, W. Impact of the quality of bowel cleansing on the efficacy of colonic cancer screening: A prospective, randomized, blinded study. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. DeMicco, M.P.; Clayton, L.B.; Pilot, J.; Epstein, M.S. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: A randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2018, 87, 677–687.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Manning, J.; Halonen, J.; Cheriyamkunnel, S.J.; Álvarez-González, M.A. 1L NER1006 can improve rates of adequate and high-quality bowel cleansing in the right colon: A post hoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022, 22, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Waldmann, E.; Penz, D.; Majcher, B.; Zagata, J.; Šinkovec, H.; Heinze, G.; Dokladanska, A.; Szymanska, A.; Trauner, M.; Ferlitsch, A.; et al. Impact of high-volume, intermediate-volume and low-volume bowel preparation on colonoscopy quality and patient satisfaction: An observational study. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2019, 7, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Harewood, G.C.; Wiersema, M.J.; Melton, L.J., 3rd. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2002, 97, 3186–3194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Yuan, X.; Zhang, Z.; Xie, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, L.; Wang, W.; Xu, L. Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials. Biomed. Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 6638858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Maida, M.; Macaluso, F.S.; Sferrazza, S.; Ventimiglia, M.; Sinagra, E. Effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus standard bowel preparations: A meta-analysis of randomized phase-3 clinical trials. Dig. Liver Dis. 2020, 52, 833–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Schreiber, S.; Baumgart, D.C.; Drenth, J.P.H.; Filip, R.S.; Clayton, L.B.; Hylands, K.; Repici, A.; Hassan, C. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: A randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Radaelli, F. The paradox of the novel 1 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation: Efficacy, not tolerability, is the great new! Endoscopy 2019, 51, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Oliveira, A.; Mascarenhas-Saraiva, M. Tolerance and efficiency of a novel low-volume PEG + Ascorbate (NER1006) preparation in the elderly: A real-life single center study. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 25. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hassan, C.; East, J.; Radaelli, F.; Spada, C.; Benamouzig, R.; Bisschops, R.; Bretthauer, M.; Dekker, E.; Dinis-Ribeiro, M.; Ferlitsch, M.; et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 775–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Gandhi, K.; Tofani, C.; Sokach, C.; Patel, D.; Kastenberg, D.; Daskalakis, C. Patient Characteristics Associated With Quality of Colonoscopy Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 16, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 12 01155 g001 550
Figure 1. Boston Bowel Preparation Scores in the right colon (BBPS RC), the transverse colon (TC), and the left colon (LC), and BBPS total score (BBPS Total) for all study groups: 1L PEG-ASC (light blue), 2L PEG-ASC (blue), and 4L PEG (dark blue). PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ASC, polyethylene glycol + Ascorbate.
Figure 1. Boston Bowel Preparation Scores in the right colon (BBPS RC), the transverse colon (TC), and the left colon (LC), and BBPS total score (BBPS Total) for all study groups: 1L PEG-ASC (light blue), 2L PEG-ASC (blue), and 4L PEG (dark blue). PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ASC, polyethylene glycol + Ascorbate.
Diagnostics 12 01155 g001
Diagnostics 12 01155 g002 550
Figure 2. Stacked bar chart presenting proportions of answers for smell, taste, and total experience for the different laxatives studied, graded from poor to excellent. PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ASC, polyethylene glycol + Ascorbate.
Figure 2. Stacked bar chart presenting proportions of answers for smell, taste, and total experience for the different laxatives studied, graded from poor to excellent. PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ASC, polyethylene glycol + Ascorbate.
Diagnostics 12 01155 g002
Table
Table 1. Main results.
Table 1. Main results.
Overall
(n 1098)		1L PEG-ASC
(n 523)		2L PEG-ASC
(n 204)		4L PEG
(n 371)		p-Value
1L vs. 2L PEG-ASC		p-Value
1L PEG-ASC vs. 4L PEG
Age (mean, min-max, SD)58 (18–91, 16.9)57 (18–91, 17.4)60 (19–89, 16.4)59 (19–90, 16.5)0.0340.241
Age < 65 year612 (56%)301 (58%)105 (52%)206 (56%)0.2120.381
Age ≥ 65 year482 (44%)219 (44%)98 (48%)165 (44%)0.2320.356
Male503 (48%)230 (46%)103 (54%)170 (47%)0.0510.618
Smell (median, pctl)3.0 (3.0–4.0)3.5 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)0.342<0.001
Taste (median, pctl) 3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–4.0)3.0 (2.0–3.0)0.647<0.001
Overall experience (median, pctl) 4.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)4.0 (3.0–4.0)3.0 (3.0–4.0)0.065<0.001
Ingestion of all bowel preparation978 (90%)474 (91%) 195 (96%)312 (85%)0.0370.003
≥1L additional fluids 691 (63%)371 (71%)164 (81%)159 (43%)0.009<0.001
Nausea404 (37%)223 (43%)45 (22%)136 (37%)<0.0010.059
Vomiting92 (8%)60 (12%)8 (4%)11 (5%)0.0020.011
BBPS Right (mean, SD)2.6 (0.6)2.7 (0.5)2.4 (0.7)2.6 (0.6)<0.001<0.001
BBPS Transverse (mean, SD)2.7 (0.5)2.8 (0.5)2.5 (0.7)2.7 (0.5)<0.0010.018
BBPS Left (mean, SD)2.7 (0.6)2.8 (0.5)2.5 (0.6)2.7 (0.5)<0.0010.015
BBPS Total (mean, SD)7.9 (1.6)8.3 (1.5)7.3 (2.0)7.9 (1.4)<0.001<0.001
BBPS ≥ 6 1062 (97%)508 (97%)193 (95%)361 (97%)0.1000.877
BBPS = 9 642 (61%)370 (73%)84 (45%)188 (53%)<0.001<0.001
BBPS Right = 3692 (66%)391 (77%)95 (51%)206 (58%)<0.001<0.001
Cecal intubation rate1020 (94%)489 (95%)177(90%)354 (95%)0.0240.576
Incomplete due to inadequate laxation21 (1.9)11 (2.1%)3 (1.5%)7 (1.9%)0.5770.820
Incomplete due to technical reasons21 (1.9)8 (1.5%)5 (2.5%)8 (2.2%)0.4000.486
Incomplete due to other reasons19 (1.7)5 (1.0%)12 (5.9%)2 (0.5%)<0.0010.486
PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ASC, polyethylene glycol + Ascorbate; BBPS, Boston Bowel Preparation Score; SD, standard deviation; pctl, 25–75th percentile.
Table
Table 2. (A) Predictors for adequate bowel cleansing (BBPS total score ≥ 6). (B) Predictors for high-quality bowel cleansing (BBPS total score = 9. (C) Predictors for high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS Right colon = 3).
Table 2. (A) Predictors for adequate bowel cleansing (BBPS total score ≥ 6). (B) Predictors for high-quality bowel cleansing (BBPS total score = 9. (C) Predictors for high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS Right colon = 3).
(A)
Univariate Multivariate
OR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)p-Value
Age ≥ 65 0.34 (0.16–0.69)0.0030.36 (0.17–0.75)0.006
Gender (male)1.57 (0.78–3.15) 0.2060.61 (0.30–1.23)0.166
1L PEG-ASCRef Ref
2L PEG-ASC0.52 (0.23–1.15) 0.1050.51 (0.23–1.14)0.099
4L PEG1.07 (0.47–2.4) 0.8771.20 (0.52–2.80)0.667
(B)
Univariate Multivariate
OR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
Age ≥ 650.73 (0.57–0.93)0.0120.74 (0.57–0.97)0.027
Gender (male)1.18 (0.92–1.53)0.1921.13 (0.87–1.47)0.351
1L PEG-ASCRef Ref
2L PEG-ASC0.30 (0.21–0.42)<0.0010.31 (0.22–0.44)<0.001
4L PEG0.41 (0.31–0.54)<0.0010.42 (0.31–0.56)<0.001
(C)
Univariate Multivariate
OR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)p-Value
Age ≥ 650.74 (0.58–0.96)0.0240.77 (0.59–1.01)0.057
Gender (male)1.14 (0.88–1.48)0.3111.10 (0.83–1.42)0.541
1L PEG-ASCRef Ref
2L PEG-ASC0.30 (0.21–0.43)<0.0010.31 (0.22–0.45)<0.001
4L PEG0.41 (0.30–0.54)<0.0010.41 (0.30–0.55)<0.001
BBPS, Boston Bowel Preparation Score; PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-ASC, polyethylene glycol + Ascorbate; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bednarska, O.; Nyhlin, N.; Schmidt, P.T.; Johansson, G.W.; Toth, E.; Lindfors, P. The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1155. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/diagnostics12051155

AMA Style

Bednarska O, Nyhlin N, Schmidt PT, Johansson GW, Toth E, Lindfors P. The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(5):1155. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/diagnostics12051155

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bednarska, Olga, Nils Nyhlin, Peter Thelin Schmidt, Gabriele Wurm Johansson, Ervin Toth, and Perjohan Lindfors. 2022. "The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting" Diagnostics 12, no. 5: 1155. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/diagnostics12051155

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop