Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 22:8:654847.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.654847. eCollection 2021.

An Enhanced High-Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy Is Not Better Than a Conventional Low-Volume One in Patients at Risk of Poor Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations

An Enhanced High-Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy Is Not Better Than a Conventional Low-Volume One in Patients at Risk of Poor Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Antonio Z Gimeno-García et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Objective: We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced bowel preparation strategy (EBS) improves colonic cleansing in patients at high risk for inadequate bowel cleansing (HRI). Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial included consecutive HRI patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy between February and October 2019. HRI was considered if patients scored >1.225 according to a previously validated bowel-cleansing predictive score. HRI patients were randomized (1:1) to a low-volume conventional bowel cleansing strategy (CBS) (1-day low residue diet (LRD) plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid) or to an EBS (3-day LRD plus 10 mg oral bisacodyl plus 4 L PEG). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the quality of cleanliness. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. A sample size of 130 patients per group was estimated to reach a 15% difference in favor of EBP. Results: A total of 253 HRI patients were included (mean age 69.8 ± 9.5 years, 51.8% women). No statistically significant differences were found in the BBPS scale between the two groups in the ITT analysis (CBS 76.8% vs. EBS 79.7%, P = 0.58) or PP analysis (CBS 78% vs. EBS 84.3%, P = 0.21), risk difference 2.9% (95% CI-7.26 to 39.16) in the ITT analysis, or risk difference 6.3% (95% CI-3.48 to 16.08) in PP analysis. No differences in preparation tolerance, compliance, adverse effects, or colonoscopy findings were found. Conclusion: EBS is not superior to CBS in hard-to-prepare patients. (EUDRACT: 2017-000787-15, NCT03830489). Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03830489.

Keywords: bowel cleansing predictive score; enhanced bowel preparation; hard to prepare patients; high volume bowel preparation; low volume bowel preparation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart.

References

    1. Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Parkin DM, Kralj-Hans I, MacRae E, Shah U, et al. . Long term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 17 years of follow-up: the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial. Lancet. (2017) 389:1299–311. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30396-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jover R, Herraiz M, Alarcon O, Brullet E, Bujanda L, Bustamante M, et al. . Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy. (2012) 44:444–51. 10.1055/s-0032-1306690 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. . Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. (2015) 81:31–53. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dik VK, Moons LM, Huyuk M, van der Schaar P, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Ter Borg PC, et al. . Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score. Gastrointest Endosc. (2015) 81:665–72. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.066 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Baute JL, Hernandez G, Morales D, Gonzalez-Perez CD, Nicolas-Perez D, et al. . Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation: a validated predictive score. Endoscopy. (2017) 49:536–43. 10.1055/s-0043-101683 - DOI - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources