Year 2024 / Volume 116 / Number 11
Original
Effectiveness and safety of a 1-L polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid preparation for colonoscopy in routine clinical practice in Spain

599-605

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2024.10426/2024

Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga García, Fernando Sábado Martí, Miguel Ángel Pantaleón Sánchez, Salvador Machlab Mashlab, David Carral Martínez, Blas José Gómez Rodríguez, Antonio López Cano, Sarbelio Rodríguez Muñoz, Elena Pérez Arellano, Carmen Turbi Disla, José Miguel Esteban López-Jamar,

Abstract
Background and aims: large clinical trials and small real-world studies show that a 1-L polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid solution (1-L PEG-ASC) is an effective and safe bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Here, the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC was evaluated in a large cohort of patients in routine clinical practice in Spain. Methods: a sub-analysis was performed in an observational, multicenter, retrospective study assessing the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC in adult patients undergoing a colonoscopy at ten centers in Spain. Cleansing quality was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, scores ≥ 6 with all segmental scores ≥ 2 were considered as adequate colon cleansing, and high-quality was considered as cleansing ≥ 8 or = 3 in the right colon. Polyp and adenoma detection rates, and adverse events were also assessed. Results: data were collected from 7,160 patients; 48.3 % were males, mean age was 58.0 and 33.6 % were ≥ 65 years old. Adequate overall bowel cleansing was achieved in 95.6 % of patients (95 % CI: 95.1-96.0 %), high quality cleansing in 74.4 % (95 % CI: 73.4-75.4 %) and high-quality right colon cleansing in 66.0 % (95 % CI: 64.9-67.1). The adequate overall cleansing rate was 97.0 % with a split-dose and 94.0 % with same-day regimen (p < 0.0001), and high-quality right colon cleansing was 69.0 % and 62.5 % (p < 0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.2 % of cases. A multivariate regression analysis revealed that an overnight split-dose regimen and age < 65 years were independent predictors of adequate bowel cleansing of the overall colon, age < 65 years and female gender were independent predictors of high quality (HQ) cleansing of the overall colon, and the three covariates were independent predictors of HQ cleansing of the right colon. At least one adverse event was experienced by 3.3 % of participants, with nausea (1.5 %) and vomiting (1.2 %) being the most frequent. Conclusion: this sub-analysis confirmed 1-L PEG-ASC to be an effective and safe bowel cleansing preparation in a real world setting in Spain.
Lay Summary
It is well known that the quality of a colonoscopy is dependent on adequate bowel cleansing, which can affect both diagnostic accuracy and the rate of adenoma detection, with an excellent degree of cleansing believed to result in a higher detection rate. Here, a sub-analysis was performed of an observational, multicentre, retrospective study that assessed the effectiveness and safety of a 1L solution of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid as a preparative regimen for colonoscopy in routine clinical practice, based on the data from 10 centres in Spain. Adequate and high-quality cleansing of the overall colon, as well as specifically of the right colon, was achieved with this preparation, exceeding the minimum European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards. The afternoon-morning split-dose preparation achieved significantly better adequate and high-quality overall and right colon cleansing. This was also the case for other parameters of colonoscopy effectiveness, such as the rate of adenoma and polyp detection, the cecal intubation rate and withdrawal time. The split-dose preparation, age <65 years and female gender were factors related to high-quality right colon cleansing. Moreover, colonoscopy was not completed due to poor preparation in only 0.3 % of patients. Very few adverse events were associated with the use of this solution, only reported by 3.3% of patients, all of which were mild and mainly involved nausea or vomiting. In summary, the study shows the effectiveness and safety of using this ultra-low-volume bowel cleansing preparation in adults prior to colonoscopy in routine clinical practice in Spain.
Share Button
New comment
Comments
No comments for this article
References
1. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:130–160.
2. 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.
3. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1696–1700.
4. Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, et al. A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:894–909.
5. Hillyer GC, Basch CH, Lebwohl B, et al. Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013;28:73–81.
6. Yadlapati R, Johnston ER, Gregory DL, et al. Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:3482–3490.
7. Kaminski M, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017;49:378–397.
8. Sulz MC, Kröger A, Prakash M, et al. Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Bowel Preparation on Adenoma Detection: Early Adenomas Affected Stronger than Advanced Adenomas. PLoS One 2016;11:e0154149.
9. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, Garmo P de. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:76–79.
10. Hassan C, Manning J, Álvarez González MA, et al. Improved detection of colorectal adenomas by high-quality colon cleansing. Endosc Int Open 2020;8:E928–E937.
11. Clark BT, 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.
12. Bisschops R, Manning J, Clayton LB, et al. 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.
13. DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J, et al. 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.
14. Schreiber S, Baumgart DC, Drenth JPH, et al. 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.
15. Maida M, Sinagra E, Morreale GC, et al. Effectiveness of very low-volume preparation for colonoscopy: A prospective, multicenter observational study. World J Gastroenterol 2020;26:1950–1961.
16. Bednarska O, Nyhlin N, Schmidt PT, et al. 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 (Basel) 2022;12:1155.
17. López-Jamar JME, Gorjão R, Cotter J, et al. Bowel cleansing effectiveness and safety of 1L PEG + Asc in the real-world setting: Observational, retrospective, multicenter study of over 13000 patients. Endosc Int Open 2023;11:E785–E793.
18. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5:309–334.
19. Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality Bowel Preparation Is Required for Detection of Sessile Serrated Polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:1155–1162.
20. Maida M, Ventimiglia M, Facciorusso A, et al. Effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC versus other bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials. Dig Liver Dis 2023;55:1010–1018.
21. Michalopoulos G, Tzathas C. Serrated polyps of right colon: guilty or innocent? Ann Gastroenterol 2013;26:212–219.
22. Eun CS, Han DS, Hyun YS, et al. The timing of bowel preparation is more important than the timing of colonoscopy in determining the quality of bowel cleansing. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:539–544.
23. Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:700–706.
24. Wieszczy P, Bugajski M, Januszewicz W, et al. Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;21:200-209.e6.
25. Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A, et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:493–497.
26. Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased Rate of Adenoma Detection Associates With Reduced Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Death. Gastroenterology 2017;153:98–105.
27. 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.e1.
28. Sullivan BA, Noujaim M, Roper J. Cause, Epidemiology, and Histology of Polyps and Pathways to Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2022;32:177–194.
29. Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011;140:65–72.
Related articles

Digestive Diseases Image

Underwater polypectomy at the appendiceal orifice in a patient on anticoagulation

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2023.9842/2023

Letter

An uncommon colonic polyp

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9160/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Intestinal obstruction due to bariolith impaction

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9084/2022

Letter

Anorectal malignant melanoma, a diagnostic challenge

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9068/2022

Letter

Lead ingestion, medical emergency and action plan

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9048/2022

Letter

Endoscopic findings of radiation ileitis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9036/2022

Letter

Endoscopic imaging of pneumatosis intestinalis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8972/2022

Editorial

Colonoscopy — When quality matters

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8942/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Colonic Kaposi’s sarcoma as the first clinical manifestation of undiagnosed HIV

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8717/2022

Review

Clinical settings with tofacitinib in ulcerative colitis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8660/2022

Letter

Gastrointestinal lymphoma, a rare endoscopic lesion

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8555/2021

Letter

Cecal MALT lymphoma: a challenging diagnosis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8526/2021

Letter

Surprises in cecal intubation: foreign bodies in the colon

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8155/2021

Digestive Diseases Image

Phlebosclerotic colitis: an unusual cause of abdominal pain and hematochezia

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7358/2020

Letter

Hemorrhagic complications following paracentesis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.6914/2020

Case Report

Primary colon mantle lymphoma: a misleading macroscopic appearance!

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6405/2019

Digestive Diseases Image

Colorectal penetration by two intrauterine devices

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.5974/2018

Editorial

Colorectal cancer screening and survival

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5870/2018

Letter

Bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis after colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5658/2018

Special Article

Endoscopy and sedation: an inseparable binomial for the gastroenterologist

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5585/2018

Review

Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5408/2017

Letter to the Editor

A rare complication after colonoscopy: a splenic rupture

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5362/2017

Letter to the Editor

Acute appendicitis after a colonic endoscopic submucosal resection

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5307/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

Contribution of the virtual colonoscopy in a case of intestinal intussusception

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5261/2017

Letter to the Editor

Lactulose enemas in the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy. Do we help or harm?

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5106/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

A bull horn fragment found on colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5020/2017

Letter to the Editor

Propofol sedation Quality and safety. Failure mode and effects analysis.

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4976/2017

Editorial

Issue pending: minimizing anxiety before colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4756/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Intrauterine device in the rectal cavity

Original

Multicenter study on the safety of bariatric endoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4499/2016

Letter to the Editor

Primary chancre in the rectum: an underdiagnosed cause of rectal ulcer

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4457/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis

Letter to the Editor

Splenic rupture after colorectal cancer screening

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2015.3714/2015

Citation tools
Lorenzo-Zúñiga García V, Sábado Martí F, Pantaleón Sánchez M, Machlab Mashlab S, Carral Martínez D, Gómez Rodríguez B, et all. Effectiveness and safety of a 1-L polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid preparation for colonoscopy in routine clinical practice in Spain. 10426/2024


Download to a citation manager

Download the citation for this article by clicking on one of the following citation managers:

Metrics
This article has received 106 visits.
This article has been downloaded 28 times.

Statistics from Dimensions


Statistics from Plum Analytics

Publication history

Received: 24/03/2024

Accepted: 18/07/2024

Online First: 01/08/2024

Published: 11/11/2024

Article revision time: 106 days

Article Online First time: 130 days

Article editing time: 232 days


Share
This article hasn't been rated yet.
Reader rating:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology is the official organ of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Cookie policy Privacy Policy Legal Notice © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology