The goal of this study was to analyze the bowel cleansing methods currently used for pediatric colonoscopy in terms of effectiveness, tolerance and safety.

Data from 768 colonoscopies reported by 28 centers were registered in an online database for further analysis. Binary logistic regression was used to determine how preparation methods affected the cleaning effect (Aronchick score) and the rate of adverse events (Aes) and complications.

The most frequently reported cleansing agents were sodium picosulphate (54.2 %) and polyethylene-glycol (41.3 %) in various combinations. The cleaning effect was good to excellent in 72.6 % of patients. AEs during the preparation period occurred in 21.5 % of patients. Complications during endoscopy were reported in 12.1 % and were mostly mild. The different agents had no influence on the cleaning effect. In contrast the risk of AEs during preparation was significantly increased when polyethylene-glycol was used (odds ratio (OR) 2.112, P = 0.002) but reduced with the use of sodium picosulphate (OR 0.380, P < 0.001). In particular, the risk of needing a nasogastric tube to complete clean-out was about 10-fold higher when polyethylene-glycol was used.

A large variety of regimens are used for bowel preparation in children. We found a good overall cleaning result independent of the agents used. Cleansing agents, on the other hand, had a significant influence on tolerance and safety.

Bowel preparation is a core issue in colonoscopy, as it is closely related to the quality of the procedure. Patients often find that bowel preparation is the most unpleasant part of the examination. It is widely accepted that the quality of cleansing must be excellent to facilitate detecting neoplastic lesions. In spite of its importance and potential implications, until recently, bowel preparation has not been the subject of much study. The most commonly used agents are high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution and sodium phosphate. There has been some confusion, even in published meta-analyses, regarding which of the two agents provides better cleansing. It is clear now that both PEG and sodium phosphate are effective when administered with proper timing. Consequently, the timing of administration is recognized as one of the central factors to the quality of cleansing. The bowel preparation agent should be administered, at least in part, a few hours in advance of the colonoscopy. Several low volume agents are available, and either new or modified schedules with PEG that usually improve tolerance. Certain adjuvants can also be used to reduce the volume of PEG, or to improve the efficacy of other agents. Other factors apart from the choice of agent can improve the quality of bowel cleansing. For instance, the effect of diet before colonoscopy has not been completely clarified, but an exclusively liquid diet is probably not required, and a low-fiber diet may be preferable because it improves patient satisfaction and the quality of the procedure. Some patients, such as diabetics and persons with heart or kidney disease, require modified procedures and certain precautions. Bowel preparation for pediatric patients is also reviewed here. In such cases, PEG remains the most commonly used agent. As detecting neoplasia is not the main objective with these patients, less intensive preparation may suffice. Special considerations must be made for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, including safety and diagnostic issues, so that the most adequate agent is chosen. Identifying neoplasia is one of the main objectives of colonoscopy with these patients, and the target lesions are often almost invisible with white light endoscopy. Therefore excellent quality preparation is required to find these lesions and to apply advanced methods such as chromoendoscopy. Bowel preparation for patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding represents a challenge, and the strategies available are also reviewed here.

Many protocols of bowel preparation are available for use in children; however, none of them is commonly accepted. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus low-volume PEG combined with bisacodyl (BPEG) versus sennosides for colonoscopy preparation in children.

Participants ages 10 to 18 years were randomly assigned to receive either PEG 60 or PEG 30 mL kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ plus oral bisacodyl 10 to 15 mg/day or sennosides 2 mg kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ for 2 days. A blinded assessment of bowel cleansing was made by the endoscopist according to the Aronchick and Ottawa scales. Patient acceptability was evaluated with the visual-analog scale. Analysis was done on an available case analysis basis.

Of 240 patients enrolled in the study 234 patients were available for analysis of the efficacy of colon cleansing. There were no significant differences found among the 3 groups for the proportions of participants with excellent/good (PEG: 35/79, BPEG: 26/79, sennosides 25/76) and poor/inadequate (PEG: 20/79, BPEG: 28/79, sennosides 28/76) bowel preparation evaluated with the Aronchick scale and for the mean Ottawa total score (PEG: 5.47 ± 3.63, BPEG: 6.22 ± 3.3, sennosides: 6.18 ± 3.53). Acceptability of bowel cleansing protocol was similar in all of the groups (P = 0.8).

All 3 cleansing methods showed similar efficacy and tolerability; however, none of them was satisfactory.

Standardized bowel preparation in children and adolescents has not been established. Our aim was to compare two bowel preparation regimens and determine which was more effective, acceptable, and safer for children undergoing colonoscopy.

We compared the efficacy and acceptability of a 1-day regimen with oral sodium phosphate solution (NaP solution) (1 mL/kg/day, maximum 90 mL in two divided doses; regimen A) to our standard 3-day regimen magnesium citrate (4 mL/kg/day x 3 days, maximum 237 mL, followed by an enema the morning of colonoscopy; regimen B). After informed consent was obtained, 48 children were randomized (N = 25, 23, respectively). Weight, electrolytes, calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium were measured at screening and the day of the colonoscopy. Questionnaires were given to assess acceptability and adverse events. Endoscopists rated the quality of bowel preparation on a 4-level scale from excellent to poor.

Median age and weight at screening were 14 yr, 53 kg, and 15 yr, 51 kg in regimen A and B, respectively. No statistical significance was observed in electrolytes, phosphorus, or adverse events apart from higher nausea intensity in regimen A (P= 0.012). Bowel cleansing was similar between groups (71% excellent or good). Subjects were more willing to repeat regimen A than B (77%vs 32%, respectively, P < 0.006). All 10 subjects who received regimen A and had prior colonoscopies using regimen B, preferred regimen A.

In a selected group of otherwise healthy children and adolescents over 10.5 yr and above 34 kg, 1-day oral NaP solution was more acceptable than 3-day magnesium citrate with an enema, and both regimens were found to be safe and efficacious.