Colonoscopy is essential for diagnosing and managing colorectal conditions, and is recognized as the gold standard for early cancer detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology have established benchmark indicators to minimize the risk of interval colorectal cancer. Despite their importance, research on these metrics in Saudi Arabia is limited. This study analyzes key intraprocedural indicators of colonoscopies at a tertiary care center to evaluate adherence to care standards.

This retrospective study examined 3763 colonoscopies conducted by adult gastroenterologists at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare from January 2021 to December 2022. Procedures were categorized as screening and non-screening, with demographic data collected alongside withdrawal time (WT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp retrieval rate, rectal retroflexion, and adverse events.

The mean age of participants was 54.13 years, with 81.56% of them Saudis and 44.6% female. The average WT was 10 min. The overall CIR was 93.6% (94.78% for screening), with a PDR of 33.9% and a retrieval rate of 96.6%. ADR for screening participants was 25.63%, and 88.94% of participants achieved a BBPS score of 6 or more. The adverse event rate was at 0.2%, primarily due to bleeding.

The study indicates that colonoscopy procedures adhere to care standards, with ADR among male screening patients approaching 30%. Further research is necessary to evaluate pre- and post-procedural indicators.

The quality of bowel preparation has a significant impact on the success of colonoscopy. Currently, osmotically balanced polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG-E) solutions are most commonly used for bowel preparation. Recently, lubiprostone (LBP) has been considered a potentially effective adjunct to PEG. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LBP in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically screened PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs on LBP as an adjunct to PEG-E for improving bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy. Statistical analysis was performed on RevMan, using a random-effects model with the generic inverse variance method to address clinical heterogeneity; results were significant at p < 0.05. Outcomes were reported as relative risks and standard errors.

This meta-analysis included seven RCTs with 1206 patients. Adding LBP did not increase the likelihood of an excellent bowel preparation [RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94-1.74, p = 0.12] or contribute to poor preparation [RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36-1.04; p = 0.07]. It also did not affect procedure time [MD = -0.74, 95% CI: -2.91-1.43; p = 0.50], polyp detection rate [RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.90-1.26; p = 0.45], or adenoma detection rate [RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.75-1.57; p = 0.66].

Our meta-analysis found that LBP, explored as an adjunct to PEG-E solutions for bowel preparation, offers no significant additive effect on preparation quality before colonoscopy.

The adenoma detection rate is higher among endoscopists who spend more time observing screen edges during colonoscopies. Nonetheless, eye movement parameters related to lesion detection remain unknown. This study aimed to determine the specific eye movement parameters related to colorectal adenoma detection, including the gaze rate in a particular area and eye movement speed.

This study was a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of modifying eye movements of endoscopists on colorectal adenoma detection. Gaze rate at a specific area and eye movement speed were calculated based on endoscopist gaze coordinates in each examination. Time required for observation and treatment of polyps was excluded. The lower peripheral area was defined as the bottom row when the screen was divided into 6×6 sections. These parameters were compared between patients with and without adenomas.

Five physicians performed 158 colonoscopies. The adenoma detection group exhibited a lower peripheral gaze rate (13.7% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.004) and smaller average eye movement distance (29.9 pixels/30 ms vs. 33.3 pixels/30 ms, P = 0.022). Logistic regression analysis showed that a lower peripheral gaze rate > 13.0% and an average eye movement distance <30 pixels/30 ms were increased independent predictors of adenoma detection ( P = 0.024, odds ratio [OR] 2.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-3.28; P = 0.045, OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.03-20.2), whereas age, sex, and withdrawal time were not.

Lower peripheral gaze rate and slow eye movement are associated with colorectal adenoma detection.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States. Early detection through colonoscopy significantly improves survival rates. Detecting colon polyps depends on the quality of bowel preparation. However, inadequate bowel preparation remains a significant issue in clinical practice. Efforts to address this challenge have led to the development of bowel preparation regimens emphasizing efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Bowel preparation options can be categorized by their osmotic and volume properties. Isosmotic solutions based on polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solutions (PEG-ELS) are available in both low-volume PEG-ELS with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) (e.g., MoviPrep, PLENVU) and high-volume formulations (e.g., GoLYTELY, CoLyte), as well as sulfate-free high-volume PEG-ELS formulations (SF-PEG-ELS). Hyperosmotic solutions include oral sulfate solution (OSS) (e.g., SUPREP), sodium phosphate tablets (NaP) (e.g., OsmoPrep), oral sulfate tablets (OST) (e.g., SUTAB), flavored PEG with sulfate salts (FPSS) (e.g., SUFLAVE), and magnesium citrate. Hypoosmotic solutions consist of PEG-sports drink (PEG-SD). In addition, combination solutions are available, such as sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) with laxatives (e.g., CLENPIQ), and OSS with SF-PEG-ELS (Suclear). Each regimen differs in terms of cost, volume, taste, contraindications, and potential adverse effects. Therefore, clinicians must carefully evaluate each patient to determine the most suitable regimen for their patients.

This study aimed to evaluate the association between cholecystectomy and colonic bubble formation during colonoscopy, METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at Staten Island University Hospital. Researchers reviewed 348 colonoscopy reports, comparing patients with (n = 56) and without (n = 292) a history of cholecystectomy. Colonic bubble formation was assessed using a 0-3 scale (0 = no bubbles, 3 = severe bubbles). Secondary endpoints included polyp and adenoma detection, withdrawal and procedure times, bowel preparation quality, and repeat procedures. Statistical analysis included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and χ2 tests.

Patients with prior cholecystectomy had significantly higher incidence of severe bubble formation (score 3; 28.6% vs. 12%, p = 0.001), longer withdrawal times (18 ± 8 vs. 15 ± 5 min, p = 0.024), and increased need for repeat colonoscopies (10.7% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in adenoma detection, polyp detection, or bowel preparation quality between the two groups.

Cholecystectomy is associated with increased colonic bubble formation during colonoscopy, leading to longer withdrawal times and higher rates of repeat procedures. While this study did not find a difference in adenoma detection rates, the impaired visualization caused by bubbles may necessitate tailored bowel preparation strategies for patients with a history of cholecystectomy to optimize colonoscopy effectiveness.

At a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit in a large, urban hospital system, the standard preparation (prep) for colonoscopy procedures was a combination of polyethylene glycol 3350 with electrolytes (Golytely) in addition to magnesium citrate until magnesium citrate underwent a national recall in July 2022. At the time of the recall, the facility had over 800 patients scheduled who had already received the recalled medication. The methods used in this project include collaboration with the interdisciplinary team to handle all aspects of the recall with a systematic approach and utilization of this unforeseen event to initiate tracking bowel prep compliance and prep quality with varied types of bowel preps utilizing a bowel prep rating scale. Of the over 800 patients scheduled at the time of the recall, 99.6% were prevented from ingesting the recalled medication. The colonoscopy prep compliance rate was 82.3%, and bowel prep quality was considered adequate in 97.7% of completed outpatient colonoscopies. This article highlights the importance of working with an interdisciplinary team during unplanned large-scale events to provide safe and effective care to patients, as well as finding positives in a challenging situation. This project includes the following commercial content: magnesium citrate, Golytely, MoviPrep, and Boston Bowel Preparation Score.

The quality of a colonoscopy is heavily reliant on the effectiveness of bowel cleansing. Various cleansing solutions are currently available, but their comparative efficacy remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the performance of different bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different bowel preparations. The primary outcome was cleansing success (CS), and the secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR).

On network meta-analysis for CS (22 RCTs, 7179 patients, 14 bowel preparations), 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.25 [95 %CI = 1.13-1.37]), 2 L PEG + lactulose (RR = 1.22 [95 %CI = 1.10-1.38]) and 1 L PEG + ascorbate (ASC) (RR = 1.03 [95 %CI = 1.01-1.06]) were significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC. Overall, 2 L PEG + lactulose resulted as the best product (SUCRA 0.94), followed by 2 L PEG + simethicone (SUCRA 0.93). On network meta-analysis for ADR (17 RCTs, 6639 patients, 11 bowel preparations), only 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.60 [95 %CI = 1.05-2.43]) resulted significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC.

2 L PEG + simethicone, 2 L PEG + lactulose, and 1 L PEG + ASC seemed to provide high rates of CS, albeit only 2 L PEG + simethicone was associated with significantly higher ADR. Consequently, these products should be preferred for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. Further randomized studies with adequate sample sizes are needed for a more accurate comparison of these products on ADR.

Bowel preparation can directly affect the final outcome of a colonoscopy. However, limited studies have been conducted regarding the effect of probiotics on intestinal preparation. Thus, the present study aims to investigate the effect of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotics in the bowel preparation regimen of children who are candidates for colonoscopy.

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, 84 colonoscopy candidate pediatric patients were enrolled. Patients were divided into two equal groups of 42 individuals. One group of patients underwent the bisacodyl, polyethylene glycol regimen 48 h before colonoscopy, as along with a placebo. The other group was administered L. reuteri 10 days before colonoscopy and also received bisacodyl and polyethylene glycol 48 h before the procedure. Then, the bowel preparation of the patients was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

The mean age of patients in the placebo and probiotic groups was 94.1 ± 43.8 and 111.2 ± 48.8 months, respectively (p = 0.10). The preparation of the left colon was not significantly different between the placebo and probiotic groups (p = 0.075). The effect of L. reuteri probiotic on the preparation of the right colon was excellent in 18 patients (42.86%) and good in 17 patients (40.47%). The preparation of the right colon was significantly different between the placebo and probiotic groups (p = 0.007). Based on the results, there was a significant association between the consumption of L. reuteri and placebo in the preparation of the transverse colon (p = 0.015).

Probiotic pretreatment as part of bowel preparation significantly improves visualization of the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy.

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) before colonoscopy remains a common problem. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk factors associated with IBP.

We searched multiple databases for studies that assessed risk factors for IBP after adjustment and reported the data as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and pooled adjusted odds ratios for risk factors reported in ≥ 3 studies were constructed.

One hundred fifty-four studies with 358,257 participants were included. We analyzed 48 unique risk factors. Sociodemographic predictors of IBP were Medicaid insurance, obesity, current tobacco use, age ≥ 65 years, Black race, low education level, male sex, and unmarried status. Comorbidity-related predictors of IBP were any psychiatric disease, cirrhosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3, poor functional status, constipation, diabetes, previous abdominopelvic surgery, and hematochezia. Medication-related predictors of IBP were tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressants, opioids, nontricyclic antidepressants, and calcium channel blockers. Preparation/procedure-related predictors of IBP were brown liquid rectal effluent, any incomplete bowel preparation (BP) intake, lack of split-dose BP, increased BP-to-defecation interval, any nonadherence to dietary instructions, increased BP-to-colonoscopy interval, any BP intolerance, previous IBP, and inpatient status. Although afternoon colonoscopy was a predictor of IBP, subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed no significant association.

Our meta-analysis focused on adjusted risk factors to provide precise estimates of the most important risk factors for IBP. Our findings could help develop a validated prediction model to identify high-risk patients for IBP, improve colonoscopy outcomes, reduce the need for repeat colonoscopies, and reduce associated healthcare costs.

Colonoscopy (CS) is an important screening method for the early detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The stool state during bowel preparation (BP) should be properly evaluated to perform CS with sufficient quality. This study aimed to develop a smartphone application (app) with an artificial intelligence (AI) model for stool state evaluation during BP and to investigate whether the use of the app could maintain an adequate quality of CS.

First, stool images were collected in our hospital to develop the AI model and were categorized into grade 1 (solid or muddy stools), grade 2 (cloudy watery stools), and grade 3 (clear watery stools). The AI model for stool state evaluation (grades 1-3) was constructed and internally verified using the cross-validation method. Second, a prospective study was conducted on the quality of CS using the app in our hospital. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients who achieved Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 among those who successfully used the app.

The AI model showed mean accuracy rates of 90.2%, 65.0%, and 89.3 for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The prospective study enrolled 106 patients and revealed that 99.0% (95% confidence interval 95.3-99.9%) of patients achieved a BBPS ≥6.

The proportion of patients with BBPS ≥6 during CS using the developed app exceeded the set expected value. This app could contribute to the performance of high-quality CS in clinical practice.

Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for clear visualization of the colonic mucosa and lesion detection. However, inadequate bowel preparation is common in patients with constipation, and there is no standardized preparation protocol for these patients. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and tolerability of a pre-colonoscopy combination regimen of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG).

In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants were divided into two groups: a 3-L PEG + 870-μg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4-L PEG group. The primary endpoints were the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the rate of adequate and excellent bowel preparation. Secondary endpoints were the rates of detection of colonic adenomas and polyps, cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy time, adverse reactions, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction.

The study included 319 patients. The 3-L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4-L PEG group (89.4% vs 73.6% and 37.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < 0.05). The mean BBPS score for the right colon in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4-L PEG group. There were no significant between-group differences regarding the detection rates of colonic polyps and adenomas (44.4% vs 37.7% and 23.1% vs 20.1%, respectively; P > 0.05). There were no significant between-group differences regarding cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy operation, and withdrawal times. However, patient tolerance and sleep quality were better in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group.

The combination of 3-L PEG and 870-μg linaclotide, because of its lower volume of intake, can be considered as an alternative bowel preparation regimen for constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, especially for the elderly.

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.

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.

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.

this sub-analysis confirmed 1-L PEG-ASC to be an effective and safe bowel cleansing preparation in a real world setting in Spain.

Information on effective bowel preparation (BP) methods for patients with constipation is limited. We recently reported the efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) combined with senna for BP; however, this regimen was insufficient in patients with constipation. We hypothesized that the addition of linaclotide, which is approved for the treatment of chronic constipation, to 1 L PEG-Asc would yield results superior to those of senna in patients with constipation.

This was a retrospective, single-center study that included outpatients with constipation who underwent BP prior to colonoscopy between March and December 2019 (receiving 1 L PEG-Asc with 24 mg senna) and between January and October 2020 (receiving 1 L PEG-Asc with 500 mg linaclotide).

A total of 543 patients with constipation were included, of whom 269 received linaclotide and 274 received senna. The rate of inadequate BP was significantly lower (11% vs 20%, p < 0.01) and the adenoma detection rate was significantly higher (54% vs 45%, p = 0.04) in the linaclotide group than in the senna group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the linaclotide regimen significantly reduced the risk of inadequate BP (odds ratio = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.21-0.60, p < 0.01).

The linaclotide regimen significantly increased BP efficacy and the adenoma detection rate compared with the senna regimen without reducing tolerability and is therefore a promising new option for BP in patients with constipation.

The bowel preparation process prior to colonoscopy determines the quality of the bowel preparation, which in turn affects the quality of the colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is an essential procedure for postoperative follow-up monitoring of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Previous studies have shown that advanced age and a history of colorectal resection are both risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation. However, little attention has been paid to the bowel preparation experiences and needs of predominantly older adult postoperative CRC patients.

To explore the experiences and needs of older adult postoperative CRC patients during bowel preparation for follow-up colonoscopy.

Fifteen older adult postoperative CRC patients who underwent follow-up colonoscopy at a tertiary hospital in Shanghai were selected using purposive sampling from August 2023 to November 2023. The phenomenological method in qualitative research was employed to construct an interview outline and conduct semi-structured interviews with the patients. Colaizzi's seven-step analysis was utilized to organize, code, categorize, summarize, and verify the interview data.

The results of this study were summarized into four themes and eight sub-themes: (1) Inadequate knowledge about bowel preparation; (2) Decreased physiological comfort during bowel preparation (gastrointestinal discomfort and sleep deprivation caused by bowel cleansing agents, and hunger caused by dietary restrictions; (3) Psychological changes during different stages of bowel preparation (pre-preparation: Fear and resistance due to previous experiences; during preparation: Irritation and helplessness caused by taking bowel cleansing agents, and post-preparation: Anxiety and worry while waiting for the colonoscopy); and (4) Needs related to bowel preparation (detailed instructions from healthcare professionals; more ideal bowel cleansing agents; and shortened waiting times for colonoscopy).

Older adult postoperative CRC patients' knowledge of bowel preparation is not adequate, and they may encounter numerous difficulties and challenges during the process. Healthcare professionals should place great emphasis on providing instruction for their bowel preparation.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with colonoscopy has improved patient outcomes; however, it remains the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality, novel strategies to improve screening are needed. Here, we propose an optical biopsy technique based on spectroscopic optical coherence tomography (OCT). Depth resolved OCT images are analyzed as a function of wavelength to measure optical tissue properties and used as input to machine learning algorithms. Previously, we used this approach to analyze mouse colon polyps. Here, we extend the approach to examine human biopsied colonic epithelial tissue samples ex vivo. Optical properties are used as input to a novel deep learning architecture, producing accuracy of up to 97.9% in discriminating tissue type. SOCT parameters are used to create false colored en face OCT images and deep learning classifications are used to enable visual classification by tissue type. This study advances SOCT toward clinical utility for analysis of colonic epithelium.

Adequate bowel preparation (BP) is crucial for the diagnosis of colorectal diseases. Identifying patients at risk of inadequate BP allows for targeted interventions and improved outcomes. We aimed to develop a model for predicting inadequate BP based on preparation-related factors.

Adult outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy between May 2022 and October 2022 were enrolled. One set (N = 913) was used to develop and internally validate the predictive model. The primary predictive model was displayed as a nomogram and then modified into a novel scoring system, which was externally validated in an independent set (N = 177). Inadequate BP was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparedness Scale (BBPS) score of less than 2 for any colonic segment. The model was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Independent factors included in the prediction model were stool frequency ≤ 5 (15 points), preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 5 h (15 points), incomplete dosage (100 points), non-split dose (90 points), unrestricted diet (88 points), no additional water intake (15 points), and last stool appearance as an opaque liquid (0-80 points). The training set exhibited the following performance metrics for identifying BP failure: area under the curve (AUC) of 0.818, accuracy (ACC) of 0.818, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 2.397, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.162, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.850, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.723. In the internal validation set, these metrics were 0.747, 0.776, 2.099, 0.278, 0.866, and 0.538, respectively. The external validation set showed values of 0.728, 0.757, 2.10, 0.247, 0.782, and 0.704, respectively, indicating strong discriminative ability. Calibration curves demonstrated close agreement, and DCA indicated superior clinical benefits at a threshold probability of 0.73 in the training cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort for this model.

This novel scoring system was developed from a prospective study and externally validated in an independent set based on 7 easily accessible variables, demonstrating robust performance in predicting inadequate BP.

Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening.

Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models.

35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists.

Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Inadequate bowel preparation is common despite various preprocedure interventions. There is a need for an intervention at the time of colonoscopy to combat poor preparation. In this retrospective, observational study of 46 patients, we evaluated the clinical efficacy and feasibility of implementing the third generation of the Pure-Vu EVS System, a US Food and Drug Administration-cleared over-the-scope-based intraprocedural cleansing device, into our practice at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States). To study clinical efficacy, we measured bowel preparation adequacy before and after using the device, as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Score, and reviewed colonoscopy surveillance interval recommendations. Technical success and feasibility of using the device were measured by procedure success rates and duration. We found that BBPS scores increased from 4.4 to 7.9 when using the device. Technical success was achieved 78.3% of the time (36/46 cases). Median colonoscopy duration was 46 minutes, although there was a trend toward shorter procedures over time. This is the first clinical evaluation of the third generation of an intraprocedural cleansing device. We found the device efficacious and easy to use with low procedure failure rates, but it does come with a learning curve. We suspect that adoption of this device mutually will benefit patients and health systems with the potential to improve resource utilization.

This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively explore the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP).

We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases up to August 24, 2023, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined risk factors for IBP. A random effects model was used to pool the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

A total of 125 studies (91 observational studies, 34 RCTs) were included. Meta-analyses of observational studies revealed that three preparation-related factors, namely, characteristics of last stool (solid or brown liquid), incomplete preparation intake, and incorrect diet restriction, were strong predictors of IBP. The other factors were moderately correlated with IBP incidence, including demographic variables (age, body mass index, male sex, Medicaid insurance, and current smoking), comorbidities (diabetes, liver cirrhosis, psychiatric disease, Parkinson's disease, previous IBP, poor mobility, inpatient, and Bristol stool form 1/2), medications (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, antidepressants, narcotics, antipsychotics, and calcium channel blockers), and preparation-related factors (preparation-to-colonoscopy interval not within 3 to 5/6 h, nonsplit preparation, and preparation instructions not followed). No colonoscopy indications were found to be related to IBP. Meta-analyses of RCTs showed that education, constipation, stroke/dementia, and discomfort during preparation were also moderately associated with IBP. Most of the other findings were consistent with the pooled results of observational studies. However, primarily due to imprecision and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for most factors was very low to moderate.

We summarized five categories of risk factors for IBP. Compared to demographic variables, comorbidities, medications, and colonoscopy indications, preparation-related elements were more strongly associated with IBP. These findings may help clinicians identify high-risk individuals and provide guidance for IBP prevention.

Although studies have shown that the quality of bowel preparation with low-residue diet (LRD) is as effective as that of clear fluid diet (CLD), there is currently no consensus on how long an LRD should last. The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day versus 3-day LRD on bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

A systematic review search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane database from inception to April 2023. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared 1-day with 3-day LRD bowel cleansing regiments for patients undergoing colonoscopy. The rate of adequate bowel preparation, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, willingness to repeat preparation, and adverse events were estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed meta-analysis to identify risk factors and predictors of inadequate preparation.

Four studies published between 2019 and 2023 with 1927 participants were included. The present meta-analysis suggested that 1-day LRD was comparable with 3-day LRD for adequate bowel preparation (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.21; P = 0.45; I2 = 0%; P = 0.52). The polyp detection rate (OR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P = 0.52; I2 = 23%; P = 0.27) and adenoma detection rate (OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08; P = 0.21; I2 = 0%; P = 0.52) were similar between the groups. There were significantly higher odds of tolerability in patients consuming 1-day LRD compared with 3-day LRD (OR 1.64; 95% CI, 1.13-2.39; P < 0.01; I2 = 47%; P = 0.15). In addition, constipation was identified as the independent predictor of inadequate preparation (OR 1.98; 95% CI, 1.27-3.11; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%; P = 0.46).

The present study demonstrated that a 1-day LRD was as effective as a 3-day CLD in the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy and significantly improved tolerability of patients. In addition, constipation is an independent risk factor of poor bowel preparation, and the duration of LRD in patients with constipation still needs further clinical trials.

Colonoscopy is an essential cancer screening tool; however, bowel preparation is a multifaceted process that involves several steps. Proper preparation is crucial for a successful colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety. We evaluated the performance of a smartphone application with bowel preparation instructions on individuals undergoing their first colonoscopy.

In this randomized, prospective, endoscopist-blinded study, participants were scheduled to undergo their first colonoscopy between January 2020 and January 2022. The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002). They were randomly assigned to the smartphone education application (APP) or the standard education (control) group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were compared. Factors associated with excellent bowel preparation were also evaluated.

In total, 119 patients (APP group, n = 57; control group, n = 62) underwent their first colonoscopy. The mean BBPS score and proportion of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS≥8) were significantly higher in the APP group than in the control group. Smartphone application-guided bowel preparation achieved a higher proportion of adequate and excellent bowel preparation scores, was associated with other quality indicators, and achieved the target ADR, cecal intubation rate, and adequate withdrawal time.

This application may be a user-friendly option to improve the first-time colonoscopy experience, resulting in effective screening of colorectal cancer.

The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002).

Up to 50% of people scheduled for screening colonoscopy do not complete this test and no studies have focused on minority and low-income populations. Interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, reduce barriers, and provide alternative screening options. Patient navigation (PN) and tailored interventions increase CRC screening uptake, however there is limited information comparing their effectiveness or the effect of combining them.

Compare the effectiveness of two interventions to increase CRC screening among minority and low-income individuals who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointment-a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based PN compared to usual care.

Patients (n = 371) aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC who did not attend a screening colonoscopy appointment were enrolled and were randomized to: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. CRC screening outcomes were from electronic medical records at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study intervention effects.

Participants randomized to tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening compared to usual care and almost two and a half times more likely than those who were sent the DVD alone.

Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointments and has potential for wide dissemination.

Background and study aims In colonoscopy, preparation is often regarded as the most burdensome part of the intervention. Traditionally, specific diets have been recommended, but the evidence to support this policy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the decision not to follow a restrictive diet on bowel preparation and colonoscopy outcomes. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, controlled, non-inferiority randomized trial with FIT-positive screening colonoscopy. The subjects were assigned to follow the current standard (1-day low residue diet [LRD]) or a liberal diet. The allocation was balanced for the risk of inadequate cleansing using the Dik et al. score. All participants received the same instructions for morning colonoscopy preparation. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate preparations as defined by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability and measures of colonoscopy performance and quality. Results A total of 582 subjects were randomized. Of these, 278 who received the liberal diet and 275 who received the 1-day LRD were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was demonstrated with adequate preparation rates of 97.8% in the 1-day LRD and 96.4% in the liberal diet group. Tolerability was higher with the liberal diet (94.7% vs. 83.2%). No differences were found with respect to cecal intubation time, aspirated volume, or length of the examination. Global and right colon average adenoma detection rates per colonoscopy were similar. Conclusions The liberal diet was non-inferior to the 1-day LRD, and increased tolerability. Colonoscopy performance and quality were not affected. (NCT05032794).

An easy-to-use preparation-related model (PRM) predicting inadequate bowel preparation (BP) was developed and proved superior to traditional models in our previous study. Here we aimed to investigate whether PRM-based individualized intervention can improve BP adequacy.

Patients undergoing morning colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 5 endoscopic centers in China. After standard BP of split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) was completed, patients were randomized (1:1) to the individualized group or standard group. High-risk patients predicted by PRM score ≥3 were instructed to drink an additional 1.5 L PEG in the individualized group while not in standard group. The primary endpoint was the rate of adequate BP, defined by segmental Boston bowel preparation scale ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adverse events.

900 patients were randomly allocated to the individualized group (n = 449) and the control (n = 451). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The rates of high-risk patients were 19.6 % in individualized group and 19.7 % in standard group. In intention-to-treat analysis, adequate BP was 91.8 % in individualized group and 84.7 % in the standard group (p = 0.001). Among high-risk patients, adequate BP rate was 94.3 % in individualized group and 49.3 % in standard group (p < 0.001), and ADR were 40.9 % vs 16.9 %, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding the adverse events and willingness to repeat BP (all p >0.05).

The individualized intervention using an additional dose of PEG to high-risk patients predicted by PRM, significantly improved BP quality. The intervention significantly improved ADR in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04434625).

Colonoscopy is a crucial procedure for various clinical purposes, including screening for colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for its success. Poor bowel preparation can lead to bad outcomes. An objective assessment of bowel preparation quality is typically only possible after the colonoscope is inserted. This study aimed to objectively correlate the clarity of last rectal effluent, directly collected in a transparent container, with the quality of bowel preparation, and compare it with patient-reported descriptions.

This prospective, single-centre, case-control study obtained ethical clearance and included patients aged >18 years undergoing colonoscopies. Cases included patients who collected the last rectal effluent and took photographs, while controls relied on verbal descriptions. Data collected included demographics, clinical information, bowel preparation quality, and lastly, stool clarity. A statistical analysis was performed to identify correlations and associations.

Of the 70 included patients, 45 were male. The mean age was 35.8 ± 14.3 years. Cases had a higher mean age (37.8 ± 14.6). A higher number of cases had comorbidities (11, 68.8%). Photographic recording of the last rectal effluent was not associated with the adequacy of bowel preparation. Thin yellow fluid was the most common last-rectal effluent clarity (33, 47.1%). Thin, clear fluid was significantly associated with adequate bowel preparation.

Objective assessment of last rectal effluent clarity correlates with the quality of bowel preparation. This can improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopies and potentially reduce the need for repeat procedures, contributing to better patient outcomes and cost savings in healthcare systems.

Methods that minimize the time for on-site bowel preparation before colonoscopy are needed. We prospectively validated that a novel algorithm-based active cleansing (ABAC) protocol could reduce the time for preparation compared with the conventional method.

This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective comparative study from April to October 2021. The study compared the bowel preparation time for colonoscopy between patients instructed with the ABAC protocol and control groups. Patients in the ABAC protocol group as well as the control group were administered 2000 mL of polyethylene glycol (PEG) within 2 hours. After the first two hours, patients in the protocol group voluntarily took 300 ml of the solution without the instruction of nursing staff depending on the number of defecations in the first 2 hours. The intervention and control groups were adjusted for background characteristics by propensity score matching (PSM).

After adjustment by PSM, 174 patients in each of the two groups were included in the final analysis. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the preparation time was significantly shorter in the intervention group than that in the control group (126.3 ± 32.7 min vs. 144.9 ± 39.9 min, P = 0.018). The proportion of additional PEG intake was significantly higher in the intervention group (16 [9.2%] vs. 6 [3.4%], P = 0.047). The number of defecations was also higher in the intervention group than in the control group (7.8 ± 2.5 vs. 6.3 ± 2.2, P = 0.001).

Simple active instruction protocol is effective to reduce on-site bowel preparation time and nursing staff labor for colonoscopy.

The performance of existing image-based training models in evaluating bowel preparation on colonoscopy videos was relatively low, and only a few models used external data to prove their generalization. Therefore, this study attempted to develop a more precise and stable AI system for assessing bowel preparation of colonoscopy video.

We proposed a system named ViENDO to assess the bowel preparation quality, including two CNNs. First, Information-Net was used to identify and filter out colonoscopy video frames unsuitable for Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) scoring. Second, BBPS-Net was trained and tested with 5,566 suitable short video clips through three-dimensional (3D) convolutional neural network (CNN) technology to detect BBPS-based insufficient bowel preparation. Then, ViENDO was applied to complete withdrawal colonoscopy videos from multiple centers to predict BBPS segment scores in clinical settings. We also conducted a human-machine contest to compare its performance with endoscopists.

In video clips, BBPS-Net for determining inadequate bowel preparation generated an area under the curve of up to 0.98 and accuracy of 95.2%. When applied to full-length withdrawal colonoscopy videos, ViENDO assessed bowel cleanliness with an accuracy of 93.8% in the internal test set and 91.7% in the external dataset. The human-machine contest demonstrated that the accuracy of ViENDO was slightly superior compared to most endoscopists, though no statistical significance was found.

The 3D-CNN-based AI model showed good performance in evaluating full-length bowel preparation on colonoscopy video. It has the potential as a substitute for endoscopists to provide BBPS-based assessments during daily clinical practice.

Low-volume bowel preparation solutions, including 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-A), have been developed to improve tolerability. The oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) is a new agent with simethicone as a preloaded component. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of OST compared to 1-L PEG-A.

A single-center, prospective, controlled study was performed with randomization into the OST (group A) and 1-L PEG-A (group B) groups. Bowel preparation efficacy was assessed on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Bubble Scale. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using a questionnaire and laboratory examination.

Final analysis was performed on 171 patients (group A: 87, group B: 84). The proportion of bowel preparation success (BBPS ≥ 2 for each colonic segment) in group A was not inferior compared to group B (95.4% vs 96.4%, P = 0.736, 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit -7.0%). The adenoma detection rate was not different (59.6% vs 41.9%; P = 0.087). The bubble scale was better in group A (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). All adverse events were mild in both groups. Nausea was less frequent in group A (14.9% vs 38.1%, P = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was better in group A (8.1 ± 2.1 vs 6.4 ± 2.8, P < 0.001). No clinically significant laboratory abnormality developed in both groups. These findings were similarly shown in old patients ≥65 years.

Both OST and 1-L PEG-A were efficacious, safe, and tolerable for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. The OST showed fewer bubbles and slightly better tolerability.

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Inadequate bowel preparation (BP) negatively affects the efficacy and quality of colonoscopy. Although constipation has already been reported as one of the most important predictors of inadequate BP, there is limited information on the relation between inadequate BP and bowel habits including constipation-related symptoms, medications, and severity of constipation.

This single-center, prospective observational study was conducted between August 2019 and May 2020. All participants answered questionnaires regarding personal bowel habits and received low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for outpatient colonoscopy. Severity of constipation was evaluated by constipation scoring system. Bowel preparation cleansing was evaluated using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Potential predictors of inadequate BP were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression models.

Overall, 1054 patients were enrolled, of which, 105 (10%) had inadequate BP (total BBPS ≤ 6 or any segmental BBPS < 2). The risk of inadequate BP increased with constipation severity (P = 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed that frequent straining (> 25% of defecations) (OR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.33-3.28) and chronic use of stimulant laxatives (OR 2.57, 95% CI: 1.59-4.17) were significant predictors of inadequate BP, among personal bowel habits.

Frequent straining and chronic use of stimulant laxatives were predictors of inadequate BP. An intensified preparation regimen should be considered for severely constipated patients with straining and chronic use of stimulant laxatives.

Traditional preoperative reminding services have been applied to enhance the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an automated electronic reminder system (E-reminder) on improving bowel preparation and the quality of preoperative education before colonoscopy.

From August 2021 to March 2022, 833 outpatients aged 50-75 years who underwent colonoscopy were included and randomly assigned to the E-reminder group and the control group. While the control group received routine preoperative education. The E-reminder group received automatic phone call, text message reminders and web services regarding the details of bowel preparation before the colonoscopic examination. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the previously validated objective evaluation scale of automatic BBPS (e-BBPS).

In manual assessment, the rate of adequate bowel preparation was improved in the E-reminder group of intention-to-treat population using BBPS (60.7% vs 54.5%, P = 0.01). The percentage of objective evaluated adequate bowel preparation using e-BBPS in the E-reminder group of per-protocol population was significantly higher than that in the control group (76.9% vs 69.2%, P = 0.02).

E-reminder was an effective tool to improve the quality of bowel preparation and compliance with medical instructions. It may be regarded as an efficient and convenient education tool, improving the quality of medical service.

Colonoscopy is considered the standard procedure for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of colonoscopy screening. Currently, there is no standard method of bowel preparation for patients with chronic constipation. The aim was to access the rate of adequate bowel cleansing achieved using split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) plus lubiprostone in comparison with split-dose PEG-ELS alone. A single-centre, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-eight constipated patients aged 18-75 years who were indicated for colonoscopy in the gastroenterology unit of Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, between February 2020 and February 2021 were randomly allocated to receive either split-dose PEG-ELS in combination with lubiprostone (N = 39) or split-dose PEG-ELS alone (N = 39) before colonoscopy. Adequate bowel cleansing was defined as an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 7. The rate of adequate bowel cleansing was comparable between the PEG-ELS plus lubiprostone group and the PEG-ELS alone group (50% vs. 52.9%, p value = 0.81) with a relative risk of 1.13 (95% CI = 0.43-2.91). There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (41.2% vs. 35.3%, p value = 0.62), adverse events, acceptance, compliance, or patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. No additional benefit to successful bowel preparation was achieved by the combination of lubiprostone and PEG-ELS in chronic constipation patients undergoing colonoscopy.