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.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) has recommended surveillance intervals that weigh the benefits, harms, and costs of colonoscopy. In 2020, it updated its screening recommendations, and we want to evaluate clinical practice adherence to recommended guideline intervals.

A prospective analysis was performed to examine gastroenterologists' recommendations for screening and surveillance colonoscopy from March 2012 to December 2023. Procedures with unknown histology or unsatisfactory bowel preparation were excluded. We compared polyp morphology, histology, and subsequent recommendations made by gastroenterologists to the USMSTF guidelines.

Five hundred thirteen patients and 902 colonoscopies were included. For screening colonoscopies, 200/231 (87%) followed 2012 guidelines, while 75% followed 2020 guidelines. For 1st surveillances, 75% followed 2012 guidelines, and 50% followed 2020 guidelines (p < 0.001). Adherence was also analyzed by year from 2020 to 2023. There were no significant differences in rates for screening colonoscopy and 1st surveillances over this time frame. Since the introduction of the 2020 guidelines for screening colonoscopies, there was a decrease in adherence by 13% for low-risk adenoma (LRA) and an 8% decrease for high-risk adenoma (HRA); there was a 7% increase in adherence for hyperplastic polyps (HP) and an 11% increase in adherence with sessile serrated polyps (SSP). For 1st surveillances, there was a decrease in adherence by 16% for LRA, 11% for HRA, 1% for HP, and 2% for SSP.

Since the introduction of the 2020 guidelines, gastroenterologists are recommending colonoscopies more frequently than the guidelines call for. Increasing the evidence behind interval recommendations may increase guideline adherence.

Polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) is the standard for bowel preparation but often suffers from poor patient compliance and tolerability due to its high-volume requirement. This prospective, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized control trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of a lactulose-based regimen as an alternative for bowel preparation.

Two hundred nine patients were randomly allocated to receive either a combination regimen consisting of 133.4 g lactulose in 200 mL, 800 mL carbohydrate-containing clear liquid, 2L additional water, and 5 g simethicone (n = 104) or 3L PEG-ELS with 5 g simethicone (n = 105), both administered in a split-dose format. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation, measured by the Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS). Adequate bowel preparation was defined as a BBPS score of 2 or 3 in all colon segments. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of high-quality bowel preparation (defining as a total BBPS score of 8 or 9), polyp detection rate (defining as the percentage of procedures where at least one polyp was detected), willingness to repeat the bowel preparation, adverse events, and changes in blood glucose and electrolyte levels.

The rate of adequate bowel preparation (96.2% vs. 97.1%, p = 0.691), the percentage of high-quality preparation (62.5% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.529), average total BBPS scores (p = 0.607), polyp detection rates (66.3% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.083), and tolerability and acceptability outcomes, including satisfaction (p = 0.729) and willingness to repeat preparation (p = 0.744), were not statistically different between the two arms. Adverse events and changes in blood glucose and electrolytes showed no significant differences (all p > 0.05).

The combination of oral lactulose and carbohydrate-containing clear fluids was non-inferior to 3L PEG-ELS for bowel preparation adequacy and polyp detection, without statistically significant differences in terms of tolerability and safety.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has been widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. A great many of studies on gastrointestinal endoscopy have been done.

To analyze the characteristics of top 100 cited articles on gastrointestinal endoscopy.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted. The publications and their features were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection, Science Citation Index-Expanded database. Excel, Web of Science database and SPSS software were used to perform the statistical description and analysis. VOSviewer software and MapChart were responsible for the visualizations.

The top 100 cited articles were published between 1976 and 2022. The guidelines (52%) and clinical trials (37%) are the main article types, and average publication year of the guidelines is much later than that of the clinical trials (2015 vs 1998). Among the clinical trials, diagnostic study (27.0%), cohort study (21.6%), case series (13.5%) and cross-sectional study (10.8%) account for a large proportion. Average citations of different study types and designs of the enrolled studies are of no significant differences. Most of the 100 articles were published by European authors and recorded by the endoscopic journals (65%). Top journals in medicine, such as the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, also reported studies in this field. The hot spots of involved diseases include neoplasm or cancer-related diseases, inflammatory diseases, obstructive diseases, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and ulcer. Endoscopic surgery, endoscopic therapy and stent placement are frequently studied.

Our research contributes to delineating the field and identifying the characteristics of the most highly cited articles. It is noteworthy that there is a significantly smaller number of clinical trials included compared to guidelines, indicating potential areas for future high-quality clinical trials.

The term "gut microbiota" primarily refers to the ecological community of various microorganisms in the gut, which constitutes the largest microbial community in the human body. Although adequate bowel preparation can improve the results of colonoscopy, it may interfere with the gut microbiota. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy can lead to transient changes in the gut microbiota, potentially affecting an individual's health, especially in vulnerable populations, such as patients with inflammatory bowel disease. However, measures such as oral probiotics may ameliorate these adverse effects. We focused on the bowel preparation-induced changes in the gut microbiota and host health status, hypothesized the factors influencing these changes, and attempted to identify measures that may reduce dysbiosis, thereby providing more information for individualized bowel preparation for colonoscopy in the future.

Colorectal gas explosion (CGE) is an exceptional but potentially fatal complication of digestive endoscopy or surgery. The role played by bowel preparations and endoscopic or surgical devices in the risk of CGE is still unclear. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify risk factors for CGE.

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from inception to September 16, 2024 including all reports of CGE according to a systematic review protocol preregistered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42023455049). Additionally, we analyzed all trials that measured explosive gas levels after different bowel preparation strategies.

Twenty-nine case reports, three case series, and eleven trials were included. Thirty-six cases of CGE were described, 12 surgical and 24 endoscopic. Perforation and death following CGE occurred in 81% and 14% of patients, respectively. The most common bowel preparations taken before CGE were enemas (42%) and oral preparations (31%), while 28% of patients did not undergo any bowel preparation. Bowel preparation was reported as inadequate in most CGE (solid stool in 65% and poor in 11%). The most frequent devices that triggered CGE were argon plasma coagulation during endoscopy (58%) and the electric scalpel during surgical procedures (75%). Published trials showed that adequate bowel preparation, together with endoscopic insufflation and suction, reduces intestinal levels of hydrogen and methane.

CGE predominantly occurs in patients undergoing interventional procedures with inadequate bowel preparation. Achieving optimal bowel preparation, together with endoscopic aspiration, washing, and CO2 insufflation practically abolishes potentially explosive gas concentrations.

Colonoscopy is performed for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The quality of colonoscopy depends on adequate bowel cleansing. However, there is no standardized protocol for bowel preparation in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability profile of polyethylene glycol (PEG) compared with those of sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SPMC) in children. The primary sources of the reviewed studies were Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. The databases were systematically searched for RCTs comparing PEG 4000 to SPMC as a bowel cleansing solution. Six studies were included. The analysis showed that both PEG and SPMC are effective for bowel cleansing, while a split-dose regimen may be preferable to a day-before one. There were no differences between the two groups regarding adverse events (AEs) such as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating, and anal discomfort. Additionally, preparation with SPMC was preferred in terms of acceptability and compliance. Still, the need to place a nasogastric tube was significantly lower in the SPMC group compared to the PEG group and in the split dose regimen compared to the day before. In conclusion, PEG and SPMC are equally effective in obtaining an adequate bowel cleansing with a comparable AE rate; moreover, split-dose administration may be preferable to day-before one in terms of effective bowel cleansing. However, SPMC preparation is more acceptable seems to result in higher compliance, and to reduce the use of a nasogastric tube, that we encounter daily in clinical practice, is perceived as a stressful experience for children and their families.

Background and Objectives: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S., and colonoscopy is a critical tool for colon cancer screening and diagnosis. Electrolyte disturbances and autonomic nervous system dysfunction that may occur due to bowel preparation and the colonoscopy procedure itself may play a role in the development of cardiac arrhythmia. This study aimed to assess the index of cardiac-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) to predict ventricular arrhythmia risk related to colonoscopy. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with a normal sinus rhythm were included. Electrocardiography (ECG) recordings both before bowel preparation and after the colonoscopy procedure were obtained. Values of the index of cardiac-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) were compared. Results: Among 36 patients, it was determined that the heart rate values of the patients before bowel preparation were higher than the heart rate values after colonoscopy [74.5 (60-108) bpm vs. 68.5 (53-108) bpm, p = 0.021]. The duration of QT interval increased (370.9 ± 27.8 ms vs. 398.7 ± 29.4 ms, p < 0.001) and the iCEB increased from 4.1 ± 0.5 to 4.5 ± 0.6 (p < 0.001), indicating a significant post-procedural risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Conclusions: These findings suggest that routine iCEB assessment post-colonoscopy could identify high-risk patients requiring closer monitoring.

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.

Three liters of polyethylene glycol administered in a split dose is a commonly recommended regimen for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

The aim of this study was to compare the quality and tolerability of low-dose (2 L) polyethylene glycol combined with linaclotide (2 L+L) versus the 3 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation regimen.

A noninferiority, prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

In this noninferiority, prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomized to receive a 3 L PEG or 2L PEG+L regimen. The quality of bowel preparation and patients' discomfort was assessed.

Over 12 months, 458 patients were randomized into 3 L PEG and 2 L+L groups. The primary endpoints showed that the 2 L+L regimen was superior to the 3L PEG regimen in overall bowel cleansing scores (Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale: 3.3 ± 2.1 vs 3.7 ± 2.1, p = 0.021), but no significant difference in adequate bowel preparation rate between the two groups according to the OBPS score (97% vs 97.4%, p = 0.791). Before colonoscopy, patients in the 2 L +L regimen group had lower bloating scores (0.5 (0, 2) vs 1 (0, 3), p = 0.013), discomfort scores (1 (0, 2) vs 1 (0, 3), p = 0.006), and intolerability scores (1 (0, 3) vs 2 (0, 4), p = 0.016) than did those in the 3L PEG group.

Two liters of polyethylene glycol combined with linaclotide may be an alternative regimen to 3 L of PEG taken in split doses for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

ChiCTR2100041992.

To evaluate the effect of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) with or without dimethicone on bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted from April 2021 to December 2021, consecutive adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy were prospectively randomized into four groups: SPMC, SPMC plus dimethicone, 3 L PEG, and 3 L PEG plus dimethicone. Primary endpoint was colon cleansing based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints were bubble score, time to cecal intubation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient safety and compliance, and adverse events.

We enrolled 223 and 291 patients in SPMC and 3 L PEG group, respectively. The proportion with acceptable bowel cleansing, total BBPS score and cecal intubation time were similar in all four subgroups (p > 0.05). Patient-reported acceptability and tolerability was significantly greater in SPMC than 3 L PEG group (p < 0.001); adverse events were significantly lower in SPMC than latter group (p < 0.001). ADR in both groups was greater than 30%.

SPMC had significantly higher acceptability and tolerability than 3 L PEG, however, was similar in terms of bowel-cleansing effect and cecal intubation time and hence can be used before colonoscopy preparation.

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have decreased through regular screening colonoscopy, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment. However, CRC can still be diagnosed after negative colonoscopy. Such CRC is called interval CRC and accounts for 1.8-9.0% of all CRC cases. Most cases of interval CRC originate from missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions. Interval CRC can be minimized by improving the quality of colonoscopy. This has led to a growing interest in and demand for high-quality colonoscopy. It is important to reduce the risk of CRC and its associated mortality by improving the quality of colonoscopy. In this review article, we provide an overview of colonoscopy quality indicators, including bowel preparation adequacy, the cecal intubation rate, the adenoma detection rate, the colonoscopy withdrawal time, appropriate polypectomy, and complication of the procedure. Because colonoscopy is a highly endoscopist-dependent procedure, colonoscopists should be well-acquainted with quality indicators and strive to apply them in daily clinical practice for the prevention of CRC.

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.

Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate.

Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41).

The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Screening colonoscopy detects precancerous polyps, which when resected, prevents colon cancer. Recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy are based on the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force guidelines (USMSTF).

to examine provider recommendations based on 2012 and 2020 USMSTF guidelines.

A prospective analysis was performed to examine provider recommendations for index screening and surveillance colonoscopy from March 2022 to January 2023. Procedures with unknown histology or unsatisfactory bowel preparation were excluded. We recorded polyp morphology, histology, and subsequent recommendations made by endoscopists, to compare to the USMSTF guidelines.

241 patients were included, with 371 endoscopies reviewed. For index screening colonoscopies, 86%, performed between 2012 and 2020, adhered to 2012 guidelines, while 71%, performed after 2020, adhered to the 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, 62% from 2012 and 2020, and 50% after 2020, adhered to the 2012 and 2020 guidelines, respectively (P < 0.001). For polyp types, recommendations after index colonoscopies showed low-risk adenoma (LRA) had 88% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 73% adherence to 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, LRA had 73% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 42% adherence to 2020 guidelines (P < 0.001). Recommendations after index colonoscopy showed high-risk adenoma (HRA) had 79% adherence to 2012 guidelines versus 63% adherence to 2020 guidelines. For surveillance colonoscopies, HRA had 88% adherence to the 2012 guidelines versus 69% adherence to 2020 guidelines (P < 0.001).

Adherence declined for the introduction of 2020 guidelines and was poorer after 2nd surveillance exams. Increasing the evidence for interval recommendations may increase guideline adherence.

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Colonoscopy is currently considered as one of the principal techniques to diagnose the colorectal diseases. Admittedly, qualified bowel preparation before colonoscopy is a premise for high-quality examination. Lower quality bowel preparation might seriously impede visualization of the intestinal mucosa, resulting in missed and misdiagnosed intestinal lesions. Therefore, it is necessary to choose the appropriate oral laxative based on the guarantee of safety and efficacy.

This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to compare lactulose oral solution and polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder for bowel preparation using the following indicators: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, Bowel Bubble Score, detection rate of adenoma and lesion, patients' satisfaction, and adverse effects. Our study investigated the suitability of 2 bowel preparation reagents for patients with different body mass indices mainly based on body mass index (BMI).

In the lactulose group, there was a significant improvement in the quality of bowel preparation compared with those in the PEG group ( P < 0.05), especially in people with normal BMI and higher BMI. Compared with the PEG group, individuals in the lactulose group had a significantly higher adenoma detection rate (50% vs 33.5%, P < 0.05) and taste scores (8.82 vs 6.69, P < 0.05), as well as significantly fewer adverse reactions (6.5% vs 32.5%, P < 0.05).

Lactulose oral solution is superior to PEG in bowel preparation quality and taste, especially in normal BMI and higher BMI groups. It can be used clinically as a potential and promising bowel preparation agent in the future. Clinical Trial registration number: ChiCTR2100054318.

Proper bowel preparation is of paramount importance for enhancing adenoma detection rates and reducing postcolonoscopic colorectal cancer risk. Despite recommendations from gastroenterology societies regarding the optimal rates of successful bowel preparation, these guidelines are frequently unmet. Various approaches have been employed to enhance the rates of successful bowel preparation, yet the quality of cleansing remains suboptimal. Intensive bowel preparation techniques, supplementary administration of bowel solutions, and educational interventions aimed at improving patient adherence to instructions have been commonly utilized, particularly among patients at a high risk of inadequate bowel preparation. Expedited strategies conducted on the same day as the procedure have also been endorsed by scientific organizations. More recently, the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged for the preprocedural detection of inadequate bowel preparation, holding the potential to guide the preparation process immediately preceding colonoscopy. This manuscript comprehensively reviews the current strategies employed to optimize bowel cleansing, with a specific focus on patients with elevated risks for inadequate bowel preparation. Additionally, the prospective role of AI in this context is thoroughly examined.

While a majority of outpatients may achieve cleanliness with standard cleansing protocols, dealing with hard-to-prepare patients remains a challenge. Rescue strategies based on AI are promising, but such evidence remains limited. To ensure proper bowel cleansing, a combination of strategies should be performed.

Bowel preparation is a crucial factor affecting the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy, and few randomized control trials evaluated enhancement in bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of walking exercises on bowel preparation before a colonoscopy procedure.

The present study is a single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 262 patients scheduled for colonoscopy procedures. These patients were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (n = 131) and a control group (n = 131). In the intervention group, participants followed a predetermined plan that included the consumption of specific liquids and foods, bisacodyl pills, polyethylene glycol powder, and a regimen of walking exercises in preparation for their colonoscopy. Conversely, individuals in the control group followed the same regimen but were not instructed to engage in walking exercises. On the day of the colonoscopy, both groups were assessed for their level of physical activity using a foot counter. Additionally, an experienced gastroenterologist evaluated and compared the bowel preparation between the two groups using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

The number of footsteps recorded in the two groups exhibited a significant difference (P < 0.001). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of mean BBPS scores (6.26 ± 1.9 vs. 6.29 ± 1.9, P = 0.416), individuals who took more than 6900 steps had significantly higher BBPS scores compared to those with fewer than 6900 footsteps (6.62 ± 1.8 vs. 5.92 ± 1.9, P = 0.003).In the univariate analysis, BBPS was found to be significantly associated with individuals under the age of 50 (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.30-4.61, P = 0.006) and smoking status (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17-0.94, P = 0.043). In the multivariate analysis, the relationship between BBPS and age below 50 and smoking remained significant (OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.30-4.70, P = 0.005, and OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.93, P = 0.034, respectively).

A higher number of footsteps taken especially more than 6900 can significantly enhance bowel preparation; however, walking exercise as an intervention before colonoscopy is not significantly associated with BBPS. Also, older people and smokers seem to have fewer benefits from walking exercises for bowel preparation.

ISRCTN32724024 (Registration date:22/08/2018).

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is widely used as a colonoscopic bowel cleaning agent, although some patients are intolerant due to the need for ingesting large solution volumes and unpleasant taste. A low-volume solution may enhance patient tolerability and compliance in bowel preparation. Accordingly, this study compared the effectiveness of two difference PEG volumes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in terms of bowel cleanliness, completeness of colonoscopy, patient tolerability and colonoscopy duration.

Using a prospective randomised controlled single-blinded study design, 164 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were allocated to two groups (n = 82 patients in each) to receive either the conventional PEG volume (3 L, control group) or the low volume (2 L, intervention group). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a validated scale for assessing bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy, was used to score bowel cleanliness in three colon segments. Secondarily, colonoscopy completeness, tolerability to drinking PEG and the duration of colonoscopy were compared between the groups.

There were no statistically significant differences between the two intervention groups in terms of bowel cleanliness (P = 0.119), colonoscopy completion (P = 0.535), tolerability (P = 0.190) or the amount of sedation/analgesia required (midazolam, P = 0.162; pethidine, P = 0.708). Only the duration of colonoscopy differed between the two groups (longer duration in the control group, P = 0.039).

Low-volume (2 L) PEG is as effective as the standard 3 L solution in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy; however, the superiority of either solution could not be established.

(1) Background: Little research is conducted on the link between diabetic kidney disease (DKD) progression and diabetic gastroenteropathy in type 1 diabetes (T1D). (2) Methods. We performed a cross-sectional study with 100 T1D patients; 27 of them had progressive DKD, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline ≥3 mL/min/year or increased albuminuria stage, over a mean follow-up time of 5.89 ± 1.73 years. A newly developed score with 17 questions on gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was used. Faecal calprotectin was measured by ELISA. Lower GI endoscopies were performed in 21 patients. (3) Results: The gastrointestinal symptom score demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.78). Patients with progressive DKD had higher GI symptom scores compared to those with stable DKD (p = 0.019). The former group demonstrated more frequent bowel movement disorders (p < 0.01). The scores correlated negatively with eGFR (r = -0.335; p = 0.001), positively with albuminuria (r = 0.245; p = 0.015), Hba1c (r = 0.305; p = 0.002), and diabetes duration (r = 0.251; p = 0.012). Faecal calprotectin levels did not differ between DKD groups significantly. The most commonly reported histopathological findings of enteric mucosa were infiltration with eosinophils, lymphocytes, plasmacytes, the presence of lymphoid follicles, and lymphoid aggregates. Conclusion: The progression of DKD is positively correlated with gastrointestinal symptoms; however, more research is needed to clarify the causal relationships of the gut-kidney axis in T1D.

Adequate colon preparation is a critical component of high-quality colonoscopy especially for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy for acute indications. Inpatient colonoscopy has a high incidence of inadequate preparations. We report implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve inpatient colonoscopy preparations.

Bowel preparation quality from inpatient colonoscopies performed for the 12 months prior to the comprehensive intervention were compared to colonoscopies performed for 12 months following the intervention. The intervention had multiple components including: 1) EMR-based colonoscopy preparation order set; 2) automated EMR alerts prompting nursing assessment of preparation progress; 3) standardized nursing charting processes for tracking preparation progress; and 4) standardized education for nursing staff and ordering providers on adequate colon preparation, assessment of colon preparation quality, and use of the above processes; and print and video patient education materials.

Two hundred thirty-eight inpatient colonoscopies were performed in the preintervention assessment period and 163 colonoscopies in the postintervention period. Median preintervention Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) was 6 and 26% of patients had inadequate colon preparation. Median postintervention BBPS was 8 with 16% inadequate colon preparation (P=0.016). The postintervention group had less ASA class I patients and used a lower dose of fentanyl than the preintervention group. There were no other significant differences between the pre- and postintervention groups.

Implementation of a comprehensive colon preparation quality intervention resulted in significantly improved inpatient colon preparation quality and decreased frequency of inadequate preparations. The intervention consisting of an EMR-based order-set, nursing alerts and charting process, and patient education materials is continually being refined.

Recently, 1 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (Asc) has been introduced in Korea as a colonoscopy preparation agent. Data on its efficacy and safety in older adults have been limited. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 L PEG/Asc in older adults by comparing it with oral sulfate solution (OSS).

A prospective multicenter randomized study was conducted with subjects aged ≥ 65 years who underwent colonoscopy. The participants were randomized to receive 1 L PEG/Asc or OSS. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation, defined as total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥ 6, and ≥ 2 at each segment. Patient satisfaction, adverse events, and renal function changes were compared between the groups.

Among the 106 patients, 104 were finally included in the analysis. Overall, successful bowel preparation was achieved in 96.2% of both 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS groups. The satisfaction scores for taste, total amount ingested, overall feeling, and willingness to repeat the same regimen were not significantly different between the groups. Adverse events of moderate or higher severity occurred in 16 and 10 cases in the 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS group, respectively. There were no significant changes in electrolyte levels or renal function from baseline.

The successful bowel preparation rate was > 90% in both groups without severe adverse effects and significant changes in renal function. As a new low-dose preparation regimen for colonoscopy in older adults, 1 L PEG/Asc, is as effective and safe as OSS.

BACKGROUND : We compared the effectiveness of optional split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) with mandatory SDBP for morning colonoscopies in usual clinical practice. METHODS : Adult patients undergoing outpatient early morning (8:00 AM-10:30 PM) and late morning (10:30 AM-12:00 PM) colonoscopies were included. Written bowel preparation instructions were provided based on randomization: one group were instructed to take their bowel preparation (4 L polyethylene glycol solution) as a split dose (mandatory), while the comparator group was allowed the choice of SDBP or single-dose bowel preparation administered entirely on the day before (optional). The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing with a 5 % margin, was adequate bowel cleanliness measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and defined by a BBPS score ≥ 6. RESULTS : Among 770 randomized patients with complete data, there were 267 mandatory SDBP and 265 optional SDBP patients for early morning colonoscopies, and 120 mandatory SDBP and 118 optional SDBP patients for late morning colonoscopies. Optional SDBP was inferior to mandatory SDBP, with a lower proportion of adequate BBPS cleanliness for early morning colonoscopies (78.9 % vs. 89.9 %; absolute risk difference [aRD] 11.0 %, 95 %CI 5.9 % to 16.1 %), but was not statistically different for late morning colonoscopies (76.3 % vs. 83.3 %; aRD 7.1 %, 95 %CI -1.5 % to 15.5 %). CONCLUSIONS : Optional SDBP is inferior to mandatory SDBP in providing adequate bowel preparation quality for early morning colonoscopies (8:00 AM-10:30 AM), and probably inferior for late morning colonoscopies (10:30 AM-12:00 PM).

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing both incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy and stool tests are most frequently used for this purpose. Sigmoidoscopy is an alternative screening measure with a strong evidence base. Due to its distinct characteristics, it might be preferred by subgroups. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening compared to other screening methods and to identify influencing parameters.

A systematic literature search for the time frame 01/2010-01/2023 was conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, Web of Science, NHS EED, as well as the Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Full economic analyses examining sigmoidoscopy as a screening measure for the general population at average risk for CRC were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. All included studies were critically assessed based on a questionnaire for modelling studies.

Twenty-five studies are included in the review. Compared to no screening, sigmoidoscopy is a cost-effective screening strategy for CRC. When modelled as a single measure strategy, sigmoidoscopy is mostly dominated by colonoscopy or modern stool tests. When combined with annual stool testing, sigmoidoscopy in 5-year intervals is more effective and less costly than the respective strategies alone. The results of the studies are influenced by varying assumptions on adherence, costs, and test characteristics.

The combination of sigmoidoscopy and stool testing represents a cost-effective screening strategy that has not received much attention in current guidelines. Further research is needed that goes beyond a narrow focus on screening technology and models different, preference-based participation behavior in subgroups.

Colonoscopy is a standard procedure for screening, monitoring, and treating colorectal lesions. To explore the impact of WeChat guidance on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. This quasi-experiment study included patients who underwent colonoscopy at Qingdao Endoscopy Center between March 2016 and September 2016. The primary outcome was bowel preparation quality (Ottawa score), the secondary outcomes were intubation time, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and adverse reactions. Finally, 588 patients were included and divided into the WeChat guide (n = 295) and the non-WeChat guide (n = 293) groups, they were comparable in baseline characteristics. The Ottawa score (1.59 ± 1.07 vs. 6.62 ± 3.07, P < 0.001), intubation time (6.47 ± 1.81 vs. 11.61 ± 3.34, P < 0.001), withdrawal time (13.15 ± 3.93 vs. 14.99 ± 6.77, P < 0.001), and occurrence rate of adverse reactions (2.0% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.029) were significantly lower in the WeChat guide group than those in the non-WeChat guide group. ADR was significantly higher in the WeChat guide than that in the non-WeChat guide group (1.47 ± 2.30 vs. 0.84 ± 1.66, P < 0.001). WeChat guidance might improve the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate, shorten the time of colonoscopy, and reduce adverse reactions in bowel preparation.

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.

Optimal bowel preparation is a prerequisite for a successful colonoscopy; however, the rate of inadequate bowel preparation remains relatively high. In this study, we establish a smartphone app that assesses patient bowel preparation using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based prediction system trained on labeled photographs of feces in the toilet and evaluate its impact on bowel preparation quality in colonoscopy outpatients. We conduct a prospective, single-masked, multicenter randomized clinical trial, enrolling outpatients who own a smartphone and are scheduled for a colonoscopy. We screen 578 eligible patients and randomize 524 in a 1:1 ratio to the control or AI-driven app group for bowel preparation. The study endpoints are the percentage of patients with adequate bowel preparation and the total BBPS score, compliance with dietary restrictions and purgative instructions, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate (secondary). The prediction system has an accuracy of 95.15%, a specificity of 97.25%, and an area under the curve of 0.98 in the test dataset. In the full analysis set (n = 500), adequate preparation is significantly higher in the AI-driven app group (88.54 vs. 65.59%; P < 0.001). The mean BBPS score is 6.74 ± 1.25 in the AI-driven app group and 5.97 ± 1.81 in the control group (P < 0.001). The rates of compliance with dietary restrictions (93.68 vs. 83.81%, P = 0.001) and purgative instructions (96.05 vs. 84.62%, P < 0.001) are significantly higher in the AI-driven app group, as is the rate of additional purgative intake (26.88 vs. 17.41%, P = 0.011). Thus, our AI-driven smartphone app significantly improves the quality of bowel preparation and patient compliance.

This statement was written under the auspices of the World Gastroenterology Organization's Guidelines Committee. The authors are members of the Review Team of the WGO Endoscope Disinfection Guideline and have experience in endoscopy, endoscope reprocessing, and microbiology, including biofilms. During the preparation of the WGO Update on Endoscope Disinfection Guidelines, concerns about simethicone on endoscope channel surfaces compromising cleaning and disinfection were raised. Publications on simethicone, including modes of delivery, effectiveness, and risks, have been reviewed. The paper was written as a companion to the new guidelines with a focus on minimizing the risks of simethicone in endoscope reprocessing.

Although bowel preparation influences small bowel visibility for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the optimal timing for bowel preparation has not been established yet. Thus, the aim of the study was to evaluate the optimal timing of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for small bowel preparation before SBCE. This multicenter prospective observational study was conducted on patients who underwent SBCE following bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG). Patients were categorized into three groups according to the time used for completing PEG ingestion: group A, within 6 h; group B, 6-12 h; and group C, over 12 h. The percentage of unclean segment in small bowel (unclean image duration / small bowel transit time × 100) and small bowel visibility quality (SBVQ) were evaluated according to the time interval between the last ingestion of PEG and swallowing of small bowel capsule endoscope. A total of 90 patients were enrolled and categorized into group A (n = 40), group B (n = 27), and group C (n = 23). The percentage of unclean segment in the entire small bowel increased gradually from group A to C (6.6 ± 7.6% in group A, 11.3 ± 11.8% in group B, and 16.2 ± 10.7% in group C, p = 0.001), especially in the distal small bowel (11.4 ± 13.6% in group A, 20.7 ± 18.7% in group B, and 29.5 ± 16.4% in group C, p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with adequate SBVQ in group A was significantly (p < 0.001) higher (30/40, 75.0%) than that in group B (17/27, 63.0%) or group C (5/23, 21.7%). In multivariate analysis, group A was associated with an increased likelihood of adequate SBVQ compared with group C (odds ratio [OR]: 13.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.53-48.30, p < 0.001). Completing PEG ingestion within 6 h prior to SBCE could enhance small bowel visibility.

Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of admission to the Emergency Department (ED). Early colonoscopy is the exam of choice for evaluating LGIB, and an adequate colon cleansing is essential. High-volume solution 4L-PEG is largely used, but it has some limitations. Low-volume solution 2L-PEG may improve patient's tolerability and compliance, reducing the time of administration and speeding up the exam.

We conducted a randomized 1:1, prospective observational monocentric study in 228 patients (144M/84F) with LGIB. 121 (69M/52F) received the High-Volume, while 107 (75M/32F) received Low-Volume. They completed a "satisfaction questionnaire" (taste and smell, mood, time of taking, general experience). We collected the results of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and the final diagnosis. The study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrial.gov with protocol number NCT0536 2227.

A mean value of BBPS 6,3 was achieved by both groups (p=0.57). Regarding smell, taste, mood and time of taking (1 to 5), we do not find any statistically differences. The overall satisfaction between the two preparations was 2.90 for low-volume compared to 3.17 for Highvolume (p=0.06). No side effects were reported. The proportion of patients without an evident source of bleeding was higher in High volume preparations compared to Low-volume (39% vs. 30%, respectively).

Low volume bowel preparation showed the same efficacy and tolerability with better satisfaction compared with high volume. Low-volume could represent an effective and more desirable preparation for patients in the ED.

Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety.

The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study.

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study.

The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations.

The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.