Which Patient-Related Factors Determine Optimal Bowel Preparation?

Martel, Myriam; Ménard, Charles; Restellini, Sophie; Kherad, Omar; Almadi, Majid A.; Bouchard, Maïté; Barkun, Alan N.

doi:10.1007/s11938-018-0208-9

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, in Kim's trial, a statistically significant difference was observed in the mean age of patients [20]. Our study results showed that patients in the 2L group (48.14 vs. 52.88) were younger, which was under the common cut-off, and the results ultimately showed no significant difference between the two groups [22].…”

Section: Biomed Research Internationalmentioning

confidence: 48%

“…Furthermore, many patient-related factors influence the bowel preparation, inevitably leading to heterogeneity. As several previous studies indicated, the predictors such as age, sex, BMI, previous history of colonoscopy, dietary restrictions, distinction in the brand of medication, indications of colonscopy, and interval time before the procedure showed association with colon cleansing [22,23]. Almost all the studies included in this meta-analysis were internally consistent in these respects in order to eliminate the influence of these confounding factors on the results.…”

Section: Biomed Research Internationalmentioning

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Yuan

Zhang

Xie

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of additional usage of adjuvants for bowel preparation is still unclear. This study compared 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid with adjuvant drug regimens (1L PEG-AA, lower volume) with 2L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2L PEG-A, low volume) to evaluate whether the adjuvants can be used to reduce the standard dosage of purgative further. The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was the efficacy of bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes were patients’ tolerability and complication rate. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADEpro guideline development tool. Five RCTs with a total of 1013 patients from Korea were included. The majority of patients were outpatients from different hospitals. The pooled data showed no significant difference in the adequate bowel preparation rate (89.3% versus 89.4%, RR 1, 95% CI 0.95-1.05, I 2 = 47 % ) as well as in the complication rate (RR for nausea 1.22, 95% CI 0.89-1.65, I 2 = 49 % ; RR for bloating 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.28, I 2 = 0 % ; RR for vomiting 0.69, 95% CI 0.32-1.50, I 2 = 33 % ; RR for abdominal pain 1.01, 95% CI 0.61-1.69, I 2 = 0 % ). But a significantly higher willingness rate was observed in the lower volume (85.1% versus 67.9%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14-1.38, I 2 = 46 % ). The quality of primary outcome evidence was moderate. The findings of this meta-analysis revealed that 1L PEG-AA may be a viable alternative to 2L PEG-A, with comparable effectiveness, better patient preference, and no statistically significant adverse event occurrence.

show abstract

Section: Biomed Research Internationalmentioning

confidence: 48%

Section: Biomed Research Internationalmentioning

confidence: 79%

Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Yuan

Zhang

Xie

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of other factors-including age, smoking, diabetes, and opioid use-have been previously identified as predictors of inadequate bowel preparation using a clear liquid diet [12][13][14]16]. That these factors were not identified as significant predictors is likely due to several limitations of our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Low-residue diet for colonoscopy in veterans: Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and patient satisfaction and compliance

Ramprasad

Zhang³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bowel preparation with low-residue diet (LRD) has resulted in higher patient satisfaction and similar polyp detection rates compared to conventional clear liquid diet. However, there is limited experience with LRD in veterans, in whom conditions associated with poor bowel preparation are more prevalent than the general population. To examine risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation, we conducted a chart review of outpatient colonoscopies at the Manhattan VA Medical Center from February 2017 to April 2018. To examine patient satisfaction and compliance, we administered an anonymous questionnaire to patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy from March to August 2018. Patients assessed by chart review (n = 660) were 92% male with a mean age of 64 years. An adequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score �2 in each colonic segment was achieved in 94% of procedures. Higher BMI, diabetes, prior inadequate bowel preparation, bowel preparation duration of two days, and opioid use were associated with inadequate bowel preparation on univariable analysis. On multiple logistic regression, only higher BMI remained a predictor, with every one-unit increase associated with a 6% increased odds of poor bowel preparation. Questionnaire responses showed 84% of patients were willing to repeat LRD bowel preparation, 85% found the process easy or acceptable, and 78% reported full adherence to LRD. These findings demonstrate that bowel preparation quality, patient satisfaction, and compliance were all high among veterans using LRD.

show abstract

“…Moreover, this could also be a potential silver lining in this pandemic, to use our resources in a more cost-efficient, beneficial manner, as there is a definite increase in demand and more limited supply due to infection control constraints. This should lead to strategies that improve aspects focusing on procedures with an anticipated higher yield, as well as focusing on improving bowel preparation quality [12,13] and avoiding cancelling procedures and possibly shifting, even momentarily, from open-access systems to more controlled scheduling of patients after meticulous screening of requests. We have clearly demonstrated in the past that a significant proportion of those referrals in an open-access system were inappropriate.…”

Section: Response To Almalki Et Al: Resuming Endoscopy Services During the Covid-19 Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Almalki et al.: Resuming endoscopy services during the COVID-19 pandemic

Almadi

Aljebreen

Azzam

et al. 2020

Saudi J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Which Patient-Related Factors Determine Optimal Bowel Preparation?

Cited by 22 publications

References 54 publications

Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Comparison of 1L Adjuvant Auxiliary Preparations with 2L Solely Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid Regime for Bowel Cleaning: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Low-residue diet for colonoscopy in veterans: Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and patient satisfaction and compliance

Response to Almalki et al.: Resuming endoscopy services during the COVID-19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About