BACKGROUND: An adequate bowel preparation is an important quality measure for optimal colonoscopy. AIMS: The aim of this article is to study the burden of bowel preparations by examining seven specific variables (hunger, taste, volume, sleep, social, work, and adverse events (AEs)). METHODS: Ambulatory patients undergoing elective colonoscopy completed a questionnaire regarding their experience with the prescribed preparation. The seven study variables were graded using a numerical scale of 0-10 (best to worst). A score >6 was considered to indicate a significant impact and used as primary outcome. Patients were also asked to grade in descending order what they perceived as the worst aspect of the preparation. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients completed the survey. Preparations consisted of split-dose sodium picosulfate (SPS) (n = 49), split-dose 4 l PEG ± menthol (n = 49), full-dose PEG (n = 68), and 2 l split-dose PEG + ascorbic acid (n = 50). Except for work and AEs, all variables were considered to have a negative impact by >20% of patients (range 20.4-34.2). SPS was superior to PEG regimens in taste (4.1% vs. 35.9%) and volume (0% vs. 44.9%) (p < 0.05 for both) but inferior for hunger (30.6% vs. 19.2%; p = 0.09). The addition of menthol to PEG significantly improved taste (22.4% vs. 41.5%; p = 0.02). Sleep disturbances were most common with SPS and least with split-dose PEG (30.6% vs. 17.4%; p < 0.05). Overall, patients ranked volume, taste, and hunger as most burdensome. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of bowel preparation is substantial. An informed personalized choice of preparation may improve adherence, tolerability and colon cleansing.
BACKGROUND: An adequate bowel preparation is an important quality measure for optimal colonoscopy. AIMS: The aim of this article is to study the burden of bowel preparations by examining seven specific variables (hunger, taste, volume, sleep, social, work, and adverse events (AEs)). METHODS: Ambulatory patients undergoing elective colonoscopy completed a questionnaire regarding their experience with the prescribed preparation. The seven study variables were graded using a numerical scale of 0-10 (best to worst). A score >6 was considered to indicate a significant impact and used as primary outcome. Patients were also asked to grade in descending order what they perceived as the worst aspect of the preparation. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients completed the survey. Preparations consisted of split-dose sodium picosulfate (SPS) (n = 49), split-dose 4 l PEG ± menthol (n = 49), full-dose PEG (n = 68), and 2 l split-dose PEG + ascorbic acid (n = 50). Except for work and AEs, all variables were considered to have a negative impact by >20% of patients (range 20.4-34.2). SPS was superior to PEG regimens in taste (4.1% vs. 35.9%) and volume (0% vs. 44.9%) (p < 0.05 for both) but inferior for hunger (30.6% vs. 19.2%; p = 0.09). The addition of menthol to PEG significantly improved taste (22.4% vs. 41.5%; p = 0.02). Sleep disturbances were most common with SPS and least with split-dose PEG (30.6% vs. 17.4%; p < 0.05). Overall, patients ranked volume, taste, and hunger as most burdensome. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of bowel preparation is substantial. An informed personalized choice of preparation may improve adherence, tolerability and colon cleansing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; acceptability; adherence; bowel preparation; quality of life; tolerability
Authors: David A Johnson; Alan N Barkun; Larry B Cohen; Jason A Dominitz; Tonya Kaltenbach; Myriam Martel; Douglas J Robertson; C Richard Boland; Frances M Giardello; David A Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Benjamin Lebwohl; Fay Kastrinos; Michael Glick; Adam J Rosenbaum; Timothy Wang; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ala I Sharara; Hamza Daroub; Camille Georges; Rani Shayto; Ralph Nader; Jean Chalhoub; Ammar Olabi Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-08-10
Authors: U Deding; J Herp; A-L Havshoei; M Kobaek-Larsen; M M Buijs; E S Nadimi; G Baatrup Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Melanie M Ivancic; Bryant W Megna; Yuriy Sverchkov; Mark Craven; Mark Reichelderfer; Perry J Pickhardt; Michael R Sussman; Gregory D Kennedy Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Ala I Sharara; Jean M Chalhoub; Maya Beydoun; Rani H Shayto; Hamed Chehab; Ali H Harb; Fadi H Mourad; Fayez S Sarkis Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Mathias M Petersen; Linnea Ferm; Jakob Kleif; Thomas B Piper; Eva Rømer; Ib J Christensen; Hans J Nielsen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-09-12 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Umair Kamran; Abdullah Abbasi; Imran Tahir; James Hodson; Keith Siau Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 4.623