Jerry T Dang1,2, Muhammad Moolla3, ThucNhi Tran Dang4, Ashley Shaw5, Chunhong Tian5, Shahzeer Karmali5, Richard Sultanian4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. dang2@ualberta.ca. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 112 Street NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, Canada. dang2@ualberta.ca. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Constipation is an important and highly prevalent predictor of inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy. In North America, between 2 and 28% of the general population suffer from constipation. Despite the high prevalence of constipation, to our knowledge, no meta-analysis on the optimal bowel preparation for constipated patients has been performed. We aimed to systematically review the literature to determine the ideal bowel preparation regiment for patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) was performed. We included studies that assessed the quality of bowel preparation in constipated patients receiving different agents prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcome was colon cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included tolerability of the bowel preparation and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Preliminary database search yielded 1581 articles after duplicates were removed. After screening of the titles and abstracts using the exclusion criteria, 358 full-text articles were retained. Full-text articles were reviewed and eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included for qualitative synthesis. Three randomized controlled trials identified a total of 1636 constipated patients, of whom 225 were eligible for meta-analysis. Of those, 107 (47.6%) received NaP and 118 (52.4%) received PEG. Patients receiving NaP before colonoscopy had a higher chance of a successful bowel preparation than patients receiving PEG (OR 1.87, CI 1.06 to 3.32, P = 0.003). In the studies comparing PEG to NaP, two found that NaP resulted in greater tolerability of the bowel preparation and one study found that PEG resulted in superior tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: In chronically constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, the use of NaP may result in superior colonic cleanliness when compared to PEG, however, quality of evidence was low. Further high-quality studies are required to delineate the optimal bowel preparation in patients with constipation.
BACKGROUND:Constipation is an important and highly prevalent predictor of inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy. In North America, between 2 and 28% of the general population suffer from constipation. Despite the high prevalence of constipation, to our knowledge, no meta-analysis on the optimal bowel preparation for constipatedpatients has been performed. We aimed to systematically review the literature to determine the ideal bowel preparation regiment for patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) was performed. We included studies that assessed the quality of bowel preparation in constipatedpatients receiving different agents prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcome was colon cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included tolerability of the bowel preparation and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Preliminary database search yielded 1581 articles after duplicates were removed. After screening of the titles and abstracts using the exclusion criteria, 358 full-text articles were retained. Full-text articles were reviewed and eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included for qualitative synthesis. Three randomized controlled trials identified a total of 1636 constipatedpatients, of whom 225 were eligible for meta-analysis. Of those, 107 (47.6%) received NaP and 118 (52.4%) received PEG. Patients receiving NaP before colonoscopy had a higher chance of a successful bowel preparation than patients receiving PEG (OR 1.87, CI 1.06 to 3.32, P = 0.003). In the studies comparing PEG to NaP, two found that NaP resulted in greater tolerability of the bowel preparation and one study found that PEG resulted in superior tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: In chronically constipatedpatients undergoing colonoscopy, the use of NaP may result in superior colonic cleanliness when compared to PEG, however, quality of evidence was low. Further high-quality studies are required to delineate the optimal bowel preparation in patients with constipation.
Authors: Petar Mamula; Douglas G Adler; Jason D Conway; David L Diehl; Francis A Farraye; Sergey V Kantsevoy; Vivek Kaul; Sripathi R Kethu; Richard S Kwon; Sarah A Rodriguez; William M Tierney Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: John R Saltzman; Brooks D Cash; Shabana F Pasha; Dayna S Early; V Raman Muthusamy; Mouen A Khashab; Krishnavel V Chathadi; Robert D Fanelli; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Jenifer R Lightdale; Lisa Fonkalsrud; Amandeep K Shergill; Joo Ha Hwang; G Anton Decker; Terry L Jue; Ravi Sharaf; Deborah A Fisher; John A Evans; Kimberly Foley; Aasma Shaukat; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Ashley L Faulx; Amy Wang; Ruben D Acosta Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Katherine D Thompson; Paul C Schroy; David A Lieberman; Brian C Jacobson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J C Anderson; C R Messina; W Cohn; E Gottfried; S Ingber; G Bernstein; E Coman; J Polito Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Milena Di Leo; Andrea Iannone; Monica Arena; Giuseppe Losurdo; Maria Angela Palamara; Giuseppe Iabichino; Pierluigi Consolo; Maria Rendina; Carmelo Luigiano; Alfredo Di Leo Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 5.742