BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients often refer to bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy completed or performed. Large studies comparing a low-residue diet (LRD) and a clear liquid diet (CLD) are still limited. The aim of this study is to compare LRD and CLD with regard to bowel preparation quality, tolerance, and satisfaction among a diverse patient population. METHODS: This study is a dual-center, randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at the University of California Irvine Medical Center and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. Patients were randomized to consume either a CLD or a planned LRD for the full day prior to colonoscopy. Both groups consumed 4L split-dosed PEG-ELS. The adequacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). Adequate preparation was defined as a BBPS ≥ 6 with no individual segment less than a score of 2. Hunger and fatigue pre - and post-procedure were graded on a ten-point scale. Nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal cramping, overall discomfort, satisfaction with the diet, willingness to repeat the same preparation and overall experience were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 195 subjects who underwent colonoscopy from October 2014 to October 2017 were included. The mean BBPS for the LRD and CLD groups was 8.38 and 7.93, respectively (p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher number of adequate preparations in the LRD group compared to CLD (p = 0.05). Evening hunger scores just before starting the bowel preparation were significantly lower in the LRD than the CLD group, 2.81 versus 5.97, respectively (p = 0.006). Subjects in the LRD group showed significantly less nausea (p = 0.047) and bloating (p = 0.04). Symptom scores for vomiting, abdominal cramping, and overall discomfort were similar between the groups. Satisfaction with diet was significantly higher in the LRD group than CLD, 72% versus 37.66%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall colonoscopy experience and the satisfaction with the preparation itself were also better reported in the LRD group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study, which included a diverse group of patients, demonstrated that patients using a LRD before colonoscopy achieve a bowel preparation quality that is superior to patients on a CLD restriction. This study shows that a low-residue diet improves patient satisfaction and results in significantly better tolerability of bowel preparation. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients often refer to bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy completed or performed. Large studies comparing a low-residue diet (LRD) and a clear liquid diet (CLD) are still limited. The aim of this study is to compare LRD and CLD with regard to bowel preparation quality, tolerance, and satisfaction among a diverse patient population. METHODS: This study is a dual-center, randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at the University of California Irvine Medical Center and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. Patients were randomized to consume either a CLD or a planned LRD for the full day prior to colonoscopy. Both groups consumed 4L split-dosed PEG-ELS. The adequacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). Adequate preparation was defined as a BBPS ≥ 6 with no individual segment less than a score of 2. Hunger and fatigue pre - and post-procedure were graded on a ten-point scale. Nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal cramping, overall discomfort, satisfaction with the diet, willingness to repeat the same preparation and overall experience were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 195 subjects who underwent colonoscopy from October 2014 to October 2017 were included. The mean BBPS for the LRD and CLD groups was 8.38 and 7.93, respectively (p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher number of adequate preparations in the LRD group compared to CLD (p = 0.05). Evening hunger scores just before starting the bowel preparation were significantly lower in the LRD than the CLD group, 2.81 versus 5.97, respectively (p = 0.006). Subjects in the LRD group showed significantly less nausea (p = 0.047) and bloating (p = 0.04). Symptom scores for vomiting, abdominal cramping, and overall discomfort were similar between the groups. Satisfaction with diet was significantly higher in the LRD group than CLD, 72% versus 37.66%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall colonoscopy experience and the satisfaction with the preparation itself were also better reported in the LRD group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study, which included a diverse group of patients, demonstrated that patients using a LRD before colonoscopy achieve a bowel preparation quality that is superior to patients on a CLD restriction. This study shows that a low-residue diet improves patient satisfaction and results in significantly better tolerability of bowel preparation. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.