PDF herunterladen
Endoscopy 2016; 48(03): 223-231
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1569574
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparison between different colon cleansing products for screening colonoscopy. A noninferiority trial in population-based screening programs in Italy

Manuel Zorzi
1   Veneto Cancer Registry, Regione Veneto, Padua, Italy
,
Flavio Valiante
2   Gastroenterologia ed endoscopia digestiva, ULSS 2, Feltre, Italy
,
Bastianello Germanà
3   Dipartimento delle Chirurgie Specialistiche, Gastroenterologia, Ospedale S. Martino, ULSS 1, Belluno, Italy
,
Gianluca Baldassarre
4   Endoscopia Digestiva, Ospedale Alto Vicentino, ULSS 4, Santorso, Italy
,
Bartolomea Coria
5   Centrale Operativa Screening, Servizio Igiene e Sanità Pubblica, ULSS 6, Vicenza, Italy
,
Michela Rinaldi
6   Gastroenterologia, Ospedale di Conegliano, ULSS 7, Conegliano, Italy
,
Helena Heras Salvat
7   Gastroenterologia, Ospedale S. Maria di Ca’ Foncello, ULSS 9, Treviso, Italy
,
Alessandra Carta
8   Endoscopia Digestiva, Chirurgia, ULSS 10, San Donà di Piave, Italy
,
Francesco Bortoluzzi
9   Gastroenterologia, ULSS 12, Venezia, Italy
,
Erica Cervellin
10   Gastroenterologia, Ospedale di Dolo, ULSS 13, Dolo, Italy
,
Maria Luisa Polo
11   Centrale Operativa Screening, ULSS 14, Chioggia, Italy
,
Gianmarco Bulighin
12   Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, ULSS 20, San Bonifacio, Italy
,
Maurizio Azzurro
13   Endoscopia Digestiva e Gastroenterologia, ULSS 21, Legnago, Italy
,
Daniele Di Piramo
14   Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, ULSS 22, Bussolengo, Italy
,
Anna Turrin
15   Settore promozione e sviluppo igiene e sanità pubblica, Regione Veneto, Venezia, Italy
,
Fabio Monica
16   Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria “Ospedali Riuniti,” Trieste, Italy
,
the TriVeP Working Group › Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

submitted: 01. April 2015

accepted after revision: 13. Oktober 2015

Publikationsdatum:
13. Januar 2016 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Background and study aims: The high volume and poor palatability of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel cleansing preparation required before a colonoscopy represent a major obstacle for patients. The aim of this study was to compare two low volume PEG-based preparations with standard 4 L PEG in individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening programs in Italy.

Patients and methods: A total of 3660 patients with a positive FIT result were randomized to receive, in a split-dose regimen, 4 L PEG or 2 L PEG plus ascorbate (PEG-A) or 2 L PEG with citrate and simethicone plus bisacodyl (PEG-CS). The noninferiority of the low volume preparations vs. 4 L PEG was tested through the difference in proportions of adequate cleansing.

Results: A total of 2802 patients were included in the study. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 868 of 926 cases (93.7 %) in the 4 L PEG group, in 872 out of 911 cases in the PEG-A group (95.7 %, difference in proportions + 1.9 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] – 0.1 to 3.9), and in 862 out of 921 cases in the PEG-CS group (93.6 %, difference in proportions – 0.2 %, 95 %CI – 2.4 to 2.0). Bowel cleansing was adequate in 95.5 % of cases when the preparation-to-colonoscopy interval was between 120 and 239 minutes, whereas it dropped to 83.3 % with longer intervals. Better cleansing was observed in patients with regular bowel movements (95.6 %) compared with those with diarrhea (92.4 %) or constipation (90.8 %).

Conclusion: Low volume PEG-based preparations administered in a split-dose regimen guarantee noninferior bowel cleansing compared with 4 L PEG. Constipated patients require a personalized preparation.

Trial registration: EudraCT 2012 – 003958 – 82.

Fig. e3, Appendix e1, e2

 

  • References

  • 1 Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. [Internet] Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013 Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr Accessed 2014 March 4
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Brenner H, Bouvier AM, Foschi R et al. Progress in colorectal cancer survival in Europe from the late 1980s to the early 21st century: the EUROCARE study. Int J Cancer 2012; 131: 1649-1658
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E et al. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1541-1549
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Zorzi M, Fedato C, Cogo C et al. I programmi di screening oncologici del Veneto. Rapporto 2011–2012. 1st edn. Padova, Italy: CLEUP; 2013 Available from: http://www.registrotumoriveneto.it/screening/presentazione.php Accessed 2014 December 9
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Zorzi M, Fedeli U, Schievano E et al. Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2015; 64: 784-790
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Belsey J, Crosta C, Epstein O et al. Meta-analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 222-237
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Kaminski MF, Regula JR, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Parente FR, Repici A, Crosta C et al. Overall acceptability and efficacy of commonly used bowel preparations for colonoscopy in italian clinical practice. A multicentre prospective study. Dig Liv Dis 2014; 46: 795-802
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Fayad NF, Kahi CJ. Quality measures for colonoscopy: a critical evaluation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1973-1980
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Mathus-Vliegen EM, Van der Vliet K. Safety, patient’s tolerance, and efficacy of a 2-liter vitamin C-enriched macrogol bowel preparation: a randomized, endoscopist-blinded prospective comparison with a 4-liter macrogol solution. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56: 1002-1012
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Khan MA, Piotrowski Z, Brown MD. Patient acceptance, convenience, and efficacy of single-dose versus split-dose colonoscopy bowel preparation. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: 310-311
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Romero RV, Mahadeva S. Factors influencing quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 5: 39-46
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Juluri R, Eckert G, Imperiale TF. Polyethylene glycol vs sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterology 2011; 11: 38
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rex DK, McGowan J, Cleveland MV et al. A randomized, controlled trial of oral sulfate solution plus polyethylene glycol as a bowel preparation for colon endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 482-491
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Brahmania M, Ou G, Bressler B et al. 2L versus 4L of PEG3350 + electrolytes for outpatients colonic preparation: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 408-416
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Valiante F, Pontone S, Hassan C et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating a new 2-L PEG solution plus ascorbic acid vs 4-L PEG for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy. Dig Liv Dis 2012; 44: 224-227
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Valiante F, Bellumat A, De Bona M et al. Bisacodyl plus split 2-L polyethylene glycol-citrate-simethicone improves quality of bowel preparation before screening colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 5493-5499
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronish HJ et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 883-893
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Repici A, Cestari R, Annese V et al. Randomized clinical trial: low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy. A comparison between two different PEG-based formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 36: 717-724
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Mostafa R. Rome III: The functional gastrointestinal disorders, third edition, 2006. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 2124-2125
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD et al. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1480-1491
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Aronchick CA. Bowel preparation scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 1037-1038
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Valiante F, Zorzi M, Guzzinati S et al. Interobserver agreement on bowel cleansing judgment. Multicenter study in a colon cancer screening program of north-east of Italy. Abstracts of 19th National Congress of Digestive Diseases. Italian Federation of Societies of Digestive Diseases – FISMAD; 20–23 March 2013; Bologna, Italy. Dig Liv Dis 2013; 45: S193
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ et al. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012; 308: 2594-2604
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Hjelkrem M, Stengel J, Liu M et al. MiraLAX is not as effective as GoLytely in bowel cleansing before screening colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 326-332.e
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Clark RE, Godfrey JD, Choudhary A et al. Low-volume polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Ann Gastroenterol 2013; 26; 319-324
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Bitoun A, Ponchon T, Barthet M et al. Results of a prospective randomised multicentre controlled trial comparing a new 2-L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol and electrolyte solution vs. sodium phosphate solution in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Aliment Ther 2006; 24: 1631-1642
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Enestvedt BK, Tofani C, Laine L et al. 4-liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 1225-1231
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Haapamaki MM, Lindstrom M, Sandzen B. Low-volume bowel preparation is inferior to standard 4-L polyethylene glycol. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 897-901
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142-150
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Johnson DA, Barkum AN, Cohen LB et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 903-924
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Bucci C, Rotondano G, Hassan C et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 566-576.e2
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1240-1245
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Marmo R, Rotondano G, Riccio G et al. Effective bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized study of split-dosage versus non-split dosage regimens of high-volume versus low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 313-320
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Park JS, Sohn CI, Hwang SJ et al. Quality and effect of single dose versus split dose of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for early-morning colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 616-619
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Seo EH, Kim TO, Park MJ et al. Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 583-590
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Kim TH, Kim HW, Ha JK et al. Importance of the time interval between bowel preparation and colonoscopy in determining the quality of bowel preparation for full-dose polyethylene glycol preparation. Gut Liver 2014; 8: 625-631
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 781-794
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M et al. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 501-506
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Menees SB, Kim HM, Elliott EE et al. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatients colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 510-516
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Hassan C, Bucci C, Zullo A et al. Polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl for colonoscopy: has the time arrived?. Ann Gastroenterol 2013; 26: 281-282
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Baudet JS, Castro V, Redondo I. Recurrent ischemic colitis induced by colonoscopy bowel lavage. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 700-701
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar