» Articles » PMID: 27087962

The Burden of Bowel Preparations in Patients Undergoing Elective Colonoscopy

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2016 Apr 19
PMID 27087962
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.

Shan J, Su Y, Luo D, Jiang L, Zhang C, Liu Y BMC Gastroenterol. 2025; 25(1):164.

PMID: 40075296 PMC: 11899895. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3.


Derivation and validation of a prediction model for inadequate bowel preparation in Chinese outpatients.

Yin H, Wang Y, Wang H, Li T, Xu X, Li F Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):1430.

PMID: 39789134 PMC: 11718012. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-85816-3.


Vitamin drinks improve palatability and reduce adverse events associated to polyethylene glycol electrolyte solutions.

Huang L, Li C, Jiang Y, Ma K, Wang X Heliyon. 2024; 10(17):e37590.

PMID: 39309268 PMC: 11413698. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37590.


Bowel Preparation Burden, Rectal Pain and Abdominal Discomfort: Perspective of Participants Undergoing CT Colonography and Colonoscopy.

O-Pad N, Supachai K, Boonyapibal A, Suebwongdit C, Panaiem S, Sirisophawadee T Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024; 25(2):529-536.

PMID: 38415539 PMC: 11077122. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.2.529.


Clinical performance study of a fecal bacterial signature test for colorectal cancer screening.

Malagon M, Alwers E, Oliver L, Ramio-Pujol S, Sanchez-Vizcaino M, Amoedo J PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0293678.

PMID: 37992030 PMC: 10664962. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293678.


References
1.
Harewood G, Wiersema M, Melton 3rd L . A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97(12):3186-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07129.x. View

2.
Patel M, Staggs E, Thomas C, Lukens F, Wallace M, Almansa C . Development and validation of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Dig Liver Dis. 2014; 46(9):808-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2014.05.020. View

3.
Sharara A, M El-Halabi M, Fadel C, Sarkis F . Sugar-free menthol candy drops improve the palatability and bowel cleansing effect of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013; 78(6):886-891. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.015. View

4.
Sharara A, Abou Mrad R . The modern bowel preparation in colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013; 42(3):577-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.05.010. View

5.
Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, Rosenbaum A, Wang T, Neugut A . The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73(6):1207-14. PMC: 3106145. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051. View