The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution

A randomized single-blind study

Rebecca Matro, Keegan Tupchong, Constantine Daskalakis, Victoria Gordon, Leo Katz, David Kastenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Colonic bubbles associated with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) are common and obscure mucosal visualization. This study aimed to determine whether adding simethicone decreases the incidence of bubbles. METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized comparison of split dose PEG-ELS vs. PEG-ELS+simethicone (PEG-S) for outpatient colonoscopy. Bubble severity for colonic segments was assessed on withdrawal as A=no/minimal bubbles, B=moderate bubbles/interfere with detecting 5 mm polyp, C=severe bubbles/interfere with detecting 10 mm polyp. Primary end point was Grade B or C bubbles in any colon segment. Secondary end points were cleansing quality, incidence and severity of side effects, and polyp detection. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty nine patients enrolled; 13 withdrew before colonoscopy. Of 123 patients evaluated, 62 took PEG-S and 61 PEG-ELS. The incidence of grade B or C bubbles was much lower with PEG-S compared with PEG-ELS (2% vs. 38%; P=0.001). Overall cleansing (excellent or good) quality was not significantly different for either the whole colon (89% PEG-ELS, 94% of PEG-S, P=0.529) or right colon (88% PEG-ELS, 94% PEG-S, P=0.365). More PEG-S patients had excellent rather than good preps (whole colon 53% vs. 28%, P=0.004; right colon 53% vs. 35%, P=0.044). Need for any flushing was less with PEG-S (38% vs. 70%, P=0.001). The groups were not significantly different with respect to total procedure and withdrawal times, incidence or severity of side effects, or number of polyps/patient or adenomas/patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding simethicone to PEG-ELS effectively eliminates bubbles, substantially reduces the need for flushing, and results in more excellent preparations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere26
JournalClinical and Translational Gastroenterology
Volume3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Simethicone
Single-Blind Method
Colonoscopy
Electrolytes
Colon
Polyps
Incidence
Adenoma
Outpatients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution : A randomized single-blind study. / Matro, Rebecca; Tupchong, Keegan; Daskalakis, Constantine; Gordon, Victoria; Katz, Leo; Kastenberg, David.

In: Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology, Vol. 3, e26, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1d6c63f6e2ac4ad0923ba51132e9afd2,
title = "The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution: A randomized single-blind study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Colonic bubbles associated with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) are common and obscure mucosal visualization. This study aimed to determine whether adding simethicone decreases the incidence of bubbles. METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized comparison of split dose PEG-ELS vs. PEG-ELS+simethicone (PEG-S) for outpatient colonoscopy. Bubble severity for colonic segments was assessed on withdrawal as A=no/minimal bubbles, B=moderate bubbles/interfere with detecting 5 mm polyp, C=severe bubbles/interfere with detecting 10 mm polyp. Primary end point was Grade B or C bubbles in any colon segment. Secondary end points were cleansing quality, incidence and severity of side effects, and polyp detection. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty nine patients enrolled; 13 withdrew before colonoscopy. Of 123 patients evaluated, 62 took PEG-S and 61 PEG-ELS. The incidence of grade B or C bubbles was much lower with PEG-S compared with PEG-ELS (2{\%} vs. 38{\%}; P=0.001). Overall cleansing (excellent or good) quality was not significantly different for either the whole colon (89{\%} PEG-ELS, 94{\%} of PEG-S, P=0.529) or right colon (88{\%} PEG-ELS, 94{\%} PEG-S, P=0.365). More PEG-S patients had excellent rather than good preps (whole colon 53{\%} vs. 28{\%}, P=0.004; right colon 53{\%} vs. 35{\%}, P=0.044). Need for any flushing was less with PEG-S (38{\%} vs. 70{\%}, P=0.001). The groups were not significantly different with respect to total procedure and withdrawal times, incidence or severity of side effects, or number of polyps/patient or adenomas/patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding simethicone to PEG-ELS effectively eliminates bubbles, substantially reduces the need for flushing, and results in more excellent preparations.",
author = "Rebecca Matro and Keegan Tupchong and Constantine Daskalakis and Victoria Gordon and Leo Katz and David Kastenberg",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1038/ctg.2012.16",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
journal = "Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology",
issn = "2155-384X",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution

T2 - A randomized single-blind study

AU - Matro, Rebecca

AU - Tupchong, Keegan

AU - Daskalakis, Constantine

AU - Gordon, Victoria

AU - Katz, Leo

AU - Kastenberg, David

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Colonic bubbles associated with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) are common and obscure mucosal visualization. This study aimed to determine whether adding simethicone decreases the incidence of bubbles. METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized comparison of split dose PEG-ELS vs. PEG-ELS+simethicone (PEG-S) for outpatient colonoscopy. Bubble severity for colonic segments was assessed on withdrawal as A=no/minimal bubbles, B=moderate bubbles/interfere with detecting 5 mm polyp, C=severe bubbles/interfere with detecting 10 mm polyp. Primary end point was Grade B or C bubbles in any colon segment. Secondary end points were cleansing quality, incidence and severity of side effects, and polyp detection. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty nine patients enrolled; 13 withdrew before colonoscopy. Of 123 patients evaluated, 62 took PEG-S and 61 PEG-ELS. The incidence of grade B or C bubbles was much lower with PEG-S compared with PEG-ELS (2% vs. 38%; P=0.001). Overall cleansing (excellent or good) quality was not significantly different for either the whole colon (89% PEG-ELS, 94% of PEG-S, P=0.529) or right colon (88% PEG-ELS, 94% PEG-S, P=0.365). More PEG-S patients had excellent rather than good preps (whole colon 53% vs. 28%, P=0.004; right colon 53% vs. 35%, P=0.044). Need for any flushing was less with PEG-S (38% vs. 70%, P=0.001). The groups were not significantly different with respect to total procedure and withdrawal times, incidence or severity of side effects, or number of polyps/patient or adenomas/patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding simethicone to PEG-ELS effectively eliminates bubbles, substantially reduces the need for flushing, and results in more excellent preparations.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Colonic bubbles associated with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) are common and obscure mucosal visualization. This study aimed to determine whether adding simethicone decreases the incidence of bubbles. METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized comparison of split dose PEG-ELS vs. PEG-ELS+simethicone (PEG-S) for outpatient colonoscopy. Bubble severity for colonic segments was assessed on withdrawal as A=no/minimal bubbles, B=moderate bubbles/interfere with detecting 5 mm polyp, C=severe bubbles/interfere with detecting 10 mm polyp. Primary end point was Grade B or C bubbles in any colon segment. Secondary end points were cleansing quality, incidence and severity of side effects, and polyp detection. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty nine patients enrolled; 13 withdrew before colonoscopy. Of 123 patients evaluated, 62 took PEG-S and 61 PEG-ELS. The incidence of grade B or C bubbles was much lower with PEG-S compared with PEG-ELS (2% vs. 38%; P=0.001). Overall cleansing (excellent or good) quality was not significantly different for either the whole colon (89% PEG-ELS, 94% of PEG-S, P=0.529) or right colon (88% PEG-ELS, 94% PEG-S, P=0.365). More PEG-S patients had excellent rather than good preps (whole colon 53% vs. 28%, P=0.004; right colon 53% vs. 35%, P=0.044). Need for any flushing was less with PEG-S (38% vs. 70%, P=0.001). The groups were not significantly different with respect to total procedure and withdrawal times, incidence or severity of side effects, or number of polyps/patient or adenomas/patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding simethicone to PEG-ELS effectively eliminates bubbles, substantially reduces the need for flushing, and results in more excellent preparations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886508739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886508739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ctg.2012.16

DO - 10.1038/ctg.2012.16

M3 - Article

VL - 3

JO - Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology

JF - Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology

SN - 2155-384X

M1 - e26

ER -