Clin Endosc.  2024 Nov;57(6):775-782. 10.5946/ce.2024.056.

Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study

• Ramos JA
• Carvalho D
• Arantes VN

• KMID: 2561161
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.056

Abstract

Background/Aims
Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the gold standard regimen for bowel preparation; however, due to the necessity of a large volume, patient tolerance is impaired. Therefore, lactulose is a novel alternative for colonoscopy preparation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lactulose-based bowel preparations in comparison with PEG for colonoscopy.
Methods
This is a prospective, non-blinded, comparative study. Outpatients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (111 patients), PEG; and group 2 (111 patients), lactulose. The following clinical outcomes were assessed in each group: degree of bowel clearance using the Boston bowel preparation score, colorectal polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and side effects.
Results
The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 8.1% and 1.8% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p=0.030). The Boston bowel preparation score for the entire colon was 7.34±1.17 and 8.36±1.09 for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001). The satisfactory overall experience rates were 27.9% and 62.2% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001).
Conclusions
The novel bowel preparation with oral lactulose was superior to that with PEG in terms of colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerance, and patient experience.

Keyword

Adenoma; Colonoscopy; Lactulose; Polyethylene glycols

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Outline of the study design. BBPS, Boston bowel preparation score.

• 

Reference

1. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58(6 Suppl):S3–S43.

2. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019. Endoscopy. 2019; 51:775–794.

3. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Saltzman JR, Cash BD, et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81:781–794.

4. Park SB, Cha JM. Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality. Clin Endosc. 2022; 55:332–338.

5. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81:31–53.

6. Sharma P, Burke CA, Johnson DA, et al. The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention. Endosc Int Open. 2020; 8:E673–E683.

7. Oh CH, Lee CK, Kim JW, et al. Suboptimal bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Dig Dis Sci. 2015; 60:2294–2303.

8. Zawaly K, Rumbolt C, Abou-Setta AM, et al. The efficacy of split-dose bowel preparations for polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019; 114:884–892.

9. Petrelli F, Tomasello G, Borgonovo K, et al. Prognostic survival associated with left-sided vs right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3:211–219.

10. Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014; 109:1375–1389.

11. Pohl J, Halphen M, Kloess HR, et al. Impact of the quality of bowel cleansing on the efficacy of colonic cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, blinded study. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0126067.

12. Hernandez PV, Horsley-Silva JL, Snyder DL, et al. Effect of bowel preparation volume in inpatient colonoscopy: results of a prospective, randomized, comparative pilot study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020; 20:227.

13. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 61:378–384.

14. Sadeghi A, Rahmani K, Ketabi Moghadam P, et al. Low volume polyethylene glycol combined with senna versus high volume polyethylene glycol, which regimen is better for bowel preparation for colonoscopy?: a randomized, controlled, and single-blinded trial. Health Sci Rep. 2022; 5:e829.

15. Waldmann E, Penz D, Majcher B, et al. Impact of high-volume, intermediate-volume and low-volume bowel preparation on colonoscopy quality and patient satisfaction: an observational study. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019; 7:114–124.

16. Occhipinti V, Soriani P, Bagolini F, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: a real-life single-blinded large-population study. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021; 13:659–672.

17. Barkun AN, Martel M, Epstein IL, et al. The Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative: high-volume split-dose vs low-volume split-dose polyethylene glycol preparations: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 20:e1469–e1477.

18. López S, Vargas C, López C. Effectiveness and tolerability of low volume bowel cleansing polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy. Rev Med Chil. 2019; 147:977–982.

19. Sun CL, Li DK, Zenteno AC, et al. Low-volume bowel preparation is associated with reduced time to colonoscopy in hospitalized patients: a propensity-matched analysis. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2022; 13:e00482.

20. Spadaccini M, Frazzoni L, Vanella G, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of high- vs low-volume split-dose bowel cleansing regimens for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 18:1454–1465.

21. van Riswijk ML, van Keulen KE, Siersema PD. Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc. 2022; 34:13–32.

22. Frazzoni L, Spada C, Radaelli F, et al. 1L- vs. 4L-Polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients: a propensity score-matching analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2020; 52:1486–1493.

23. Bednarska O, Nyhlin N, Schmidt PT, et al. The effectiveness and tolerability of a very low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy compared to low and high-volume polyethylene glycol-solutions in the real-life setting. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12:1155.

24. Maida M, Sinagra E, Morreale GC, et al. Effectiveness of very low-volume preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, multicenter observational study. World J Gastroenterol. 2020; 26:1950–1961.

25. Yuanchao H, Xueping L, Tao L, et al. The advantage of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution combined with lactulose in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2020; 31:23–29.

26. Lu J, Cao Q, Wang X, et al. Application of oral lactulose in combination with polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder for colonoscopy bowel preparation in patients with constipation. Am J Ther. 2016; 23:e1020–e1024.

27. Menacho AM, Reimann A, Hirata LM, et al. Double-blind prospective randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol to lactulose for bowel preparation in colonoscopy. Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2014; 27:9–12.

28. Wenqi S, Bei Z, Yunrong W, et al. Lactulose vs polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study based on BMI. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2024; 15:e00652.

29. Jagdeep J, Sawant G, Lal P, et al. Oral lactulose vs. polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study. Cureus. 2021; 13:e14363.

30. Li CX, Guo Y, Zhu YJ, et al. Comparison of polyethylene glycol versus lactulose oral solution for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2019; 2019:2651450.