simethicone and Adenoma

Simethicone is an adjunct frequently used during bowel preparation before colonoscopy and currently there is no consensus on whether it should be recommended in standard bowel preparation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect simethicone has on bowel cleanliness, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and tolerability.. We searched the literature for studies that compared colon cleansing of patients that received standard bowel preparation alone and in combination with simethicone prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were colon cleanliness, ADR, and tolerability.. Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 5630 patients were included in meta-analysis. Overall, polyethylene glycol (PEG) with simethicone improves colon cleansing compared with PEG alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, CI 1.11 to 1.97, P = 0.008). This improvement was seen for single dosing (OR 1.83, CI 1.20 to 2.79, P = 0.005) but not for split dosing (OR 1.32, CI 0.72 to 2.43, P = 0.38). Overall, simethicone had no effect on ADR (OR 1.22, CI 0.81 to 1.83, P = 0.33), but in patients receiving single dosing, simethicone significantly increased ADR (OR 1.96, CI 1.22 to 3.16, P = 0.005). The rates of nausea (OR 0.96, CI 0.75 to 1.24, P = 0.75), vomiting (OR 1.00, CI 0.69 to 1.44, P = 0.99), and abdominal pain (OR 0.69, CI 0.40 to 1.18, P = 0.17) were not significantly different between PEG and PEG + simethicone cohorts. For abdominal bloating, the PEG cohort had greater odds of experiencing bloating than the PEG + simethicone cohort (OR 2.33, CI 1.70 to 3.20, P < 0.00001).. Simethicone improves colon cleanliness and ADR; however, this improvement is not seen in patients receiving split-dose PEG. Furthermore, simethicone decreases abdominal bloating but has no effect on nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Simethicone may be a useful bowel preparation adjunct in patients unable to receive split-dose PEG.

Topics: Adenoma; Cathartics; Colonic Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Humans; Polyethylene Glycols; Simethicone

Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that supplemental simethicone (SIM) can improve bowel preparation based on polyethylene glycol, there is no consensus as to whether SIM can ultimately increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of SIM on ADR during colonoscopy.. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find relevant RCTs. RCTs evaluating the effect of pre-procedure SIM on the ADR during colonoscopy were finally included, and fixed effect models were applied.. Six trials involving 1855 patients were finally included. The present meta-analysis suggested that the ADR during colonoscopy was significantly increased by supplemental SIM (27.9% vs 23.3%, P = 0.02), with a relative risk of 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.39). Subgroup analysis suggested that supplemental SIM may be more useful to improve ADR during colonoscopy in endoscopic centers with low baseline ADR.. Supplemental SIM for bowel preparation based on polyethylene glycol is useful to improve the ADR during colonoscopy.

Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Antifoaming Agents; Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simethicone; Therapeutic Irrigation

Simethicone is an anti-foaming agent commonly used during colonoscopy. Although several randomized trials have shown that oral simethicone in the bowel preparation regimen may improve bowel cleanness, whether it improves adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate remains undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine if oral simethicone in bowel preparation regimen before colonoscopy improves the ADR.. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, SDOL, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases through December 2017. Randomized controlled trials that compared bowel preparation regimens with simethicone versus those without it were included. Effect estimates from each study were extracted and underwent meta-analysis using appropriate models. The primary outcomes were ADR and polyp detection rate, and secondary outcomes included bowel preparation, bubble score, and withdrawal time.. Twelve published randomized controlled studies with 6003 participants were included for meta-analysis. There was no difference in the overall ADR (pooled risk ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.91-1.24) and right-side ADR (risk ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval = 0.82-2.75) between the groups with or without simethicone. However, the addition of simethicone improved adenoma detected per patient (2.20 ± 1.36 vs 1.63 ± 0.89) according to one of the included studies. Meta-regression revealed that the baseline ADR < 25% of the included studies was associated with significant benefit of oral simethicone; the number needed to treat was 15.. The adjunction of oral simethicone significantly improved bowel preparation quality and might benefit adenoma detection in specific settings with low baseline ADR.

Topics: Adenoma; Antifoaming Agents; Cathartics; Colonic Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Databases, Bibliographic; Humans; Intestinal Polyps; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simethicone

Concern has been raised regarding the use of simethicone, a de-foaming agent, during endoscopic procedures. Following reports of simethicone residue in endoscope channels despite high level disinfection, an endoscope manufacturer recommended that it not be used due to concerns of biofilm formation and a possible increased risk of microorganism transmission. However, a detailed mucosal assessment is essential in performing high-standard endoscopic procedures. This is impaired by bubbles within the gastrointestinal lumen. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia's Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines (ICEG) Committee conducted a literature search utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Following a review of the available evidence, and drawing on extensive clinical experience, the multidisciplinary ICEG committee considered the risks and benefits of simethicone use in formulating four recommendations. Published reports have documented residual liquid or crystalline simethicone in endoscope channels after high level disinfection. There are no data confirming that simethicone can be cleared from channels by brushing. Multiple series report benefits of simethicone use during gastroscopy and colonoscopy in improving mucosal assessment, adenoma detection rate, and reducing procedure time. There are no published reports of adverse events related specifically to the use of simethicone, delivered either orally or via any endoscope channel. An assessment of the risks and benefits supports the continued use of simethicone during endoscopic procedures. Strict adherence to instrument reprocessing protocols is essential.

Topics: Adenoma; Antifoaming Agents; Biofilms; Cross Infection; Disinfection; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Equipment Contamination; Humans; Infection Control; Simethicone

Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg).. This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score.. Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively).. Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.

Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cost Savings; Drug Tolerance; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Polyethylene Glycols; Prospective Studies; Simethicone; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome

Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM.. This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time.. No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P = .881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P = .373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤ .05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤ .05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa = .537; P < .05; BBPS score kappa = .184; P <.05).. Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.).

Topics: Adenoma; Administration, Oral; Antifoaming Agents; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Polyethylene Glycols; Quality Indicators, Health Care; Simethicone; Single-Blind Method

Colonic bubbles obscure the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy following bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc). Simethicone is used to enhance visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to determine the optimal timing of simethicone addition to improve bowel preparation using PEG-Asc.. This prospective, randomized study enrolled patients undergoing elective colonoscopy from April 2017 to January 2018. They were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: PEG-Asc only (control) or simethicone addition in the morning on the day of colonoscopy (PEG-S1) or in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy (PEG-S2). The primary outcome was the quality of colon cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) ADR.. In total, 240 patients were randomly allocated to the three groups; six patients were withdrawn. Of the 234 patients evaluated, 78, 79, and 77 were allocated to the control, PEG-S1, and PEG-S2 groups, respectively. The bubble scores of all colonic segments were lowest in the PEG-S2 group. There was no significant difference in ADR or PDR among the three groups. However, the diminutive ADR was significantly higher in the PEG-S2 group compared to the other two groups (control 5.1% vs. PEG-S1 8.9% vs. PEG-S2 20.8%; P = 0.009).. Addition of simethicone to PEG-Asc at the optimal time prevents the formation of air bubbles and so improves the quality of bowel preparation, especially enhancing diminutive ADR.

Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Aged; Antifoaming Agents; Ascorbic Acid; Cathartics; Colonic Polyps; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Polyethylene Glycols; Prospective Studies; Simethicone

Ideal bowel preparation for colonoscopy requires complete removal of fluid and foam from the colon. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is widely used for bowel preparation, with antifoaming agents such as simethicone commonly used in combination with PEG. Data on the effect of simethicone on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) were limited. This study therefore aimed to investigate whether preprocedure simethicone could increase the ADR.. This was a prospective, multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial involving consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy in six centers in China. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: PEG plus simethicone or PEG alone. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes were quality of bowel preparation, measured by the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and bubble scores.. 583 patients were included. More adenomas were detected in the PEG plus simethicone group than in the PEG alone group (ADR 21.0 % vs. 14.3 %,. Combined use of PEG and simethicone is associated with a significantly increased ADR in a Chinese population.

Topics: Adenoma; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antifoaming Agents; Colon; Colonic Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Reproducibility of Results; Simethicone; Young Adult

For bowel preparation, using a reduced volume of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution without influencing its effectiveness would be preferable. While simethicone shows great potential as an adjunctive agent, data on its use are limited. We aimed to clarify whether simethicone added to low-volume PEG solution improved bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS : Consecutive adult patients registered for colonoscopy were recruited from seven medical centers in South China between 15 April and 15 July 2015 and prospectively randomized into two groups: 2 L PEG (conventional group) and 2 L PEG plus simethicone (simethicone group). The primary endpoint was the effectiveness of bowel cleansing according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient safety and compliance, and adverse events. RESULTS : We included 290 and 289 patients in the conventional and simethicone groups, respectively, for analysis. The proportion with acceptable bowel cleansing (BBPS ≥ 6) was significantly higher in the simethicone group than in the conventional group (88.2 % vs. 76.6 %;. Simethicone added to low-volume PEG solution improves bowel-cleansing efficacy, with similar safety and compliance, shorter cecal intubation time, and higher ADR.

Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Antifoaming Agents; Cathartics; Cecum; Colonic Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Female; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Male; Medication Adherence; Middle Aged; Patient Safety; Polyethylene Glycols; Prospective Studies; Simethicone; Single-Blind Method; Time Factors

Efficient bowel preparation is essential for preventing colorectal cancer by improving endoscopic adenoma detection. Tablet for bowel preparation containing sulfate salts, OSTs (oral sulfate tablets), has been developed and it is gaining more popularity. However, its efficacy compared to standard preparation agent, PEG-AA (polyethylene glycol), has not been well discovered. We assessed the efficacy of PEG and OSTs using a real-time clinical data warehouse (CDW) model.. We performed a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis of consecutive adult patients undergoing colonoscopy who received PEG-AA or OSTs prior to colonoscopy at a tertiary academic hospital. The endoscopic records of 992 adult patients were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical data warehouse collected data including bowel preparation, insertion time, observation time, and the detection of polyps and adenomas. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to reveal the factors associated with endoscopic outcomes.. Among 992 patients included in the study, 770 and 222 patients received PEG-AA and OSTs, respectively. Among the propensity score-matched population (n = 1897), OSTs resulted in better bowel cleansing quality (8.16 vs 7.84, p = 0.014) and a higher adenoma detection rate (38.6% vs 27.1%, p = 0.003). Using PEG-AA, older age, inadequate bowel preparation (BBPS score < 6) and endoscopy by fellows were found to be factors associated with poor adenoma detection. In the elderly over 65 years of age, a significant difference in cleansing quality between the two groups (7.21 vs 8.19, p < 0.001) was found, but its impact on ADR was not prominent (49.5% vs 45.4%, p = 0.653).. OSTs with simethicone achieved better endoscopic cleanliness, improving adenoma detection rate compared to the conventional PEG-AA protocol. The synergistic effect of both the convenience of taking tablets and the reduction of intraluminal bubble by adjunctive simethicone improves the clinical efficacy of colonoscopy.

Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Aged; Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Humans; Polyethylene Glycols; Propensity Score; Retrospective Studies; Simethicone; Sulfates; Tablets

Topics: Adenoma; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Simethicone