部分高危风险因素人群肠道准备的研究进展
Research Progress of Intestinal Preparation for Some High-Risk Factors
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2024.142371, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 45  浏览: 88 
作者: 熊媛琴, 艾耀伟*, 李海洋:三峡大学附属宜昌市中心人民医院消化内科,湖北 宜昌
关键词: 肠道准备高危风险因素结肠镜Bowel Preparation High Risk Factors Colonoscopy
摘要: 结肠镜检查是结直肠癌筛查的金标准,高质量的结肠镜检查需要充分的肠道准备。对于高风险人群,使用高容量聚乙二醇药物进行肠道准备,液体摄入量大,不良反应多,患者耐受性较差,目前约有18%~35%的患者肠道准备不充分。基于聚乙二醇肠道准备药物以及其他药物能减少液体摄入量,提高患者耐受性;同时,由于肠道准备人群具有高危风险因素,肠道准备前的饮食及其他药物使用的特异性有助于提高肠道准备成功率。本文旨在总结目前部分高危风险因素人群肠道准备效果,对其个性化肠道准备方案进行综述,给临床医生及结肠镜检查患者提供更好的选择。
Abstract: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening, and high-quality colonoscopy re-quires adequate bowel preparation. For the high-risk population, the use of high-volume polyeth-ylene glycol drugs for intestinal preparation has large fluid intake, many adverse reactions, and poor patient tolerance. At present, about 18%~35% of patients have inadequate intestinal prepa-ration. Polyethylene glycol based bowel preparation drugs and other drugs can reduce fluid intake and improve patient tolerance; At the same time, due to the high-risk factors of the intestinal prep-aration population, the specificity of diet and other drug use before intestinal preparation helps to improve the success rate of intestinal preparation. The purpose of this article is to summarize the effect of bowel preparation for some high-risk groups, and to review the bowel preparation methods and schemes, so as to provide better choices for clinicians and patients undergoing colonoscopy.
文章引用:熊媛琴, 艾耀伟, 李海洋. 部分高危风险因素人群肠道准备的研究进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(2): 2641-2648. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.142371

1. 引言

结直肠癌是全世界第三大常见的恶性肿瘤,全球肿瘤流行病统计学数据结果显示:结直肠癌的发病率及死亡率在全世界高居第2、3位 [1] 。与其他国家相比,结直肠癌在中国人口中发病率最高,2020年中国癌症统计报告指出我国结直肠癌发病率及死亡率在全部恶性肿瘤中高居第2,并且呈逐年上升趋势 [2] 。目前研究表明早期结直肠癌治疗后5年生存率可超过90% [3] ,但多数病人确诊时已到中晚期,且死亡率极高。因此,及早筛查结直肠癌尤为重要。一项荟萃分析研究表示与其他筛查方法比较,结肠镜检查是结直肠癌筛查最有效的方式 [4] ,结肠镜检查被认为是结直肠癌筛查的金标准,可以诊断和治疗结直肠癌 [5] [6] 研究表明,由于结肠镜检查及病变切除,结直肠癌的发病率降低76%~90%,死亡率降低53% [7] 。

在进行结肠镜检查前,需要进行肠道准备,肠道准备质量的好坏是结肠镜检查效果的关键 [8] ,充分的肠道准备能完整观察结肠黏膜和发现癌前病变,不充分的结肠准备会延长结肠镜检查时间,增加患者结肠镜检查成本,还可能漏诊扁平和/或锯齿状病变,从而增加结肠镜检查后结直肠癌的风险 [9] 。最新指南指出理想的肠道准备特点包括短时间排空结肠粪便、不引起结肠黏膜改变、不引起患者不适、不导致电解质紊乱、价格适中。

研究表明目前仍有18%~35%的患者在进行肠镜检查前肠道准备不足 [10] 。指南显示肠道准备不充分的危险因素包括慢性便秘、未严格按照要求进行肠道准备(如术前高纤维饮食、PEG服用量不足)、BMI > 25 kg/m2、年龄 > 70岁、结肠外科手术史、伴有其他疾病(如糖尿病、帕金森病、卒中或脊髓损伤病史)、应用三环类抗抑郁药物或麻醉剂等,药物准备方案为4 L聚乙二醇。目前,对于高危风险因素人群提倡个性化肠道准备方案 [11] 。本文将部分肠道准备不充分的危险因素人群(年龄 > 70岁、便秘、BMI > 25 kg/m2、糖尿病)的个性化肠道准备方案进行综述,给临床医生及结肠镜检查患者提供更好的选择。

2. 老年人群(年龄 > 70岁)

2.1. 肠道准备前阶段

近年来,有研究发现老年人群对结肠镜检查的需求逐年增加,在接受结肠镜检查的成年人中,老年人约占50%以上 [12] 。Vincenzo Occhipinti等研究表明老年人的肠道准备不良比率(56.4%)远远高于年轻人(43.6%) [13] 。目前老年人肠道准备差,有很大的提升空间,个性化的肠道准备更能提高肠道准备成功率。

在服用肠道准备药物之外,还需要进行其他准备:低渣饮食,适当运动等。Marcello Maida等开展了一项前瞻性、多中心、观察性研究,共纳入1289名患者,证实低渣饮食 ≥ 3天、准备后5小时内进行结肠镜检查可提高肠道准备成功率 [14] 。此外,Maida等人对在意大利5个内窥镜检查中心接受结肠镜检查的575名老年患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究,发现坚持饮食限制提示高质量的肠道准备 [14] 。因此,在进行肠道准备中,老年人控制饮食、延长天数、在规定时间内进行肠道准备能提高肠道准备成功率。张等人发现聚乙二醇(PEG)摄入期间的步行时间 < 30分钟可能是肠道准备失败的替代指标,这表明步行时间 > 30分钟可增大肠道准备成功的可能性 [15] 。同时有研究表明结肠镜检查前患者教育(饮食注意事项详细通知、健康教育内容清晰易懂、多次强调肠道准备的必要性)可以显着改善肠道清洁和依从性,并减少不良反应的发生率 [16] 。

2.2. 肠道准备药物

最新肠道准备指南提出老年人肠道准备药物方案推荐4LPEG,但由于液体量摄入过大,药物口感差,导致患者不良反应多,依从性差,肠道准备不充分,影响腺瘤检查率。如今,推荐个性化用药提高成功率。目前肠道准备方案多种多样,主要分为以下两类:第一类是提出全新的方案完全替代4LPEG。一项多中心、随机研究 [17] 纳入并分析分析193例患者,在OSS (口服硫酸盐溶液)和4LPEG组中,分别有95.9%和94.8%的患者肠道准备充分,表明在老年患者中,OSS和4-LPEG制剂产生相似的清洁效果。Nam等开展了一项随机、非劣效性试验,纳入199名受试者,在OSS和2LPEG-Asc组中进行分析,结论显示OSS对老年人是一种有效的小剂量下泻药,其效果不劣于2-LPEG-Asc。两种低剂量药物在健康老年人群中均被确定为耐受性良好且安全 [18] 。有研究表明在纳入1174例老年患者中,低剂量硫酸镁方案(MSS)并不逊色于标准PEG方案 [19] 。低剂量MSS具有较少的不良事件和较好的耐受性。是老年患者结肠镜检查时进行肠道准备较好的选择。第二类是基于PEG基础上辅助其他清肠药物。一项研究将参与者随机分为2LPEG + Asc组和4LPEG组(共纳入347人),结果示2PEG + Asc组(92%)和4LPE组(96%, P = 0.118)肠道清洁成功率相当,2LPEG + Asc组(2.9 L)的液体量和水的总摄入量低于4LPEG组(4.2 L, P < 0.001),证实2LPEG + Asc的肠道清洁效果与4LPEG相当;2LPEG + Asc组耐受性优于对照组。对于老年人来说,2LPEG + Asc是一种有效和安全的肠道清洁剂。它减少了液体摄入量,降低不良反应,提高肠道准备成功率 [20] 。有研究将共纳入257例,分为2组,莫沙必利组(柠檬酸莫沙必利联合分剂量PEG加抗坏血酸)和非莫沙必利组(单独分剂量PEG加抗坏血酸)。结果显示两组肠道准备充分率(BBPS ≥ 6)相似(98.4%比98.5%,P = 0.968),而莫沙必利组优良肠道准备率(BBPS = 9)高于非莫沙必利组(73.8%比61.1%,P = 0.029)。莫沙必利组在使用肠道清洁剂期间的不良事件总发生率,特别是腹胀,较低(11.9%比30.5%,P < 0.001)。表明在老年患者中使用柠檬酸莫沙必利联合分剂量PEG加抗坏血酸显示肠道准备功效增加,并减少不良事件,特别是腹胀,在肠道清洁剂的使用过程中。Zhu等研究证明大麻籽油(30 mL)能够提高肠道准备质量,降低PEG摄入量;并发现与5%的糖盐水结合可以减少不良反应的发生 [21] 。根据多项研究可得出个性化肠道准备方案更适合老年人,大大提高了肠道准备成功率 [22] 。

3. 便秘人群

3.1. 肠道准备前阶段

最新研究表明便秘患者人群逐年上升,我国成人慢性便秘的患病率为10.9% [23] 。为排除便秘患者肠道器质性疾病,结肠镜检查成为最直观,最优选择。慢性便秘是是肠道准备不良的预测因子,一项包括67项研究和75,818名患者的荟萃分析发现,便秘使肠道准备不足的风险增加近两倍 [24] ;因此需要更为有效的肠道准备策略 [25] 。一篇meta分析对相关文章进行汇总分析,1891名便秘患者的十一项研究被确定为适合纳入,研究证实提前服用益生菌或膳食纤维可以提高肠道准备的质量 [25] 。

3.2. 肠道准备药物

便秘的全球患病率为15%,是临床上胃肠动力障碍的表现,其患病率将在50岁后稳步上升,这是进行结肠镜检查进行结直肠病变筛查的推荐年龄 [26] 。便秘是肠道准备不足(IBP)和结肠镜检查困难的重要危险因素,这可能导致病变漏诊、患者痛苦和时间成本增加。一项包括67项研究和75,818名患者的荟萃分析发现,便秘使IBP的风险增加近两倍。因此优化肠道准备(BP)方案是确保检查质量的关键措施 [24] 。目前,4LPEG效果欠佳,为了提高肠道准备成功率,提出来新的肠道准备方案。一些研究 [27] 表明,低体积的PEG加佐剂,如抗坏血酸、柠檬酸盐和运动饮料,可提高肠道准备成功率。一项研究 [28] 纳入90例便秘患者,分为研究组(PEG + 乳果糖)和对照组(PEG),结果显示联合应用乳果糖口服液和聚乙二醇电解质粉剂优于传统的单独使用聚乙二醇电解质粉剂的方法。由此,对于便秘患者的结肠镜检查肠道准备,强烈推荐联合应用这两种化合物。另一项研究 [29] 表明PEG-Asc新方案能改善便秘患者结肠镜检查的当日肠道清洁。Meta分析 [30] 显示在接受结肠镜检查的慢性便秘患者中,与PEG相比,NaP(磷酸钠)的使用可能导致更好的结肠清洁度。但证据质量较低,需要进一步的高质量研究来确定便秘患者的最佳肠道准备。虽然有一些肠道准备药物方案与4LPEG相比,无明显优势,但这些方案明显减少了患者液体摄入量,增加了患者耐受,对肠道准备来说意义重大。一项随机、观察者盲法研究 [31] 共纳入400例患者分析,可得出对于慢性便秘患者,2-LPEG-CS (柠檬酸酯–西甲硅酮)联合双十二烷基吡啶并不优于4-LPEG联合方案,但在患者接受性和依从性方面优于标准方案。随着药物的开发与应用,在一项研究中 [32] 纳入78名便秘患者,证实在接受结肠镜检查的慢性便秘患者中,鲁比前列酮和PEG-ELS联合使用对成功的肠道准备没有额外的好处。虽然鲁比前列酮联合PEG-ELS与标准肠道准备相比无明显差异,但明显减少了患者液体摄入量,减轻了不良反应。

4. 糖尿病人群

4.1. 肠道准备前阶段

根据指南,糖尿病患者是肠道准备不充分的高危因素,多项研究表明,糖尿病患者的肠道准备较差,经常需要重复进行结肠镜检查 [33] 。准备不足的风险较高并不取决于年龄、血糖控制或糖尿病神经病变的先前诊断。这种现象的可能机制可能包括继发于糖尿病性神经病变的结肠运动障碍同时,相关研究 [34] 表明2型糖尿病在控制多个混杂变量后对ADR (腺瘤检出率)有影响。早期干预预防2型糖尿病和处方抗糖尿病药物可能会减少结肠腺瘤的发展,并可能有助于CRC的预防。由此,糖尿病患者肠道准备成功率尤为重要。有研究表明 [35] 一种可能有益的干预措施是在结肠镜检查前准备期间仔细详细说明每顿饭和零食,将清流质饮食限制在结肠镜检查前20小时,并允许在下午结肠镜检查当天吃早餐。这已被证明可以将肠道准备不足从20%减少到7%。最新研究纳入394名糖尿病患者,在结肠镜检查准备过程中易发生轻、中度低血糖;并提出了一个预测模型,以确定患者在结肠镜准备过程中低血糖风险程度,避免低血糖的发生 [36] 。该模型的提出可能为糖尿病患者提供更好的肠道准备环境。对于肠道准备时降糖药物的使用,有研究表明在结肠镜检查的肠道准备过程中停用口服抗高血糖药物(AHG)和短效胰岛素是普遍接受的,但对基础胰岛素的适应性建议遵循不同的方法。目前,仍然缺乏医学会或协会为结肠镜检查准备处理糖尿病药物的明确建议 [37] 。需要在专家及大量研究验证提出具体的方案,以填补这一空白。这将大大有助于改善常规程序和诊断的安全性以及相当一部分患者的治疗结果。

4.2. 肠道准备药物

研究 [38] 表明对于糖尿病患者,介入前的饮食建议是至关重要的。对于预期运动障碍的糖尿病患者,推荐采用PEG制剂分次给药。应该提供关于制剂摄入量和饮食建议的广泛咨询。一项随机、盲法研究 [39] 对轻度或中度基线肾功能损害或糖尿病患者进行SPMC (复方匹可硫酸钠)口服溶液肠道准备。结论证实:即饮SPMC口服溶液在基线轻度/中度肾功能损害或糖尿病患者中表现出有效的结肠清洁,大多数患者报告了可耐受的肠道准备。目前,对于糖尿病患者肠道准备来说,肠道准备药物方案较少,可进行一步探究。

5. 肥胖人群

5.1. 肠道准备前阶段

有研究 [40] 表明肥胖患者在结肠镜检查时肠道准备不足的可能性更大,同时,研究 [41] 证实肥胖患者患结肠癌的风险增加,因此可制定更广泛的肠道准备方案,以确保首次尝试时结肠粘膜的充分可视化。近10年,并无关于肥胖人群肠道准备前阶段的研究,这值得进一步深入探索,为肥胖人群提供更优化的肠道准备方案。

5.2. 肠道准备药物

在大多数西方国家,4LPEG溶液是标准的肠道准备方案 [42] 。然而,与西方人相比,亚洲人通常体型较小,体重较低,饮食习惯也不同,中国人对4LPEG的大容量耐受性可能较差 [43] 。因此,在我国不建议常规使用4LPEG溶液进行肠道准备。有研究 [44] 表明对于体重指数(BMI)相对较高的患者,尤其是超重患者(BMI 25~29.9 kg/m2),3 L分割剂量PEG方案优于2LPEG方案。

6. 结语

老年人(≥70岁)、便秘、糖尿病、肥胖(≥24 kg/m2)是肠道准备不充分的高危风险因素,一方面,该人群逐年增大,成为不可忽视的一部分,另一方面,应用当前指南推荐方案,其肠道准备成功率低,因此对于该人群制定个性化肠道准备方案非常有意义。

目前,在肠道准备前阶段,可以通过增加低渣饮食天数、延长肠道准备时间、个性化肠道饮食、提供良好的肠道准备前教育等均可提高肠道准备成功率。

在肠道药物准备方案,可采用PEG联合其他肠道准备药物(硫酸镁、比沙可啶、莫沙必利、乳果糖、抗坏血酸等)降低患者液体摄入量,减少不良反应,提高肠道准备成功率。可为临床医生提供更多更优化的选择。

同时,可发现关于糖尿病人群及肥胖人群肠道准备相关研究较少,便秘患者与肠道准备时间长短相关,但未确定更为准确的天数,这些可进一步研究,更加完善高风险人群肠道准备最优方案,这些研究具有重大临床意义。值得未来进一步探究。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
[2] Xia, C., Dong, X., Li, H., et al. (2022) Cancer Statistics in China and United States, 2022: Profiles, Trends, and Determinants. Chinese Medical Journal (England), 135, 584-590.
https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002108
[3] Pang, X., Xu, B., Lian, J., et al. (2022) Real-World Survival of Colon Cancer after Radical Surgery: A Single-Institu- tional Retrospective Analysis. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, Arti-cle ID: 914076.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.914076
[4] Elmunzer, B.J., Singal, A.G., Sussman, J.B., et al. (2015) Compar-ing the Effectiveness of Competing Tests for Reducing Colorectal Cancer Mortality: A Network Meta-Analysis. Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy, 81, 700-709.e3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.033
[5] 李宾宾, 孙锐, 杨新颖, 张悦, 张志媛. 基于不同肠段的结肠镜检查人群肠道准备失败现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2023, 40(7): 539-544.
[6] Kluge, M.A., Wil-liams, J.L., Wu, C.K., et al. (2018) Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale Scores Predict the Risk of Missed Neo-plasia on the Next Colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 87, 744-751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.012
[7] 陈湘, 赵士宇, 吴相柏. 结直肠癌筛查方法的研究进展[J]. 医学理论与实践, 2023, 36(2): 219-221.
[8] Tiankanon, K. and Aniwan, S. (2023) What Are the Priority Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy in Real-World Clinical Practice? Digestive Endoscopy: Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterologi-cal Endoscopy Society, 36, 30-39.
https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14635
[9] Parekh, P.J., Oldfield, E.C. and Johnson, D.A. (2019) Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: What Is Best and Necessary for Quality? Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, 35, 51-57.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MOG.0000000000000494
[10] Shahini, E., Sinagra, E., Vitello, A., et al. (2023) Factors Affecting the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Hard-to-Prepare Patients: Evidence from the Literature. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 29, 1685-1707.
https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v29.i11.1685
[11] 中华医学会消化内镜学分会结直肠学组, 刘思德, 令狐恩强, 秘文婷, 李爱民, 韩泽龙, 王馨珂, 梁尔博, 钟俊. 结肠镜检查肠道准备专家共识意见(2023, 广州) [J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2023, 40(6): 421-430.
[12] Hu, C.J., Jiang, L.Y., Sun, L.Y., et al. (2021) Impact of a Telephone Interven-tion on Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy in the Elderly. Gastroenterology Nursing: The Official Journal of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, 44, 92-97.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SGA.0000000000000573
[13] Occhipinti, V., Soriani, P., Vavassori, S., et al. (2023) Risk Factors for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in Patients Using High- and Low-Volume Cleansing Products. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 35, 159-166.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000002467
[14] Maida, M., Facciorusso, A., Sinagra, E., et al. (2022) Pre-dictive Factors of Adequate Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy in the Elderly: A Retrospective Analysis of A Prospective Cohort. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 12, Article No. 2867.
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112867
[15] Zhang, Y.Y., Niu, M., Wu, Z.Y., et al. (2018) The Incidence of and Risk Factors for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in Elderly Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Saudi Jour-nal of Gastroenterology: Official Journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association, 24, 87-92.
https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.SJG_426_17
[16] Wang, H., Wang, Y., Yuan, J.H., et al. (2022) Pre-Colonoscopy Special Guidance and Education on Intestinal Cleaning and Examination in Older Adult Patients with Constipation. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 14, 778- 787.
https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v14.i8.778
[17] Kwak, M.S., Cha, J.M., Yang, H.J., et al. (2019) Safety and Efficacy of Low-Volume Preparation in the Elderly: Oral Sulfate Solution on the Day before and Split-Dose Regimens (SEE SAFE) Study. Gut and Liver, 13, 176-182.
https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18214
[18] Nam, S.J., Park, S.C., Lee, S.J., et al. (2022) Randomized Trial of Oral Sul-fate Solution versus Polyethylene Glycol-Ascorbic Acid for Bowel Cleansing in Elderly People. Journal of Gastroenter-ology and Hepatology, 37, 319-326.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15696
[19] Ge, F., Kang, X., Wang, Z., et al. (2023) Low-Dose of Magnesium Sulfate Solution Was Not Inferior to Standard Regime of Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation in Elderly Patients: A Ran-domized, Controlled Study. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 58, 94-100.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2022.2106154
[20] Jung, S.H., Lim, C.H., Gweon, T.G., et al. (2022) Compar-ison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60-79: A Prospective Randomized Study. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 67, 4841-4850.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-07354-y
[21] Zhu, X.W., Yan, J., Miao, L., et al. (2023) Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Polyethylene Glycol, Hemp Seed Oil, and 5% Sugar Brine for Bowel Preparation in Older Patients: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Trials, 24, Article No. 168.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-07059-1
[22] Lee, J., Jeong, S.J., Kim, T.H., et al. (2020) Efficacy of Mosa-pride Citrate with a Split Dose of Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid for Bowel Preparation in Elderly Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicine (Baltimore), 99, e18702.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000018702
[23] 杨直, 吴晨曦, 高静, 柏丁兮, 朱琳, 刘锐芮, 梁芸, 伍侨. 中国成年人慢性便秘患病率的Meta分析[J]. 中国全科医学, 2021, 24(16): 2092-2097.
[24] Gandhi, K., Tofani, C., Sokach, C., et al. (2018) Patient Characteristics Associated with Quality of Colonoscopy Preparation: A Systematic Re-view and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology: The Official Clinical Practice Journal of the Amer-ican Gastroenterological Association, 16, 357-369.E10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.08.016
[25] Ding, L., Duan, J., Yang, T., et al. (2022) Advanced Intestinal Reg-ulation Improves Bowel Preparation Quality in Patients with Constipation: A Systematic Review and Network Me-ta-Analysis. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 13, Article ID: 964915.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.964915
[26] Bharucha, A.E. and Lacy, B.E. (2020) Mechanisms, Evaluation, and Management of Chronic Constipation. Gastroenterology, 158, 1232-1249.e3.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.034
[27] Hassan, C., East, J., Radaelli, F., et al. (2019) Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—Update 2019. Endoscopy, 51, 775-794.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0959-0505
[28] Lu, J., Cao, Q., Wang, X., et al. (2016) Application of Oral Lactulose in Combination with Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder for Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation in Patients with Constipation. American Journal of Therapeutics, 23, e1020-e1024.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000000351
[29] Tsuji, S., Horiuchi, A., Tamali, M., et al. (2018) Effective-ness and Safety of a New Regimen of Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid for Same-Day Bowel Cleansing in Con-stipated Patients. Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica, 81, 485-489.
[30] Dang, J.T., Moolla, M., Dang, T.T., et al. (2021) Sodium Phosphate Is Superior to Polyethylene Glycol in Constipated Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, 35, 900-909.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07464-0
[31] Parente, F., Vailati, C., Bargiggia, S., et al. (2015) 2-Litre Poly-ethylene Glycol-Citrate-Simethicone plus Bisacodyl versus 4-Litre Polyethylene Glycol as Preparation for Colonoscopy in Chronic Constipation. Digestive and Liver Disease: Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver, 47, 857-863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2015.06.008
[32] Tangvoraphonkchai, K., Manasirisuk, W., Sawadpanich, K., et al. (2023) Lubiprostone plus Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Lavage Solution (PEG-ELS) versus PEG-ELS for Bowel Preparation in Chronic Constipation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Scientific Reports, 13, Article No. 16265.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43598-6
[33] Kim, Y.H., Seo, E.H., Lee, J.S., et al. (2017) Inadequate Bowel Cleansing Efficacy of Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Prospective and Blinded Study. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 51, 240-246.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000000536
[34] Ottaviano, L.F., Li, X., Murray, M., et al. (2020) Type 2 Diabetes Impacts Colorectal Adenoma Detection in Screening Colonoscopy. Scientific Reports, 10, Article No. 7793.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64344-2
[35] Alvarez-Gonzalez, M.A., Flores-Le Roux, J.A., Seoane, A., et al. (2016) Efficacy of a Multifactorial Strategy for Bowel Preparation in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial. Endoscopy, .
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-111320
[36] Lu, X., Xie, L., Zhao, W., et al. (2023) Prediction of Hypoglycemia in Diabetic Patients during Colonoscopy Preparation. Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes: Official Jour-nal, German Society of Endocrinology [And] German Diabetes Association, 131, 274-281.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2044-0685
[37] Müssig, K., Adamek, H.E., et al. (2022) Adjustment of An-ti-Hyperglycaemic Agents during Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Patients with Diabetes. Experimental and Clin-ical Endocrinology & Diabetes, 130, 627-632.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1782-9389
[38] Adamek, H.E., Bergmann, L., Müssig, K., et al. (2022) Bowel Prepara-tion in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Development of a Procedure Model. Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie, 60, 784-789.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1791-1627
[39] Mankaney, G.N., Ando, M., Dahdal, D.N. and Burke, C.A. (2021) Safety and Efficacy of Sodium Picosulfate, Magnesium Oxide, and Citric Acid Bowel Preparation in Patients with Baseline Renal Impairment Or Diabetes: Subanalysis of a Randomized, Controlled Trial. Therapeutic Advances in Gas-troenterology, 14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848211024458
[40] Laurie, B.D., Teoh, M.M.K., Noches-Garcia, A., et al. (2022) Colonic Bowel Prep and Body Mass Index: Does One Size Fit All? A Multi-Centre Review. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 37, 2451-2457.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-022-04274-9
[41] Anklesaria, A.B., Ivanina, E.A., Chudy-Onwugaje, K.O., et al. (2019) The Effect of Obesity on the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: Results from a Large Observational Study. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 53, E214-E220.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001045
[42] Gimeno-García, A.Z., Hernandez, G., Aldea, A., et al. (2017) Comparison of Two Intensive Bowel Cleansing Regimens in Patients with Previous Poor Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Study. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 112, 951-958.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2017.53
[43] Zhang, S., Li, M., Zhao, Y., et al. (2015) 3-L Split-Dose Is Superior to 2-L Polyethylene Glycol in Bowel Cleansing in Chinese Population: A Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Trial. Medi-cine (Baltimore), 94, e472.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000472
[44] Yan, H., Huang, H., Yang, D., et al. (2023) 3 L Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Is Superior to 2 L Polyethylene Glycol in Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation in Relatively High-BMI (≥ 24 kg/m2) Individuals: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Gastroenterology, 23, Article No. 427.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-03068-9