Efficacy of mosapride citrate with polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy preparation

AIM:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive mosapride citrate for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS:We conducted a randomized,double-blind, placebo-controlled study with mosapride in addition to polyethylene glycol(PEG)-electrolyte solution.Of 250 patients undergoing colonoscopy,124 were randomized to receive 2 L PEG plus 15 mg of mosapride citrate (mosapride group),and 126 received 2 L PEG plus placebo(placebo group).Patients completed a questionnaire reporting the acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparation process.The efficacy of bowel preparation was assessed by colonoscopists using a 5-point scale based on Aronchick's criteria.The primary end point was optimal bowel preparation rates(scores of excellent/good/fair vs poor/inadequate). RESULTS:A total of 249 patients were included in the analysis.In the mosapride group,optimal bowel preparation rates were significantly higher in the left colon compared with the placebo group(78.2%vs 65.6%,P<0.05),but not in the right colon(76.5%vs 66.4%,P=0.08).After excluding patients with severe constipation,there was a significant difference in bowel preparation in both the left and right colon(82.4%vs 66.7%,80.8%vs 67.5%,P<0.05,P<0.01).The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. Among the subgroup who had previous colonoscopy experience,a significantly higher number of patients in the mosapride group felt that the current preparation was easier compared with patients in the placebo group(34/72 patients vs 24/74 patients,P<0.05). CONCLUSION:Mosapride citrate may be an effective and safe adjunct to PEG-electrolyte solution that leads to improved quality of bowel preparation,especially in patients without severe constipation.

Can mosapride citrate reduce the volume of lavage solution for colonoscopy preparation?

AIM:To evaluate the possibility of reducing the volume of polyethylene glycol(PEG)-electrolyte solution using adjunctive mosapride citrate for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS:This was a single-center,prospective, randomized,investigator-blinded,non-inferiority study involving 252 patients of both sexes,aged from 20 to 80 years,scheduled for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy in our department.A total of 126 patients was randomized to receive 1.5 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride(1.5 L group),and 126 received 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride(2 L group).Patients completed a questionnaire on the acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparation process.The efficacy of bowel preparation was assessed using a 5-point scale based on the Aronchick scale.The primary end point was adequate bowel preparation rates(score of excellent/good/fair) vs(poor/inadequate).Acceptability and tolerability,as well as disease detection,were secondary end points. RESULTS:A total of 244 patients was included in the analysis.There were no significant differences between the 2 L and 1.5 L groups in age,sex,body mass index, number of previous colonoscopies,and the preparation method used previously.The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5%in the 2 L group and 82.8%in the 1.5 L group[95%lower confidence limit(LCL)for the difference=-14.5%,non-inferiority P=0.019]in the right colon.In the left colon,the adequate bowel preparation rates were 89.3%in the 2 L group and 81.1%in the 1.5 L group(95%LCL=-17.0%,non-inferiority P=0.066).Compliance,defined as complete (100%)intake of the PEG solution,was significantly higher in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group(96.8% vs 85.7%,P=0.002).The proportion of abdominal distension(none/mild/moderate/severe)was significantly lower in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group (36/65/22/3 vs 58/48/18/2,P=0.040).Within the subgroup who had undergone colonoscopy previously, a significantly higher number of patients in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group felt that the current preparation was easier than the previous one(54.1%vs 28.0%,P=0.001).The disease detection rate was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION:Although the 1.5 L group had better acceptability and tolerability,15 mg of mosapride may be insufficient to compensate for a 0.5-L reduction of PEG solution.

Risk of ileal pouch neoplasms in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

Restorative proctocolectomy is the most common surgical option for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis(FAP). However,adenomas may develop in the ileal pouch mucosa over time,and even carcinoma in the pouch has been reported. We therefore reviewed the prevalence,nature,and treatment of adenomas and carcinoma that develop after proctocolectomy in the ileal pouch mucosa in patients with FAP. In 25 reports that were reviewed,the incidence of adenomas in the ileal pouch varied from 6.7% to 73.9%. Several potential factors that favor the development of pouch polyposis have been investigated,but many remain controversial. Nevertheless,it seems certain that the age of the pouch is important. The risk appears to be 7%to 16% after 5 years,35% to 42% after 10 years,and75% after 15 years. On the other hand,only 21 cases of ileal pouch carcinoma have been recorded in the literature to date. The diagnosis of pouch carcinoma was made between 3 to 20 years(median,10 years) after pouch construction. Although the risk of malignant transformation in ileal pouches is probably low,it is not negligible,and the long-term risk cannot presently be well quantified. Regular endoscopic surveillance,especially using chromoendoscopy,is recommended.

endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage:Who,when,which,and how?

Both endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy( EUS- CDS) and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy(EUS-HGS) are relatively well established as alternatives to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage(PTBD). Both EUSCDS and EUS-HGS have high technical and clinical success rates(more than 90%) in high-volume centers. Complications for both procedures remain high at 10%-30%. Procedures performed by endoscopists who have done fewer than 20 cases sometimes result in severe or fatal complications. When learning EUSguided biliary drainage(EUS-BD), we recommend a mentor's supervision during at least the first 20 cases. For inoperable malignant lower biliary obstruction, a skillful endoscopist should perform EUS-BD before EUS-guided rendezvous technique(EUS-RV) and PTBD. We should be select EUS-BD for patients having altered anatomy from malignant tumors before balloon-enteroscope-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS-RV, and PTBD. If both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS are available, we should select EUS-CDS, according to published data. EUSBD will potentially become a first-line biliary drainage procedure in the near future.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic cancer

Endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS)represents the combination of endoscopy and intraluminal ultrasonography.This allows use of a high-frequency transducer(5-20 MHz)that,due to the short distance to the target lesion,provides ultrasonographic images of higher resolution than those obtained from other imaging modalities,including multiple-detector-row-computed tomography,magnetic resonance imaging,and positron emission tomography.EUS is now a widely accepted modality for diagnosing pancreatic diseases.However,the most important limitation of EUS has been the lack of specificity in differentiating between benign and malignant changes.In 1992,EUS-guided fine needle aspiration(FNA)of lesions in the pancreas head was introduced into clinical practice,using a curved linear-array echoendoscope.Since then,EUS has evolved from EUS imaging to EUSFNA and wider applications.Interventional EUS for pancreatic cancer includes EUS-FNA,EUS-guided fine needle injection,EUS-guided biliary drainage and anastomosis,EUS-guided celiac neurolysis,radiofrequency ablation,brachytherapy,and delivery of a growing number of anti-tumor agents.This review focuses on interventional EUS,including EUS-FNA and therapeutic EUS for pancreatic cancer.