Lim, Elisabeth S.

Spontaneous portosystemic shunts (SPSSs) have been associated with worse clinical outcomes in the pre–liver transplantation (LT) setting, but little is known about their post‐LT impacts. Our aim was to compare LT candidates with and without SPSSs and assess the impact of SPSSs on patient mortality and graft survival in the post‐LT setting. Patients 18 years or older with abdominal imaging done prior to LT were included. Exclusion criteria were the presence of pre‐LT surgical shunts, LT indications other than cirrhosis, and combined solid organ transplantations. SPSSs were classified as absent, small, or large according to their maximum diameter (8 mm). Multiple variables that could influence the post‐LT course were extracted for analysis. Patient and graft survival were estimated using the Kaplan‐Meier method and were compared between groups using a log‐rank test. The project received institutional review board approval. We extracted data from 326 patients. After comparing patients without SPSS or with small or large SPSSs, no statistical difference was found for overall patient survival: no SPSS (n = 8/63), reference; small SPSS (n = 18/150), hazard ratio (HR), 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45‐2.46); and large SPSS (n = 6/113), HR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.20‐1.78); P = 0.20. Also, no difference was found for graft survival: no SPSS (n = 11/63), reference; small SPSS (n = 21/150), HR, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.38‐1.70); large SPSS (n = 11/113), HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.25‐1.40); P = 0.48. Similarly, no statistical significance was found for these variables when comparing if the graft used was procured from a donation after circulatory death donor versus a donation after brain death donor. In conclusion, the previously described association between SPSSs and worse clinical outcomes in pre‐LT patients seems not to persist once patients undergo LT. This study suggests that no steps to correct SPSS intraoperatively are necessary.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal colon cleansing regimen protocol for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume solution. Data collection included colon preparation quality based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and a questionnaire given to all subjects, in which we evaluated the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume prep averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (6.6, SD 2.19) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.64. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: Although not statistically significant, a low-volume colon preparation showed a trend of equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison to traditional volume regimens, with less unpleasant taste, which may contribute to better patient compliance and therefore better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

INTRODUCTION: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy since these patients are usually older, less mobile, have more medical comorbidities, and often require emergent evaluation. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was IRB approved and conducted as a pilot study at a Tertiary Referral Medical Center between September 2013 and March 2019. Hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high-volume solution (GoLYTELY®, medium-volume solution (MoviPrep®) or a low-volume Prepopik® solution. Adverse effects including unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting were scored through a questionnaire using a five-point scale ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (severe symptoms). Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS) was used to evaluate colon cleanliness. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values ± standard deviation (SD), and P -values were calculated using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Mean age was 66.6 years (16.34) and 68% were male (Table 1). Indications for colonoscopy varied and are shown in Table 1. Total BBPS scores were higher in patients who received Prepopik®, 7.4 (1.62), than GoLYTELY® 6.6 (2.19) or MoviPrep® 6.9 (1.55), P = 0.66 (Figure 1). There was no difference in BBPS in right, transverse, or left colon scores. Regarding tolerance to preparation, 100% of the Prepopik® group reported completing the bowel preparation compared to 77.8% of the GoLYTELY® group and 66.4% of the MoviPrep® group ( P = 0.24). The Prepopik® group reported fewer side effects than GoLYTELY®/MoviPrep® groups (Table 2). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, a low-volume colon preparation demonstrated at least equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison with traditional higher volume regimens, with less adverse effects, and better compliance for cleansing completion. This study suggests small volume purgative may lead to better patient compliance and therefore, better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. The lack of statistical significance is likely due to a type II error. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.