Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures

BACKGROUND: Various volumes of bowel preparation are used in clinical practice. There is conflicting data on the effectiveness of individual regimens. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and compliance of currently used bowel preparations with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures using data of the Dutch nationwide colorectal cancer screening (CRC) program. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter endoscopy database, we identified all CRC screening colonoscopies performed in 15 Dutch endoscopy centers from 2016 to 2020. We excluded procedures without documented bowel preparation or the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Bowel preparation regimens were categorized into three groups, that is, 4‐L (polyethylene glycol (PEG)), 2‐L (2‐L PEG with ascorbic acid) and ≤1‐L volumes (sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, 1L‐PEG with sodium sulfate and ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures included adequate BBPS score (≥6) (>90%), cecal intubation rate (CIR, >90%), adenoma detection rate (ADR, >25%) and polyp detection rate (PDR, >40%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors for adequate BBPS and patient discomfort. RESULTS: A total of 39,042 CRC screening colonoscopies were included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, CIR, ADR and PDR for 4L, 2L and ≤1L regimens all met the minimum ESGE performance measures standards. However, an adequate BBPS score was more frequently seen with 2L regimens (98.0%) as compared to 4L (97.1%) and ≤1L regimens (97.0%) (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, CIR was higher for ≤1L (98.4%) versus 4L (97.7%) and 2L (97.9%) regimens (p = 0.001), ADR higher for lower volume (≤1L (60.0%) and 2L (61.2)) versus higher volume (4L (58.6%)) regimens (p < 0.001), and PDR higher for ≤1L (70.0%) and 2L (70.8%) versus 4L (67.2%) regimens (p < 0.001). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for ≤1L regimens was higher when combined with bisacodyl (97.3%) than without (95.6%) (p < 0.001). Overall, bisacodyl use was independently associated with higher patient discomfort (odds ratios = 1.47, confidence intervals = 1.26–1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Despite variations in bowel preparation volumes, all regimens meet the minimum ESGE performance measures for bowel preparation and other quality parameters. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale can be further improved if ultra low volume regimens are combined with bisacodyl. The choice for either bowel preparation volume can therefore be based on volume‐tolerance and patient preference.