Clinical Endoscopy

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (대한소화기내시경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Updated bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy: benefits and drawbacks

  • Seung Min Hong (Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Dong Hoon Baek (Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2025.06.26
  • Accepted : 2025.07.20
  • Published : 2026.05.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Optimal bowel preparation is critical for high-quality colonoscopy and the effective prevention of colorectal cancer. Although traditional high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte lavage solutions are effective and safe, they are frequently limited by poor patient tolerability. To improve adherence, several low- and ultra-low-volume PEG-based regimens, particularly 2 L and 1 L PEG plus ascorbate, have demonstrated noninferior efficacy and better patient compliance. Hyperosmotic alternatives, including oral sulfate solution and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, provide comparable bowel-cleansing efficacy and are often favored for their improved palatability and tolerability. The recent introduction of oral sulfate tablets offers the convenience of a tablet form while maintaining efficacy similar to that of PEG-based regimens and significantly enhancing tolerability. However, a few cases of gastric mucosal irritation have been reported. Adjunctive simethicone also improves mucosal visibility by reducing intraluminal bubbles. With the growing diversity of bowel preparation options, regimen selection should be tailored to individual patient characteristics, including age, comorbidities, prior experiences, and personal preferences. A personalized evidence-based approach, guided by patient-specific factors and supported by emerging clinical data, can improve adherence, ensure adequate bowel cleansing, and enhance the diagnostic yield and procedural efficiency of colonoscopy.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a clinical research grant from the Pusan National University Hospital in 2025.

References

  1. Kang MJ, Jung KW, Bang SH, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2020. Cancer Res Treat 2023;55:385–399. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2023.447
  2. Morgan E, Arnold M, Gini A, et al. Global burden of colorectal cancer in 2020 and 2040: incidence and mortality estimates from GLOBOCAN. Gut 2023;72:338–344. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327736
  3. Atkin WS, Morson BC, Cuzick J. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after excision of rectosigmoid adenomas. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:658–662. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199203053261002
  4. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012;366:687–696. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100370
  5. Park SB, Cha JM. Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality. Clin Endosc 2022;55:332–338. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.037
  6. Jacobson BC, Anderson JC, Burke CA, et al. Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2025;168:798–829. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.002
  7. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline: update 2019. Endoscopy 2019;51:775–794. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0959-0505
  8. Sinagra E, Sferrazza S, Vitello A, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of very-low volume preparation for colonoscopy: a narrative review. Curr Drug Metab 2021;22:85–88.
  9. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014;147:903–924. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.002
  10. Di Palma JA, Bhandari R, Cleveland MV, et al. A safety and efficacy comparison of a new sulfate-based tablet bowel preparation versus a PEG and ascorbate comparator in adult subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116:319–328. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001020
  11. Adamcewicz M, Bearelly D, Porat G, et al. Mechanism of action and toxicities of purgatives used for colonoscopy preparation. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2011;7:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2011.542411
  12. Enestvedt BK, Tofani C, Laine LA, et al. 4-Liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:1225–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2012.08.029
  13. Spada C, Cesaro P, Bazzoli F, et al. Evaluation of Clensia®, a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG. Dig Liver Dis 2017;49:651–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.167
  14. Kump P, Hassan C, Spada C, et al. Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC). Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E907–E913. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0624-2266
  15. Barkun AN, Martel M, Epstein IL, et al. The Bowel CLEANsing national initiative: high-volume split-dose vs low-volume split-dose polyethylene glycol preparations: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:e1469–e1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.09.005
  16. Baudet JS, Castro V, Redondo I. Recurrent ischemic colitis induced by colonoscopy bowel lavage. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:700–701. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.637
  17. van Riswijk ML, van Keulen KE, Siersema PD. Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2022;34:13–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.v34.1
  18. Zhang C, Chen X, Tang B, et al. A novel ultra-low-volume regimen combining 1 L polyethylene glycol and linaclotide versus 2 L polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy cleansing in low-risk individuals: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97:952–961.
  19. Rees DC, Kelsey H, Richards JD. Acute haemolysis induced by high dose ascorbic acid in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. BMJ 1993;306:841–842. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6881.841
  20. Mehta JB, Singhal SB, Mehta BC. Ascorbic-acid-induced haemolysis in G-6-PD deficiency. Lancet 1990;336:944. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(90)92317-B
  21. Rex DK, Di Palma JA, Rodriguez R, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:328–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.03.1054
  22. Ali IA, Roton D, Madhoun M. Oral sulfate solution versus low-vol ume polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig Endosc 2022;34:721–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.v34.4
  23. Chen C, Shi M, Liao Z, et al. Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig Endosc 2022;34:1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.v34.6
  24. Kim J, Kim HG, Kim KO, et al. Clinical comparison of low-volume agents (oral sulfate solution and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate) for bowel preparation: the EASE study. Intest Res 2019; 17:413–418. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00156
  25. Moulin B, Ponchon T. A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E1206–E1213. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0581-8723
  26. Jung Y, Kim HG, Yang DH, et al. Efficacy of oral sulfate tablet and 2 l-polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation: a prospective randomized KASID multicenter trial. J Korean Med Sci 2024;39:e301. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e301
  27. Park JH, Hong SW, Hwang SW, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral sodium sulfate tablet compared with 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate: a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;38:2090–2096. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.v38.12
  28. Song JH, Bae JH, Yim JY. Efficacy of oral sulfate tablets for bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023;38:410–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.v38.3
  29. Kang HS, Na SY, Yoon JY, et al. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulfate tablet versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol/ascorbate for bowel preparation in older patients: prospective, multicenter, investigator single-blinded, randomized study. J Gastroenterol 2024;59:402–410.
  30. Kim KO, Kim EY, Lee YJ, et al. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral sulphate tablet for bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a multicentre randomized controlled study. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:1706–1713. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac080
  31. Park SS, Park SC, Lee DE, et al. The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tablet versus sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation in colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Treat Res 2022;103:96–103. https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2022.103.2.96
  32. Villa E, Bansal M, Zakko W. S578 Oral sulfate tablet bowel preparation is associated with erosive gastritis. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116:S263. https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0000774788.09911.e3
  33. Jeon SR, Park SK, Yang DH, et al. Comparison of a novel minioral sulfate tablet and the conventional oral sulfate tablet in bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, non-inferior, phase 3 trial. J Gastroenterol 2023;58:1114–1123.
  34. Jin Z, Lu Y, Zhou Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2016;72:523–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2013-5
  35. van Lieshout I, Munsterman ID, Eskes AM, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5:917–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640616684696
  36. Jeon SR, Kim HG, Lee JS, et al. Randomized controlled trial of low-volume bowel preparation agents for colonic bowel preparation: 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015;30:251–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-2066-9
  37. Choi HS, Chung JW, Lee JW, et al. Polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid is as effective as sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate for bowel preparation: a randomized trial. J Dig Dis 2016;17:268–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdd.2016.17.issue-4
  38. Seo SI, Kang JG, Kim HS, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2018;33:541–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-2989-7
  39. Bertiger G, Jones E, Dahdal DN, et al. Serum magnesium concentrations in patients receiving sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate bowel preparation: an assessment of renal function and electrocardiographic conduction. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2015; 8:215–224. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEG
  40. Weir MA, Fleet JL, Vinden C, et al. Hyponatremia and sodium picosulfate bowel preparations in older adults. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:686–694. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.20
  41. Ze EY, Choi CH, Kim JW. Acute gastric injury caused by undissolved sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate powder. Clin Endosc 2017;50:87–90. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2016.081
  42. Hoy SM, Scott LJ, Wagstaff AJ. Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser. Drugs 2009;69:123–136. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200969010-00009
  43. Moolla M, Dang JT, Shaw A, et al. Simethicone decreases bloating and improves bowel preparation effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;33:3899–3909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07066-5
  44. Wu ZW, Zhan SG, Yang MF, et al. Optimal timing of simethicone supplement for bowel preparation: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;2021:4032285. https://doi.org/10.1155/cjgh.v2021.1
  45. Theunissen F, Lantinga MA, Ter Borg PCJ, et al. Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures. United European Gastroenterol J 2023;11:448–457.
  46. Banerjee R, Chaudhari H, Shah N, et al. Addition of Lubiprostone to polyethylene glycol(PEG) enhances the quality & efficacy of colonoscopy preparation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol 2016;16:133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-016-0542-0
  47. Lee J, Jeong SJ, Kim TH, et al. Efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e18702. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000018702
  48. Fang J, Wang SL, Fu HY, et al. Impact of gum chewing on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.05.051
  49. Kamran U, Abbasi A, Tahir I, et al. Can adjuncts to bowel preparation for colonoscopy improve patient experience and result in superior bowel cleanliness?: a systematic review and meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterol J 2020;8:1217-1227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640620953224