Elective colonscopy, split prep, and NPO guidelines

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

cchoukal

Senior Member
Volunteer Staff
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
1,869
Our gastroenterologists have started promoting the "split prep" for their elective scopes. The patient does the routine 2L prep the night before the procedure, then on the day of procedure, takes an additional amount of prep (I believe it might be an additional 2L). The GIs say the patients all finish the day-of dose at home, and the NPO interval ends up being around 4 hours, but since "the ASA says clears 2 hours before surgery is okay," there isn't a set minimum interval.

Supposedly, this split regimen is associated with a better prep and enhanced screening success, and there aren't piles of dead bodies lying around from aspiration pneumonia

Now they're coming to us saying that because some patients aren't able/willing/etc. to finish the split regimen, they will administer then 2nd dose (again, I believe it's 2L) on the day of procedure in the clinic and do the scope 2 hours later.

Is anyone else doing cases this way?

While the ASA does say clears should be held at least 2 hours prior to surgery, is this the same as, "it's safe to give someone 2L of clears (is PEG a clear?) 2 hours before a procedure"?
 
Our gastroenterologists have started promoting the "split prep" for their elective scopes. The patient does the routine 2L prep the night before the procedure, then on the day of procedure, takes an additional amount of prep (I believe it might be an additional 2L). The GIs say the patients all finish the day-of dose at home, and the NPO interval ends up being around 4 hours, but since "the ASA says clears 2 hours before surgery is okay," there isn't a set minimum interval.

Supposedly, this split regimen is associated with a better prep and enhanced screening success, and there aren't piles of dead bodies lying around from aspiration pneumonia

Now they're coming to us saying that because some patients aren't able/willing/etc. to finish the split regimen, they will administer then 2nd dose (again, I believe it's 2L) on the day of procedure in the clinic and do the scope 2 hours later.

Is anyone else doing cases this way?

While the ASA does say clears should be held at least 2 hours prior to surgery, is this the same as, "it's safe to give someone 2L of clears (is PEG a clear?) 2 hours before a procedure"?

I feel your pain cc. We chatted about this a bit on a previous thread. My partner sent a woman to "the big house" for an overnighter or two after she aspirated some of that clear stuff on an elective double prep scope. I'd love to see some literature on this.
 
I'm not sure I'd call 2L of PEG a clear and go at 2 hours. They should do a study with stomach volumes with the new protocol at 2 hours.
You don't want to aspirate it.
< Previous Article | Next Article >

Author Information

Polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) is a purgative solution most commonly used for bowel preparation in both adults and children. Nasogastric infusion of PEG is considered a safe and effective means of administration when patients cannot or will not take the solution orally. Nausea, vomiting, and bloating are commonly reported adverse reactions. We present an 8-year-old girl with life-threatening respiratory failure after aspiration of PEG, which was treated successfully by bronchoalveolar lavage.

The patient was an 8-year-old girl with chronic abdominal pain. Two months before her current admission, she was diagnosed with fecal impaction and had a successful disimpaction with PEG solution. Because her abdominal pain had continued, the patient was admitted to a regional hospital for intestinal lavage and colonoscopy. A nasogastric tube was placed with difficulty and PEG solution was infused via the nasogastric tube. No radiographic verification of the position of the nasogastric tube was obtained. The patient subsequently vomited several times. Two hours after starting the infusion, the patient experienced difficulty breathing, chest pain, and tachypnea, which became worse during the following few hours. Oxygen saturation was 70% on room air. Respiratory rate was 50 to 70 breaths per minute. The patient was placed on supplemented oxygen therapy, up to 100% oxygen via a non-rebreathing mask. Arterial blood gas obtained while the patient was on 100% oxygen supplement showed pH 7.38, pCO 2 38 mm Hg, paO 2 93 mmHg, BE-2 and HCO3-22. Chest roentgenogram revealed bilateral apical and basilar diffuse pulmonary infiltrates and demonstrated that the nasogastric tube was kinked, with its tip in the mid esophagus (Fig. 1). Furosemide and ampicillin plus sulbactam were started.

Fig. 1 Image Tools

The patient was transferred to our institution, approximately 12 hours after the incident began. On arrival in our pediatric intensive care unit, the patient was tachypneic with a respiratory rate of 36 and moderate intercostal retractions. Oxygen saturation was 80% in room air. Because of the significantly increased work of breathing and impending respiratory failure, the facial mask was changed to bi-level positive airway pressure ventilation. A repeated chest roentgenogram demonstrated continued bilateral pulmonary infiltrates (Fig. 2). Methylprednisolone and clindamycin were administered intravenously.

Fig. 2 Image Tools

Because of the nonabsorbable nature of PEG, the patient's deteriorating condition and inability to oxygenate appropriately on bi-level positive airway pressure, we decided, 15 hours after the incident, to perform bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). The patient's trachea was intubated, and a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope BF-3C40 with a built-in suction channel of 1.2 mm was used. During bronchoscopy, diffuse inflammation and mucosal edema of the airways were seen. Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed, segment by segment, using a total amount of 750 mm normal saline. Copious amounts of bilayer pink and white thick fluid were removed. After BAL, the patient was mechanically ventilated for 16 hours, and her condition rapidly improved. The patient was extubated the following morning, 16 hours after the BAL, and oxygen supplementation was discontinued 20 hours later. A chest roentgenogram obtained 2 days after bronchoscopy showed an almost complete resolution of pulmonary infiltrates (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Image Tools

Four weeks later, results of repeat chest radiographs and pulmonary function tests were normal, and no sequelae from this incident were noted.

To our knowledge, this is first reported pediatric case of respiratory failure caused by PEG aspiration that was successfully treated with BAL. A compound solution of PEG, sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, potassium chloride, and sodium sulfate is a purgative laxative widely used for bowel cleaning and surgery preparation. It also has been recommended for preparation before colonoscopy, for treatment of constipation, and for gastrointestinal decontamination ( 1-6 ). Nasogastric infusion of PEG is considered to be a safe, effective alternative method of administration in cases where the patients cannot or will not tolerate oral ingestion ( 4,5 ). The safety and efficacy of PEG in adults as well as in children and infants is well established ( 7,8 ). The osmotic activity of this compound solution produces almost no net intestinal absorption or excretion. Therefore, large volumes may be used to induce diarrhea without significant change in fluid and electrolyte balance.

Engum et al. ( 9 ) found home administration of PEG for preparation of elective colonic procedures to be a safe, effective, and cost-efficient method, leading to a high degree of family satisfaction. Common adverse symptoms from PEG include nausea, abdominal fullness, and bloating. Although less common, allergic reactions ( 10 ), angioedema ( 11 ), colonic perforation ( 12 ), esophageal perforation ( 13 ), Mallory-Weiss tear ( 12 ), ventricular arrhythmia ( 14 ), and pancreatitis ( 15 ) have also been reported. Three cases of life-threatening aspiration after PEG lavage have been reported in children ( 16-18 ). All of these three cases involved young children in whom respiratory failure developed and who required intubation and prolonged mechanically assisted ventilation. Two of the cases involved an isotonic lavage solution ( 16,17 ). In the first case, respiratory failure was further complicated by significant hemodynamic instability, requiring volume expansion and continuous infusion of dopamine. The patient required mechanical ventilation for 3 days. In the second case, the authors could not rule out systemic fluid overload as a possible cause of the respiratory symptoms ( 17 ). Wong and Briars ( 18 ) recently reported a third case of PEG aspiration in a child. In this case, nasogastric tube placement was confirmed by auscultation and litmus testing. It was speculated that vomiting resulted in migration of the nasogastric tube into the esophagus. The patient experienced respiratory failure, requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation for 36 hours. The long-term pulmonary sequelae after prolonged ventilatory support and exposure to nonabsorbable toxic materials left in the lungs are yet unknown.

In adults, toxic pulmonary edema ( 19 ), adult respiratory distress syndrome, and even death have been reported after PEG aspiration. Bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage, concomitant with administration of systemic corticosteroid and positive pressure ventilation were performed successfully in one adult patient who recovered within 3 days after experiencing pulmonary edema induced by aspiration of PEG. Our patient improved dramatically after BAL and steroid administration. The patient was successfully extubated the following morning (16 hours after BAL), and oxygen supplementation was successfully discontinued 20 hours thereafter. Four weeks after discharge, results of repeated chest radiographs and pulmonary function tests were normal, and no sequelae from this incident were noted. We recommend that early bronchoscopy and BAL should be considered in pediatric patients who aspirate a significant amount of polyethylene glycol and in whom respiratory failure or rapid clinical deterioration develop. Using this approach may prevent pulmonary edema and parenchymal lung damage and lead to shortening of both the need for ventilatory support and overall hospitalization time. We also suggest that preventive measures such as careful verification position of nasogastric tube by obtaining a chest roentgenogram or by checking the pH of gastric aspirates be obtained before infusing potentially toxic materials. In the event of recurrent vomiting, tube position should be rechecked. Given the routine use of PEG solution, its presumed safety, and the paucity of case reports of severe complications, our case likely represents a rare, yet important, complication, in which the use of bronchoscopy and early BAL may prove to be beneficial.

Netherlands Journal of Medicine Fatal aspiration of polyethylene glycol solution de Graaf, P; Slagt, C; de Graaf, JLCA; Loffeld, RJLF Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 64(6): 196-198.

Respirology Aspiration pneumonia due to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (Golytely) treated by bronchoalveolar lavage Hur, GY; Lee, SY; Shim, JJ; In, KH; Kang, KH; Yoo, SH Respirology, 13(1): 152-154. 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2007.01209.x CrossRef

Home > August 2003 - Volume 37- Issue 2 > Therapy for Pulmonary Aspiration of a Polyethylene Glycol So...

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition: August 2003 - Volume 37 - Issue 2 - pp 192-194 Case Reports

Therapy for Pulmonary Aspiration of a Polyethylene Glycol Solution

Liangthanasarn, Passara; Nemet, Dan; Sufi, Raminder; Nussbaum, Eliezer

Article Outline

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA Received April 17, 2003; accepted April 30, 2003. Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dr. Passara Liangthanasarn, Pediatric Pulmonary Division, 3rd Floor, Miller Children's Hospital, 2801 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90801 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Backto Top | ArticleOutline

CASE REPORT

Backto Top | ArticleOutline

DISCUSSION

Backto Top | ArticleOutline

REFERENCES

1. Polyethylene glycol; potassium chloride; sodium bicarbonate; sodium chloride; sodium sulfate [Mosby's Drug Consult]. 2002. Available at: http://home.mdconsult.com/das/drug/view/29247346/1/2065/top Accessed October 2002. Cited Here...

2. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Preparation of patients for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48:691-4. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

3. Balanced electrolyte solutions with PEG. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:525. Available at: http://home.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/29248093/N/10461619? ja=132904&PAGE=1.html&sid=187697391&source=/. Cited Here...

4. Abbruzzi G. Pediatric toxicologic concerns. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2002; 20:223-47. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

5. Ellenhorn MJ. Whole-bowel irrigation. Ellenhorn's Medical Toxicology. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1997;74-5. Cited Here...

6. Locke 3rd. GR AGA technical review on constipation. American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology 2000; 119:1766-78. Cited Here...

7. Donahue MC, Evangelista JK, Shamberger RC. Effect of GoLytely on serum electrolytes and hydration status of infants. J Pediatr Surg 1994; 29:1095-6. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

8. Tuggle DW, Hoelzer DJ, Tunell WP et al. The safety and cost-effectiveness of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution bowel preparation in infants and children. J Pediatr Surg 1987; 22:513-5. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

9. Engum SA, Carter ME, Murphy D. Home bowel preparation for elective colonic procedures in children: cost saving with quality assurance and improvement. J Pediatr Surg 2000; 35:232-4. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

10. Schuman E, Balsam PE. Probable anaphylactic reaction to polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 16:614-5. Cited Here...

11. Stollman N, Manten HD. Angioedema from oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44:209-10. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

12. Rumack BH, Toll LL, Gelman CR, eds. PEG electrolyte lavage solutions: drug evaluation monograph. Englewood, CO:Micromedex Inc.; 1999:1-21. Cited Here...

13. Eisen GM, Jowell PS. Esophageal perforation after ingestion of colon lavage solution. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90:2074. Cited Here... | PubMed

14. Marsh WM, Bronner MH, Yantis PL. Ventricular ectopy associated with peroral colonic lavage. Gastrointest Endosc 1986; 32:259-63. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

15. Franga DL, Harris JA. Polyethylene glycol-induced pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52:789-91. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef

16. Narsinghani U, Chadha M, Farrar HC, et al. Life-threatening respiratory failure following accidental infusion of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution into the lung. Clin Toxicol 2001; 39:105-7. Cited Here...

17. Paap CM, Ehrlich R. Acute pulmonary edema after polyethylene glycol intestinal lavage in a child. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27:1044-7. Cited Here... | PubMed

18. Wong A, Briars G. Acute pulmonary oedema complicating polyethylene glycol intestinal lavage. Arch Dis Child 2000; 87:537-8. Cited Here... | View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef

19. Marschall HU, Bartels F. Life-threatening complications of nasogastric administration of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solutions (GoLytely) for bowel cleansing. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 47:408-10. Cited Here... | PubMed | CrossRef
 
Yeah, the case reports (which are rare, FWIW) make it sound pretty gnarly.

As for gastric volumes, the GI chief sent us this article, suggesting the volumes were no different than in patients who completed their preps the night before.

Split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy and residual gastric fluid
volume: an observational study
Melanie Huffman, BS, R. Zackary Unger, BS, Chandana Thatikonda, MD, Sable Amstutz, Douglas K. Rex, MD
 
While the ASA does say clears should be held at least 2 hours prior to surgery, is this the same as, "it's safe to give someone 2L of clears (is PEG a clear?) 2 hours before a procedure"?

I think the key word is "clear," and my interpretation of that word's use in the ASA guidelines is to mean "[small volumes of] clear [food products]."

The guidelines also say "These liquids should not include alcohol. The volume of liquid ingested is less important than the type of liquid ingested."

Polyethylene glycol is an alcohol 😀
 
And I think it's safe to say that the guidelines' authors did not think the words "clear liquids" would be stretched to support ingestion of TWO LITERS OF PEG
 
I believe NPO studies were done on 22 year old male medical students otherwise healthy in the 1960s who were 5 foot 10 and weighed 150 pounds.

If GI docs can produce similar patients as original NPO 2 hour guidelines for split prep than it would be easy to justify.

Honestly I read these split prep GI studies that claim 2 hours NPO were just as safe as prepping the night before and being NPO for at least 6 hours. Than I read closer. Know what the average weight these patients were in their studies? Drums roll....

186 pounds was the average weight of both female and males in these split studies.

That means the women were probably 140-150 pounds and the men around 200-220 pounds.

So these GI split prep studies are not indicative of the real weights many of us face in p practice.
 
Top