Ischemic Colitis after Colonoscopy with Bisacodyl Bowel Preparation: A Report of Two Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and management of colorectal disease and requires adequate bowel preparation. Ischemic colitis is a form of intestinal ischemia that presents with abdominal pain, diarrhea, and hematochezia. Risk factors include advanced age, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Both colonoscopy and bisacodyl bowel preparation have been described as rare causes of ischemic colitis with less than 35 cases collectively in the literature. Our review found that of these cases, there exists significant heterogeneity within individual patient characteristics. The majority of the cases are managed conservatively without complications or sequela. Due to the risk of ischemic colitis, the FDA has withdrawn bisacodyl bowel preparations from use in the USA. Bisacodyl bowel preparations are still used in Canada. CASES: Here, we present two cases of ischemic colitis in previously healthy women aged 57 and 69 who underwent screening colonoscopy using bisacodyl bowel preparation. Both were treated conservatively without complications. CONCLUSION: Thus far, there has been one documented case of ischemic colitis following colonoscopy with bisacodyl bowel preparation; here, we present two additional cases with one case occurring without the presence of known risk factors for ischemic colitis. Our literature review finds that there is limited evidence surrounding bisacodyl as a causative agent of ischemic colitis. Cases often contain confounding variables such as the presence of known risk factors for ischemic colitis. Our report aims to highlight the need for a more comprehensive analysis evaluating the safety of bowel preparations as well as increasing the clinical awareness surrounding the rare risk of colonoscopy-induced ischemic colitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".