Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Ahead-of print articles > Article
Review Alteration in gut microbiota after colonoscopy: proposed mechanisms and the role of probiotic interventions
Hyeong Ho Jo1,*orcid, Moon Young Lee2,3,*orcid, Se Eun Ha4orcid, Dong Han Yeom5orcid, Yong Sung Kim2,6,orcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.147
Published online: September 2, 2024

1Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

2Digestive Disease Research Institute, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Iksan, Korea

3Department of Physiology, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea

4Department of Physiology and Cell Biology, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno, NV, USA

5Department of Gastroenterology, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea

6Good Breath Clinic, Gunpo, Korea

Correspondence: Yong Sung Kim Digestive Disease Research Institute, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, 460 Iksan-daero, Iksan 54538, Korea E-mail: wms89@hanmail.net
*Hyeong Ho Jo and Moon Young Lee contributed equally to this work.
• Received: June 6, 2024   • Revised: July 10, 2024   • Accepted: July 13, 2024

© 2024 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 688 Views
  • 209 Download
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Colonoscopy, a widely used procedure for diagnosing and treating colonic diseases, induces transient gastrointestinal symptoms and alterations in the gut microbiota. This review comprehensively examines the evidence on alterations in the gut microbiota following colonoscopy and their possible mechanisms. Factors such as rapid colonic evacuation, increased osmolality, and mucus thinning caused by bowel preparation and exposure to oxygen during the procedure contribute to these alterations. Typically, the alterations revert to the baseline within a short time. However, their long-term implications remain unclear, necessitating further investigation. Split-dose bowel preparation and CO2 insufflation during the procedure result in fewer alterations in the gut microbiota. Probiotic administration immediately after colonoscopy shows promise in reducing alterations and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the widespread use of probiotics remains controversial due to the transient nature of the symptoms and microbiobial alterations in the microbiota. Probiotics may offer greater benefits to individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, probiotic administration may be a viable option for selected patients.
  • Keywords: Colonoscopy; Dysbiosis; Microbiota; Probiotics
In recent decades, there has been a surge in research on the influence of the gut microbiota on the host’s health.1 The gut microbiota is a diverse array of microbial communities of bacteria, protozoa, fungi, viruses, and archaea, forming a dynamic ecosystem within the human body with their metabolic activities.2 The number of gut microbiota cells nearly matches that of human cells. Even more impressively, their genetic repertoire is more than 100 times greater than that of the human body. This enables them to perform functions beyond the human body's capacity and participate in many physiologic processes crucial for maintaining the host’s health.1 Imbalance in the composition of the gut microbiota, known as dysbiosis, has been implicated in various conditions, including metabolic, gastrointestinal, neoplastic, and neuropsychiatric disorders.1,3 Although there is no consensus on a clear definition of dysbiosis, maintaining gastrointestinal microbial balance is essential for preventing or managing these disorders. Dysbiosis may manifest even without overt pathology and can become associated with disease when it persists beyond a certain threshold over an extended period.
Colonoscopy is commonly used to screen and monitor various colonic diseases. However, gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported after colonoscopy. One study found that 40% to 45% of individuals experienced a range of symptoms, including abdominal bloating, abdominal pain, and dyspepsia, within 7 to 30 days after colonoscopy.4,5 Gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in women and patients with longer procedure times and inflammatory bowel disease.4,5 Underlying dysbiosis may also contribute to the development of post-colonoscopy symptoms. In a large cohort study of individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, those exposed to antibiotics around the time of the procedure showed slightly higher rates of surrogate symptoms than matched controls who did not use antibiotics.6
Colonoscopy is a typical cause of inducing transient, non-pathological alterations of the gut microbiota. However, it is unclear whether these alterations are related to post-colonoscopy symptoms or to the aggravation of a preexisting disease.7 This review examines the evidence on gut microbiota alterations after colonoscopy and the underlying mechanisms. Moreover, it summarizes the current knowledge of the role of probiotic administration in managing gastrointestinal symptoms and the alterations in the gut microbiota after colonoscopy.
We conducted a thorough literature search in the PubMed database in this review. For studies investigating alterations in gut microbiota after colonoscopy, we used the following search terms: (colonoscopy AND (microbiota OR microbiome) AND (dysbiosis OR effect OR alter OR change)). To identify studies examining the effects of probiotic use before and after colonoscopy, we used the search terms: (colonoscopy AND (probiotics OR probiotic)). We did not restrict publication year, language, or study design. Studies were screened for relevance based on titles and abstracts, and duplicates were removed. Additionally, we reviewed the reference lists of the selected articles to identify further relevant studies.
The bowel preparation performed before a colonoscopy to achieve the complete evacuation of the colonic content leads to a temporary yet significant alteration in the gut microbiota compositions. Bowel preparation agents are broadly categorized into polyethylene glycol (PEG) formulations, osmotically active saline solutions, and combination preparations. Since their introduction in the 1980s, PEG electrolyte solutions have been the most commonly used agents for colonoscopy.8 They are considered a safe preparation method and can be used relatively safely even in patients at risk of electrolyte imbalance due to kidney, liver, or heart disease. Consequently, most studies on alterations in the colonic microbiota after colonoscopy have focused on PEG-based bowel preparation agents.
In 2006, Mai et al.9 conducted a pioneering study involving five healthy adults to examine the effects of colonoscopy on the gut microbiota using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Their findings showed a disturbance in the gut microbiota composition after colonoscopy. Subsequently, several other studies have explored gut microbiota alterations after colonoscopy.9-23 However, the findings have been inconsistent due to the small numbers and heterogeneity of participants, variations in the bowel preparation agents used, and differences in the methods and depths used to detect changes in the gut microbiota. Details on each of these studies are provided in Table 1.9-23 In general, colonoscopy has been found to reduce the total number and α-diversity of gut microorganisms. At the phylum level, a decreased abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, an increased abundance of Proteobacteria, and a decreased Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio have been reported in healthy subjects. Notably, an increase in Proteobacteria levels has been consistently observed across studies.11,13,15,18 At lower taxonomic levels, an increase in opportunistic pathogens (e.g., Pseudomonas and Acrobacter) and a decrease in beneficial microbiota (e.g., Clostridia and Lactobacillaceae) have been reported. However, these findings have been inconsistent, with some studies reporting no significant changes in the gut microbiota composition after colonoscopy.
The gastrointestinal microbiota is dominated by the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, with a lower prevalence of Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, and Saccharibacteria (formerly known as TM7).24 While most gastrointestinal microorganisms are obligate anaerobes, Proteobacteria are facultative anaerobes.25 Dysbiosis in the colon is commonly associated with an increased abundance of Proteobacteria, which is observed in individuals who undergo antibiotic therapy, consume a high-fat Western-style diet, or have conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, or necrotizing enterocolitis.25,26 Although the abundance of Proteobacteria increases after colonoscopy, it remains unclear whether this alteration should definitively be considered dysbiosis, as observed in other disorders, primarily due to its transient nature. Nevertheless, it may contribute to the emergence of post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal symptoms or exacerbate preexisting dysbiosis. While this relationship remains unclear, one study showed that individuals experiencing post-colonoscopy symptoms exhibited lower baseline α-diversity than individuals who did not have such symptoms.18
Most studies have reported that the gut microbiota composition returns to the baseline within 2 to 6 weeks after colonoscopy, suggesting the resilience of the gut microbiota. However, baseline gut microbiota status, predisposing factors, such as inflammatory bowel disease, and bowel preparation methods may affect the extent and reversal of changes after colonoscopy. The gut microbiota recovery rate after colonoscopy has been found to depend on the PEG administration method, with split-dose PEG administration having a less disturbing effect and resulting in better microbial recovery than a single dose.13 The changes in the gut microbiota after colonoscopy have been shown to differ between patients with inflammatory bowel disease and healthy individuals in terms of α- and β-diversity.14,19,23 Futhermore, a complete recovery may not occur in some populations. For example, in a study of overweight subjects, Prevotella-dominant gut microbiota was more susceptible to dysbiosis after colonoscopy than Bacteroides-dominant microbiota.17
Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the temporary alterations observed in the gut microbiota after colonoscopy. However, most have yet to be definitively proven (Fig. 1). These mechanisms are described in the following subsections.
Rapid evacuation of luminal content through bowel preparation
The rapid increase in bowel movements induced by bowel preparation flushes out fecal material along with microorganisms that cannot adhere to the intestinal mucosa. Moreover, the reduced availability of nutrients that are essential for bacterial metabolism, including dietary fiber and fermentable carbohydrates, contributes to the decrease of the gut microbiota. These factors collectively induce a significant change in the gut microbiota composition, characterized by an increased abundance of Proteobacteria.7 However, this compositional change is not exclusive to colonoscopy. Studies on acute infectious diarrhea, primarily conducted in pediatric populations, have reported comparable changes in the gut microbiota composition similar to those seen after colonoscopy, including a decrease in α-diversity, an increased abundance of Streptococcus, Escherichia, and Bacteroides, and a decreased abundance of Roseburia, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Prevotella, and Lactobacillus.27-30 Moreover, the alterations in the gut microbiota reported in noninvasive viral infectious diarrhea, such as Rotavirus diarrhea, may resemble those induced by bowel preparation for colonoscopy, with an increased abundance of Proteobacteria, especially the class Gammaproteobacteria.28 Thus, regardless of the cause, the rapid evacuation of colonic contents through osmotic or secretory diarrhea may lead to a decrease in the major phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, potentially allowing Proteobacteria to occupy the niche as an epiphenomenon of the wash-out effect.11 On the other hand, no increase in Proteobacteria has been observed in patients with diarrhea caused by bile acids after cholecystectomy, suggesting a different effect of bile acid diarrhea on the gut microbiota.31,32
Direct effect of osmotic laxatives on the host’s intestinal environments, mucus layer, and epithelium
Unlike in the case of infectious diarrhea, it is necessary to consider both the direct effects of bowel preparation agents and the indirect consequences of changes in the host’s immune function in the case of colonoscopy-induced gut microbiota alterations. The growth of the gut microbiota is influenced by the host's physiological and immunological state and environmental factors within the gut lumen.33 The growth rate of microorganisms decreases when environmental osmolality increases, regardless of the type of osmolyte, suggesting that the high osmolality of the preparation agents may directly affect the gut microbiota.34 The heightened osmolality induced by PEG leads to a decreased bacterial cell volume due to passive water excretion, which occurs on a timescale of seconds. In a humanized microbiota mouse model study, chronic PEG administration decreased Verrucomicrobiae and increased Gammaproteobacteria. Moreover, there was a decrease in Muribaculaceae (previously known as S24-7) and an increase in Bacteroidaceae.34
Furthermore, during diarrhea, there is a significant decrease in mucus thickness, resulting in decreased Akkermansia, a microorganism specializing in intestinal mucus consumption. Despite the depletion of the mucus layer at the epithelial interface, the epithelium remains intact, except for a reversible flattening of epithelial nuclei due to the high osmolality of PEG.34 Unlike senna and sodium phosphate, which can cause significant mucosal damage, PEG does not cause significant histological changes, such as a reduction in goblet cells in the colonic mucosa.35,36 However, some studies have reported superficial mucus loss, epithelial cell loss, edema in the lamina propria, lymphocyte infiltration, and polymorphonuclear cell infiltration associated with PEG administration.37 These alterations in the mucus and epithelial cell layers, which are critical for maintaining mucosal immune function, negatively impact the gut microbiota and the host.
Disruption of the anaerobic ecosystem due to exposure to oxygen
The alteration in the gut microbiota after colonoscopy may be attributed not only to the rapid evacuation and osmotic effects caused by bowel preparation but also to exposure to oxygen, as suggested by the increased abundance of Proteobacteria after colonoscopy. Unlike most microbes in the colon, which are strictly anaerobic, Proteobacteria often have facultative anaerobic characteristics, which enable them to tolerate various oxygenic conditions.25 It has been suggested that oxygen conveyed into the lumen during bowel preparation disrupts the anaerobic ecosystem of the colon.7 However, the evidence supporting this notion remains insufficient. Rather, it is plausible that air insufflated during colonoscopy plays a significant role in exposing mucosal-associated microbes to oxygen, thereby exacerbating the dysbiosis triggered by bowel preparation.
Another possible cause is the diffusion of oxygen into the colonic lumen due to alterations in the function of colonic epithelial cells. It is now recognized that colonic epithelial cells play a central role in maintaining homeostasis by modulating the colonic microbiota. Obligate anaerobic bacteria produce butyrate by fermenting fiber, thereby maintaining the epithelium in a metabolic state characterized by high oxygen consumption.26,38 This, in turn, maintains epithelial hypoxia (<1% oxygen), limiting oxygen diffusion into the colonic lumen.26 If anaerobic bacteria and fiber decrease in the colonic lumen after colonoscopy, butyrate production can be reduced, causing colonic epithelial cells to consume less oxygen. This may result in increased levels of oxygen and nitrate released from the epithelial surface, further inducing a shift from obligate to facultative anaerobic bacteria in the microbial community. However, it remains unclear whether such phenomena also occur in short-term alterations of the gut microbiota after colonoscopy and to what extent they may impact if they do.
CO2 insufflation may cause less disturbance to the colonic microbiota than room air. A small randomized controlled trial involving 10 healthy subjects demonstrated that CO2 insufflation promoted gut microbiota homeostasis during colonoscopy.39 Species richness after colonoscopy decreased more slowly and recovered more quickly in the CO2 group than in the air group. CO2 insufflation increased the relative abundance of some anaerobic Bacteroides species (e.g., Bacteroides caccae), Subdoligranulum, and Lachnospiraceae, whereas air insufflation increased the relative abundance of Escherichia coli, Ruminococcus torques, and Ruminococcus guavus.39 However, there were no significant differences in the gut microbiota composition within or between the groups at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days after colonoscopy. Colonoscopy with room air may worsen symptoms slightly in patients with ulcerative colitis, with most patients experiencing a deterioration by the first week and a significant improvement by the fourth week.40 In a randomized controlled trial comparing CO2 and room air insufflation during colonoscopy in patients with a partial Mayo score of 1 or 2, the rate of clinical relapse at eight weeks after colonoscopy was significantly lower in the CO2 group than in the room air group.41 This suggests that CO2 is more beneficial in terms of preventing mucosal inflammation by causing less disturbance to gut mucosa-associated microbes during colonoscopy. In another randomized controlled trial, patients with irritable bowel syndrome exhibited more severe post-colonoscopy symptoms than the controls. CO2 insufflation reduced post-colonoscopy symptoms in both groups compared to room air insufflation, and the effect was higher in patients with irritable bowel syndrome than in the controls.42
Several randomized placebo-controlled trials have explored the efficacy of various probiotic strains in alleviating gastrointestinal symptoms following colonoscopy (Table 2).42-49 In one study, patients with constipation who received probiotics two weeks before the procedure experienced significantly lower rates of vomiting and bloating than those who received a placebo. However, this effect was not observed in individuals without constipation.43 In subsequent studies, probiotics were administered after colonoscopy. Half of these studies reported a reduction in post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal symptoms, such as pain, bleeding, diarrhea, and discomfort, in the probiotics groups than in the placebo groups.44-49 Subgroup analyses showed that patients who have preexisting symptoms such as abdominal pain before colonoscopy benefited more in reducing post-colonoscopy symptoms from probiotic administration than patients who did not have preexisting symptoms.44,45 In a large open-label clinical trial involving 3,197 participants with multi-strain probiotics (Lactobacillus plantarum LP01, Lactococcus lactis subspecies cremoris LLC02, Lactobacillus delbrueckii LDD01, 2×1010 colony-forming unit [cfu]) and 1,612 participants without any treatment, 4 weeks of probiotic administration significantly decreased abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, bloating, and bowel alteration at the 2nd and 3rd week after colonoscopy compared to no treatment.50
In addition to alleviating symptoms, several studies have found that post-colonoscopy probiotic administration contributes to reversing changes in the gut microbiota to varying degrees.46-49 Specifically, probiotic administration has been found to increase α-diversity, which is reduced by colonic preparation. However, the findings on its effect on β-diversity have been inconsistent.46-49 Certain probiotic strains, such as a mixture of Bifidobacterium infantis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bacillus cereus, have been shown to promote a rapid decrease in Proteobacteria, which typically increase after colonic preparation.46 Probiotics have also been found to contribute to the restoration of various bacterial genera, including Faecalibacterium, Ruminococcus, Blautia, Gemmiger, Bacteroides, Roseburia, and Parabacteroides.46,47 However, outcomes have varied among studies, with one study reporting that the administered probiotic strain was not detectable in the feces of a significant proportion of patients.48 It is important to acknowledge that the effectiveness of probiotics can be influenced by various host factors, notably, gastrointestinal transit.33,51,52 Consequently, the effects of probiotic administration after colonoscopy may differ from those seen in the general population. Moreover, the timing of administration is crucial for optimal efficacy. A small study of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea demonstrated that probiotic administration immediately after colonoscopy had a sustained beneficial effect on stool consistency 6 months later than administration 1 month after the procedure.53
We conducted a thorough review of studies on alterations in the gut microbiota following colonoscopy and discussed their possible mechanisms. The process of colonoscopy induces significant alterations in the gut microbiota due to several factors, such as the rapid evacuation of colonic content, increased osmolality, and mucus depletion caused by bowel preparation, and exposure to oxygen during the colonoscopy. Although these changes usually revert to the baseline and are often clinically insignificant, their long-term effects must be investigated, particularly regarding the role of post-colonoscopy symptoms and differences between younger and older age groups.54
Split-dose bowel preparation appears to be more effective in reducing the effects of colonoscopy-induced gut microbiota changes than single-dose regimens. Moreover, probiotic administration following colonoscopy may be beneficial. However, the question of whether probiotics are beneficial for all patients after colonoscopy is still debated due to the transient nature of gastrointestinal symptoms and gut microbiota alterations associated with colonoscopy. It is essential to recognize that post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal symptoms are more prevalent among individuals with preexisting diseases and lower baseline α-diversity, and that the gut microbiota may not recover completely in certain populations.4,5,17,18 Probiotics offer greater benefits to individuals who experience gastrointestinal symptoms before a colonoscopy.44,45 Therefore, probiotic administration immediately after a colonoscopy may be a viable option for certain patients, particularly those predisposed to persistent gastrointestinal disturbances.
Fig. 1.
Postulated mechanism of gut microbiota alterations after colonoscopy bowel preparation using osmotic laxatives, such as polyethylene glycol, facilitates the rapid evacuation of colonic contents, including fecal matter and nutrients, while increasing osmolality within the gastrointestinal tract. This process induces significant changes in the gut microbiota. It precipitates mucus depletion and alterations in epithelial cells, leading to modifications in submucosal immune responses, thereby further influencing the gut microbiota composition. Moreover, exposure to oxygen during the colonoscopy exacerbates the disruption of gut microbiota induced by bowel preparation. These combined effects usually result in an increased relative abundance of Proteobacteria. If anaerobic bacteria and fiber decrease in the colonic lumen after colonoscopy, butyrate production may be reduced, causing colonic epithelial cells to consume less oxygen. This may result in increased levels of oxygen released from the epithelial surface, further inducing a shift in the microbial community from obligate to facultative anaerobic bacteria. While individuals with a healthy gut microbiota typically return to the baseline shortly after colonoscopy, individuals with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disorders or irritable bowel syndrome with antibiotic exposure, and those with baseline dysbiosis may experience sustained alterations in the gut microbiota. Split-dose bowel preparation and CO2 insufflation during the procedure have been found to be less disruptive to the gut microbiota. Furthermore, administering probiotics immediately after colonoscopy may reduce post-procedural gastrointestinal symptoms and microbiota alterations, particularly in individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal symptoms.
ce-2024-147f1.jpg
Table 1.
Studies associated with the effects of bowel preparation and colonoscopy on gut microbiota
Study Subject Age (yr) BP agent Sample for microbiota Detection method Gut microbiota change after CS or diarrhea compared to baseline Recovery after CS
Type Collection timing α-Diversity β-Diversity Phylum level Below phylum level
Mai et al. (2006)9 5 HC NA NA S Before, during, 6–8 w after CS V3, V6–V8, DGGE NA Significantly different NA NA NA
Harrell et al. (2012)10 12 HC 25–48 PEG (Golytely) 4 L M Before, during CS TRFLP ↓ OTU, ↓ Shannon index NA → Significantly different NA
Gorkiewicz et al. (2013)11 4 HC 36–47 PEG (Forlax) 50 g tid for 3 d S, M 7 d before, 3rd d on PEG, 7 d after stopping PEG V1–V2, FLX system • M: → richness, → evenness Significantly different • M:↓ Bacteroidetes, ↑ Proteobacteria • M: ↓ Faecalibacterium, ↑ Pseudomonas, ↑ Acinetobacter, ↑ Arcobacter, ↑ LAB • ↓ Species richness in stool persisted during the 1 wk after diarrhea
• S:↓ richness, → evenness • S: ↑ Faecalibacterium
O'Brien et al. (2013)12 15 Patients (UC, abdominal pain, IDA, polyp) 46–69 PEG 2 L+bisacodyl 10 mg S 1 mo before, 1 wk before, 1 wk after, 1 mo after, 3–6 mo after CS V1–V3 region, DGGE → → NA NA NA
Jalanka et al. (2015)13 23 HC 25–27 PEG (Moviprep) 2 L, split or single-dose S 1 d before, immediately after, 14 d after, 28 d after CS V1 & V6, phylogenic microarray → → ↓ No. of bacteria & methanogenic archaea, ↑ G(+)/G(–) ratio, ↑ Proteobacteria ↓ Bacilli, ↓ Clostridium cluster IV, ↑ Clostridium cluster IX & XIVa • Restored after 14 d and 28 d
• Split dose has a less disturbing and better recovery than the single dose
Shobar et al. (2016)14 18 HC & patients (5 CD, 3 UC) 49–55.4 11 PEG, 7 Sodium phosphate S, M Before, after SS FLX platform • M (IBD): ↓ Shannon index Significantly different only in IBD NA NA NA
• M (HC): ↓ PD-WT
Drago et al. (2016)15 10 HC 40–68 PEG 4 L, single-dose S Before, immediately after, 1 mo after CS V2-4-8, V3-6, V7–9. Ion Torrent PGM system ↓ Shannon index NA • Immediately after: ↓ Firmicutes, ↑ Proteobacteria • Immediately after: ↑ γ-Proteobacteria, ↑ Coriobacteriia, ↑ Enterobacteriaceae, ↓ Clostridia, ↓ Lactobacillaceae, ↓ Porphyromonodaceae, ↓ Veillonellaceae • Shannon index recovered at 1 mo after
• 1 mo after: ↓ γ-Proteobacteria, ↓ α-Proteobacteria, ↓ Lactobacillaceae, ↓ Enterobacteriaceae, ↓ Streptococcaceae, ↑ Rikenellaceae, ↑ Eubacteriaceae • Disturbed phylum composition recovered at 1m after but not completely at class and family level
Shaw et al. (2017)16 18 HC & patients (CD, UC, IBS, JPC, food allergies, recurrent mucosal candidiasis) 4–17 Sodium picosulfate with MgC and senna S, M, rectal swab Before, immediately after, >2 wk after CS V3–V5, GS Junior → → → • Immediately after: ↑ Bacteroidia, ↑ Faecalibacterium, ↓ γ-Proteobacteria, ↓Ruminococcus, ↓ Escherichia, ↓ Pseudobutyrivibrio, ↓ Subdoligranulum NA
• >2 wk after: ↑ Christensenellaceae
Chen et al. (2018)17 20 Overweight adults (mean BMI 28.92 kg/cm2) 40.5 Phospho-Soda (Fleet)+water 3–4 L, split-dose S Before, 7 d after, 1 mo after CS V4, Illumina MiSeq • Bacteroides-dominant group: → → → • Prevotella-dominant group: • Shannon index recovered 28 d after
• Prevotella-dominant group: ↑ Bacteroides, ↓ Prevotella in 7 d after
↑Shannon index 7 d after, ↓richness 28 d after
Kim et al. (2021)18 24 HC 42.8±11.9 PEG (Coolprep)+20 g AA solution, 4 L, split-dose S Before, 7 d after, 1 mo after CS V3–V4, Illumina MiSeq • Baseline α-diversity: Cx(–)>Cx(+) → • Baseline F/B ratio: Cx(+) > Cx(–) Similar pattern with the phylum level • Cx(+) group: F/B ratio recovered 28 d after
• Cx(–) group: ↓ Simpson index • Cx(+) group:
• Cx(+) group: → ↓ F/B ratio 7d after, ↑ Proteobacteria 28 d after
Batista et al. (2022)19 55 HC & patients (16 MC, 16 BAD, 11 FDr) 62.0±1.5 PEG, split-dose S Before, 30 d after CS V4, Illumina MiSeq •HC: → Shannon index, → Chao1 index NA NA NA NA
•MC & FDr: ↑ Shannon index
Nalluri-Butz et al. (2022)20 15 HC & patients (7 hematochezia, 1 CDr) 48.3±15.3 PEG (14 Miralax+MgC, 1 GoLYTELY) S Before, during, 10 d after, 30 d after, 180 d after CS & OP V4, Illumina MiSeq → → → → NA
Powles et al. (2022)21 11 Patients (9 bowel habit changes &/or diarrhea, 2 UC) 41 PEG (MoviPrep) 2 L, split-dose S, U Before, 3 d after, 6 wk after CS V1–2, Illumina MiSeq ↓ Shannon index at 3 d after → → → • Shannon index recovered 6 wk after
• Fecal & urine metabolite was not affected by CS
Zou et al. (2023)22 19 HC 10.01±3.47 PEG, ≤3 L, split-dose S 1 d before, 2 d after, 2 wk after, 4 wk after CS Illumina MiSeq • ↓ Shannon index at 2 d after → → • 2 d after: ↑Escherichia coli, ↑Bacteroides fragilis, ↑Veillonella parvula, ↓Intertinibacter bartlettii • Shannon index recovered at 2 wk after
• 2 wk after:↑Eubacterium • Disturbed composition restored at 2, 4 wk after
Bacsur et al. (2023)23 41 HC & patients (9 CD, 13 UC) UC 45.54±12.46, CD 32.03±7.59 Sodium picosulfate and MgO (10 mg and 3.5 g per dose), split-dose S 1 wk before, 3 d after, 4 wk after BP V4, Illumina MiSeq • UC: ↑ Shannon index at 4 wk after → → • HC: ↑ Brucellaceae, ↑ Moraxellaceae, ↑ Alcaligenaceae NA
• CD & HC: → Shannon index • Relapsing IBD after CS: ↓B ifidobacterium, ↓Lactococcus, ↑ Enterococcaceae, ↑ Streptococcaceae

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

BP, bowel preparation; CS, colonoscopy; HC, healthy control; NA, non-available; S, stool; DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; PEG, polyethylene glycol; M, mucosal biopsy; TRFLP, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; →, no significant change; OTU, operative taxonomic units; LAB, lactic acid bacteria; CD, Crohn's disease; UC, ulcerative colitis; IDA, iron deficiency anemia; SS, sigmoidoscopy; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; PD-WT, phylogenetic diversity-whole tree metric; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; JPC, Juvenile polyposis coli; AA, ascorbic acid; Cx, complication; MC, microscopic colitis; BAD, bile acid diarrhea; FDr, functional diarrhea; CDr, chronic diarrhea; MgC, magnesium citrate; MgO, magnesium oxide; U, urine; NA, non-available; d, days; wk, weeks; mo, months.

Table 2.
Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of probiotics on colonoscopy-induced gastrointestinal symptoms and gut microbiota alterations
Study Subject Age (yr) BP agent Probiotics Effect on post-colonoscopic symptom Gut microbiota change compared to baseline after CS compared to baselinea)
α-Diversity β-Diversity Phylum level Below phylum level Recovery
Lee et al. (2010)43 51 C(+) PRG 40.5±11.4 NaP solution (Solin), split-dose Bacillus subtilis 1×109 cfu & Streptococcus faecium 9×109 cfu bid for 2 wk before CS • C(+): lower symptom in PRG than in PLG NA NA NA NA NA
53 C(+) PLG 42.2±11.7 • C(–): no difference between PRG & PLG
53 C(–) PRG 40.6±10.6
54 C(–) PLG 41.7±10.8
D'Souza et al. (2017)44 133 HC PRG 61.6±13.8 Sodium picosulfate Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM 1.25×1010 & Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07 1.25×1010 cfu qd for 2 wk after CS • Lower pain days in PRG than PLG NA NA NA NA NA
126 HC PLG 60.1±12.8 • Patients with preexisting abdominal pain benefit from probiotics
Mullaney et al. (2019)45 75 HC PRG 58.6 Sodium picosulphate+PEG (Prep kit C)+colonoscopy with CO2 Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM 1.25×1010 & Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07 1.25×1010 cfu qd for 2 w after CS • No difference between PRG & PLG NA NA NA NA NA
75 HC PLG 58.2 • Lower incidence of bloating in PRG who had preexisting GI symptoms
Deng et al. (2020)46 16 HC PRG 53.5 2 L PEG single-dose Bifidobacterium infantis >0.5×106 cfu, Lactobacillus acidophilus >0.5×106 cfu, Enterococcus faecalis >0.5×106 cfu, Bacillus cereus >0.5×105 cfu tid, for 5–7 d after CS NA • PLG: ↓ 7 d after CS • PLG: significantly differs compared with baseline after 7 d •PLG: ↑ Proteobacteria, ↑ Actinobacter NA • PLG: Proteobacteria & Actinobacter were recovered,
16 HC PLG 48.2 • PRG: ↑ 7 d after CS • PRG: restore to baseline level after 7d • PRG: ↑ Proteobacteria, ↓ Firmicutes ↑ Bifidobacterium, ↑ Streptococcus, ↑ Acinetobacteria, ↓ Fecalibacterium 7 d after CS
• PRG: Proteobacteria was sharply recovered, ↑ Bacteroidetes, ↑ Bifidobacterium, ↑ Fecalibacterium
Liu et al. (2022)47 48 CP(+) PRG 58.67±9.44 NA Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis MH-02 2×109 cfu qd, for 7 d after CS • No difference between PRG & PLG PRG>PLG Significantly differences between PRG & PLG NA ↑ Bifidobacterium, ↑ Faecalibacterium, ↑ Dorea, ↑ Roseburia, ↑ Gemmiger, ↓ Clostridium in PRG than PLG Compared to control
52 CP(+) PLG 59.25±11.33 • Higher laxative use in PLG than PRG • ↓ Bifidobacterium in both groups, but PRG>PLG
• ↓ Ruminococcus, ↓ Blautia, ↓ Gemmiger,↑ Clostridium in PLG, but → in PRG
Labenz et al. (2022)48 45 HC PRG 59.3 PEG (Moviprep or Plenvu)+colonoscopy with CO2 Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, Bifidobacterium lactis W51, Enterococcus faecium W54, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, Lactobacillus rhamnosus WGG, Lactococcus lactis W19, 2.7×1010 cfu bid for 30 d after CS • Lower constipation, pain, bloating, diarrhea, and general discomfort in PRG than PLG • PLG: → 30 d after CS • PLG: → 30 d after CS NA • PRG: ↑ Clostridioides sp. CAG:417, ↓ Bacillales bacterium UBA660, ↓ Duodenibacillus, NA
42 HC PLG 59.9 • PRG: → 30 d after CS • PRG: → 30 d after CS ↓ Ruminiclostridium, ↓ uncultured Clostridioides sp. UMGS1663
• PLG: ↓ Clostridioides sp. CAG:417
Son et al. (2023)49 26 HC PRG 54.4±7.8 PEG+AA Lactobacillus acidophilus CBT LA1, Lactobacillus rhamnosus CBT LR5, Bifidobacterium lactis CBT BL3, Bifidobacterium longum CBT BG7, Bifidobacterium bifidum CBT BFs, Streptococcus thermophilus CBT ST3, 1×1010 cfu, for 30 d before CS • Lower symptom duration in PRG than PLG ↓ After 1–2 d after CS in PLG only compared to 2–3 d before → NA Higher number of↓taxa after CS in PLG than PRG • PRG: restored to baseline
25 HC PLG 53.1±8.3 • PLG: ↓ few taxa including Gastranaerophilales & Clostridia_UCG_014

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

BP, bowel preparation; CS, colonoscopy; C, constipation; PRG, probiotics group; PLG, placebo group; PBG, probiotic group; NaP, sodium phosphate; cfu, colony-forming unit; bid, twice daily; tid, three times daily; qd, once daily; NA, non-available; HC, healthy control without colon pathology, screening or post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy; PEG, polyethylene glycol; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; →, no significant change; CP, colonic polyp; AA, ascorbic acid.

a) All studies were conducted with stool samples by Illumina MiSeq.

  • 1. Lynch SV, Pedersen O. The human intestinal microbiome in health and disease. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2369–2379.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Berg G, Rybakova D, Fischer D, et al. Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome 2020;8:103.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 3. Wei L, Singh R, Ghoshal UC. Enterochromaffin cells-gut microbiota crosstalk: underpinning the symptoms, pathogenesis, and pharmacotherapy in disorders of gut-brain interaction. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2022;28:357–375.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Collatuzzo G, Boffetta P, Radaelli F, et al. Incidence, risk and protective factors of symptoms after colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2022;54:1698–1705.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Ko CW, Riffle S, Shapiro JA, et al. Incidence of minor complications and time lost from normal activities after screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:648–656.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Vajravelu RK, Shapiro JM, Ni J, et al. Risk for post-colonoscopy irritable bowel syndrome in patients with and without antibiotic exposure: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:e1305–e1322.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Drago L, Valentina C, Fabio P. Gut microbiota, dysbiosis and colon lavage. Dig Liver Dis 2019;51:1209–1213.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Binderow SR, et al. Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:689–696.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Mai V, Greenwald B, Morris JG, et al. Effect of bowel preparation and colonoscopy on post-procedure intestinal microbiota composition. Gut 2006;55:1822–1823.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Harrell L, Wang Y, Antonopoulos D, et al. Standard colonic lavage alters the natural state of mucosal-associated microbiota in the human colon. PLoS One 2012;7:e32545.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 11. Gorkiewicz G, Thallinger GG, Trajanoski S, et al. Alterations in the colonic microbiota in response to osmotic diarrhea. PLoS One 2013;8:e55817.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 12. O'Brien CL, Allison GE, Grimpen F, et al. Impact of colonoscopy bowel preparation on intestinal microbiota. PLoS One 2013;8:e62815.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 13. Jalanka J, Salonen A, Salojärvi J, et al. Effects of bowel cleansing on the intestinal microbiota. Gut 2015;64:1562–1568.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Shobar RM, Velineni S, Keshavarzian A, et al. The effects of bowel preparation on microbiota-related metrics differ in health and in inflammatory bowel disease and for the mucosal and luminal microbiota compartments. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2016;7:e143.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 15. Drago L, Toscano M, De Grandi R, et al. Persisting changes of intestinal microbiota after bowel lavage and colonoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:532–537.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Shaw AG, Black N, Rushd A, et al. Assessing the colonic microbiota in children: effects of sample site and bowel preparation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017;64:230–237.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Chen HM, Chen CC, Chen CC, et al. Gut microbiome changes in overweight male adults following bowel preparation. BMC Genomics 2018;19:904.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 18. Kim JH, Choi YJ, Kwon HJ, et al. Effect of gut microbiome on minor complications after a colonoscopy. Intest Res 2021;19:341–348.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 19. Batista L, Robles V, Manichanh C, et al. Colonic bacterial diversity and dysbiosis in active microscopic colitis as compared to chronic diarrhoea and healthy controls: effect of polyethylene glycol after bowel lavage for colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol 2022;22:320.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 20. Nalluri-Butz H, Bobel MC, Nugent J, et al. A pilot study demonstrating the impact of surgical bowel preparation on intestinal microbiota composition following colon and rectal surgery. Sci Rep 2022;12:10559.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 21. Powles ST, Gallagher KI, Chong LWL, et al. Effects of bowel preparation on intestinal bacterial associated urine and faecal metabolites and the associated faecal microbiome. BMC Gastroenterol 2022;22:240.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 22. Zou Y, Zeng S, Chen M, et al. Gut microbiota in children with split-dose bowel preparations revealed by metagenomics. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023;13:1202007.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 23. Bacsur P, Rutka M, Asbóth A, et al. Effects of bowel cleansing on the composition of the gut microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease patients and healthy controls. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2023;16:17562848231174298.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 24. Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012;486:207–214.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 25. Shin NR, Whon TW, Bae JW. Proteobacteria: microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol 2015;33:496–503.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Litvak Y, Byndloss MX, Bäumler AJ. Colonocyte metabolism shapes the gut microbiota. Science 2018;362:eaat9076.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 27. Toro Monjaraz EM, Ignorosa Arellano KR, Loredo Mayer A, et al. Gut microbiota in mexican children with acute diarrhea: an observational study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2021;40:704–709.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Dinleyici EC, Martínez-Martínez D, Kara A, et al. Time series analysis of the microbiota of children suffering from acute infectious diarrhea and their recovery after treatment. Front Microbiol 2018;9:1230.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 29. Pop M, Walker AW, Paulson J, et al. Diarrhea in young children from low-income countries leads to large-scale alterations in intestinal microbiota composition. Genome Biol 2014;15:R76.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Chen SY, Tsai CN, Lee YS, et al. Intestinal microbiome in children with severe and complicated acute viral gastroenteritis. Sci Rep 2017;7:46130.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 31. Li YD, Liu BN, Zhao SH, et al. Changes in gut microbiota composition and diversity associated with post-cholecystectomy diarrhea. World J Gastroenterol 2021;27:391–403.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 32. Min YW, Rezaie A, Pimentel M. Bile acid and gut microbiota in irritable bowel syndrome. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2022;28:549–561.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 33. Kim YS, Choi SC. The long and winding road to the best clinical research and personalized therapy with probiotics: do not forget host physiology. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2023;29:129–131.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 34. Tropini C, Moss EL, Merrill BD, et al. Transient osmotic perturbation causes long-term alteration to the gut microbiota. Cell 2018;173:1742–1754.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 35. Pockros PJ, Foroozan P. Golytely lavage versus a standard colonoscopy preparation. Effect on normal colonic mucosal histology. Gastroenterology 1985;88:545–548.ArticlePubMed
  • 36. Rejchrt S, Bures J, Siroký M, et al. A prospective, observational study of colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with orally administered sodium phosphate for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:651–654.ArticlePubMed
  • 37. Bucher P, Gervaz P, Egger JF, et al. Morphologic alterations associated with mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery: a randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:109–112.ArticlePubMed
  • 38. Jiang W, Wu J, Zhu S, et al. The role of short chain fatty acids in irritable bowel syndrome. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2022;28:540–548.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 39. Yang X, Xiu WB, Wang JX, et al. CO2 is beneficial to gut microbiota homeostasis during colonoscopy: randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med 2022;11:5281.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 40. Menees S, Higgins P, Korsnes S, et al. Does colonoscopy cause increased ulcerative colitis symptoms? Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007;13:12–18.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Otake-Kasamoto Y, Shinzaki S, Hiyama S, et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation reduces the relapse of ulcerative colitis after colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2023;18:e0290329.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 42. Imai A, Kato M, Ono S, et al. Efficacy of carbon dioxide-insufflating colonoscopy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized double-blind study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:1623–1628.ArticlePubMed
  • 43. Lee H, Kim YH, Kim JH, et al. A feasibility study of probiotics pretreatment as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy in constipated patients. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:2344–2351.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 44. D'Souza B, Slack T, Wong SW, et al. Randomized controlled trial of probiotics after colonoscopy. ANZ J Surg 2017;87:E65–E69.ArticlePubMed
  • 45. Mullaney TG, Lam D, Kluger R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of probiotic use for post-colonoscopy symptoms. ANZ J Surg 2019;89:234–238.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 46. Deng X, Tian H, Yang R, et al. Oral probiotics alleviate intestinal dysbacteriosis for people receiving bowel preparation. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020;7:73.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 47. Liu H, Zhang K, Liu P, et al. Improvement effect of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis MH-02 in patients receiving resection of colorectal polyps: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Front Immunol 2022;13:940500.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 48. Labenz J, Borkenstein DP, Heil FJ, et al. Application of a multispecies probiotic reduces gastro-intestinal discomfort and induces microbial changes after colonoscopy. Front Oncol 2022;12:1078315.ArticlePubMed
  • 49. Son D, Choi YJ, Son MY, et al. Benefits of probiotic pretreatment on the gut microbiota and minor complications after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial. Nutrients 2023;15:1141.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 50. Aragona SE, Spada C, DE Luca L, et al. Probiotics for managing patients after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: an interventional, double-arm, open, randomized, multi-center, and national study (COLONSTUDY). Minerva Gastroenterol (Torino) 2024;70:187–196.ArticlePubMed
  • 51. Tremblay A, Auger J, Alyousif Z, et al. Total transit time and probiotic persistence in healthy adults: a pilot study. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2023;29:218–228.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 52. Quigley EM. Clinical trials of probiotics in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: some points to consider. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2022;28:204–211.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 53. Khodadoostan M, Shavakhi A, Sherafat Z, et al. Effect of probiotic administration immediately and 1 month after colonoscopy in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome patients. Adv Biomed Res 2018;7:94.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 54. Mai V, Stine OC. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: relevant for the gut's microbiota? Gut 2015;64:1504–1505.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Alteration in gut microbiota after colonoscopy: proposed mechanisms and the role of probiotic interventions
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      Alteration in gut microbiota after colonoscopy: proposed mechanisms and the role of probiotic interventions
      Image
      Fig. 1. Postulated mechanism of gut microbiota alterations after colonoscopy bowel preparation using osmotic laxatives, such as polyethylene glycol, facilitates the rapid evacuation of colonic contents, including fecal matter and nutrients, while increasing osmolality within the gastrointestinal tract. This process induces significant changes in the gut microbiota. It precipitates mucus depletion and alterations in epithelial cells, leading to modifications in submucosal immune responses, thereby further influencing the gut microbiota composition. Moreover, exposure to oxygen during the colonoscopy exacerbates the disruption of gut microbiota induced by bowel preparation. These combined effects usually result in an increased relative abundance of Proteobacteria. If anaerobic bacteria and fiber decrease in the colonic lumen after colonoscopy, butyrate production may be reduced, causing colonic epithelial cells to consume less oxygen. This may result in increased levels of oxygen released from the epithelial surface, further inducing a shift in the microbial community from obligate to facultative anaerobic bacteria. While individuals with a healthy gut microbiota typically return to the baseline shortly after colonoscopy, individuals with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disorders or irritable bowel syndrome with antibiotic exposure, and those with baseline dysbiosis may experience sustained alterations in the gut microbiota. Split-dose bowel preparation and CO2 insufflation during the procedure have been found to be less disruptive to the gut microbiota. Furthermore, administering probiotics immediately after colonoscopy may reduce post-procedural gastrointestinal symptoms and microbiota alterations, particularly in individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal symptoms.

      Fig. 1.

      Alteration in gut microbiota after colonoscopy: proposed mechanisms and the role of probiotic interventions
      Study Subject Age (yr) BP agent Sample for microbiota Detection method Gut microbiota change after CS or diarrhea compared to baseline Recovery after CS
      Type Collection timing α-Diversity β-Diversity Phylum level Below phylum level
      Mai et al. (2006)9 5 HC NA NA S Before, during, 6–8 w after CS V3, V6–V8, DGGE NA Significantly different NA NA NA
      Harrell et al. (2012)10 12 HC 25–48 PEG (Golytely) 4 L M Before, during CS TRFLP ↓ OTU, ↓ Shannon index NA → Significantly different NA
      Gorkiewicz et al. (2013)11 4 HC 36–47 PEG (Forlax) 50 g tid for 3 d S, M 7 d before, 3rd d on PEG, 7 d after stopping PEG V1–V2, FLX system • M: → richness, → evenness Significantly different • M:↓ Bacteroidetes, ↑ Proteobacteria • M: ↓ Faecalibacterium, ↑ Pseudomonas, ↑ Acinetobacter, ↑ Arcobacter, ↑ LAB • ↓ Species richness in stool persisted during the 1 wk after diarrhea
      • S:↓ richness, → evenness • S: ↑ Faecalibacterium
      O'Brien et al. (2013)12 15 Patients (UC, abdominal pain, IDA, polyp) 46–69 PEG 2 L+bisacodyl 10 mg S 1 mo before, 1 wk before, 1 wk after, 1 mo after, 3–6 mo after CS V1–V3 region, DGGE → → NA NA NA
      Jalanka et al. (2015)13 23 HC 25–27 PEG (Moviprep) 2 L, split or single-dose S 1 d before, immediately after, 14 d after, 28 d after CS V1 & V6, phylogenic microarray → → ↓ No. of bacteria & methanogenic archaea, ↑ G(+)/G(–) ratio, ↑ Proteobacteria ↓ Bacilli, ↓ Clostridium cluster IV, ↑ Clostridium cluster IX & XIVa • Restored after 14 d and 28 d
      • Split dose has a less disturbing and better recovery than the single dose
      Shobar et al. (2016)14 18 HC & patients (5 CD, 3 UC) 49–55.4 11 PEG, 7 Sodium phosphate S, M Before, after SS FLX platform • M (IBD): ↓ Shannon index Significantly different only in IBD NA NA NA
      • M (HC): ↓ PD-WT
      Drago et al. (2016)15 10 HC 40–68 PEG 4 L, single-dose S Before, immediately after, 1 mo after CS V2-4-8, V3-6, V7–9. Ion Torrent PGM system ↓ Shannon index NA • Immediately after: ↓ Firmicutes, ↑ Proteobacteria • Immediately after: ↑ γ-Proteobacteria, ↑ Coriobacteriia, ↑ Enterobacteriaceae, ↓ Clostridia, ↓ Lactobacillaceae, ↓ Porphyromonodaceae, ↓ Veillonellaceae • Shannon index recovered at 1 mo after
      • 1 mo after: ↓ γ-Proteobacteria, ↓ α-Proteobacteria, ↓ Lactobacillaceae, ↓ Enterobacteriaceae, ↓ Streptococcaceae, ↑ Rikenellaceae, ↑ Eubacteriaceae • Disturbed phylum composition recovered at 1m after but not completely at class and family level
      Shaw et al. (2017)16 18 HC & patients (CD, UC, IBS, JPC, food allergies, recurrent mucosal candidiasis) 4–17 Sodium picosulfate with MgC and senna S, M, rectal swab Before, immediately after, >2 wk after CS V3–V5, GS Junior → → → • Immediately after: ↑ Bacteroidia, ↑ Faecalibacterium, ↓ γ-Proteobacteria, ↓Ruminococcus, ↓ Escherichia, ↓ Pseudobutyrivibrio, ↓ Subdoligranulum NA
      • >2 wk after: ↑ Christensenellaceae
      Chen et al. (2018)17 20 Overweight adults (mean BMI 28.92 kg/cm2) 40.5 Phospho-Soda (Fleet)+water 3–4 L, split-dose S Before, 7 d after, 1 mo after CS V4, Illumina MiSeq • Bacteroides-dominant group: → → → • Prevotella-dominant group: • Shannon index recovered 28 d after
      • Prevotella-dominant group: ↑ Bacteroides, ↓ Prevotella in 7 d after
      ↑Shannon index 7 d after, ↓richness 28 d after
      Kim et al. (2021)18 24 HC 42.8±11.9 PEG (Coolprep)+20 g AA solution, 4 L, split-dose S Before, 7 d after, 1 mo after CS V3–V4, Illumina MiSeq • Baseline α-diversity: Cx(–)>Cx(+) → • Baseline F/B ratio: Cx(+) > Cx(–) Similar pattern with the phylum level • Cx(+) group: F/B ratio recovered 28 d after
      • Cx(–) group: ↓ Simpson index • Cx(+) group:
      • Cx(+) group: → ↓ F/B ratio 7d after, ↑ Proteobacteria 28 d after
      Batista et al. (2022)19 55 HC & patients (16 MC, 16 BAD, 11 FDr) 62.0±1.5 PEG, split-dose S Before, 30 d after CS V4, Illumina MiSeq •HC: → Shannon index, → Chao1 index NA NA NA NA
      •MC & FDr: ↑ Shannon index
      Nalluri-Butz et al. (2022)20 15 HC & patients (7 hematochezia, 1 CDr) 48.3±15.3 PEG (14 Miralax+MgC, 1 GoLYTELY) S Before, during, 10 d after, 30 d after, 180 d after CS & OP V4, Illumina MiSeq → → → → NA
      Powles et al. (2022)21 11 Patients (9 bowel habit changes &/or diarrhea, 2 UC) 41 PEG (MoviPrep) 2 L, split-dose S, U Before, 3 d after, 6 wk after CS V1–2, Illumina MiSeq ↓ Shannon index at 3 d after → → → • Shannon index recovered 6 wk after
      • Fecal & urine metabolite was not affected by CS
      Zou et al. (2023)22 19 HC 10.01±3.47 PEG, ≤3 L, split-dose S 1 d before, 2 d after, 2 wk after, 4 wk after CS Illumina MiSeq • ↓ Shannon index at 2 d after → → • 2 d after: ↑Escherichia coli, ↑Bacteroides fragilis, ↑Veillonella parvula, ↓Intertinibacter bartlettii • Shannon index recovered at 2 wk after
      • 2 wk after:↑Eubacterium • Disturbed composition restored at 2, 4 wk after
      Bacsur et al. (2023)23 41 HC & patients (9 CD, 13 UC) UC 45.54±12.46, CD 32.03±7.59 Sodium picosulfate and MgO (10 mg and 3.5 g per dose), split-dose S 1 wk before, 3 d after, 4 wk after BP V4, Illumina MiSeq • UC: ↑ Shannon index at 4 wk after → → • HC: ↑ Brucellaceae, ↑ Moraxellaceae, ↑ Alcaligenaceae NA
      • CD & HC: → Shannon index • Relapsing IBD after CS: ↓B ifidobacterium, ↓Lactococcus, ↑ Enterococcaceae, ↑ Streptococcaceae
      Study Subject Age (yr) BP agent Probiotics Effect on post-colonoscopic symptom Gut microbiota change compared to baseline after CS compared to baselinea)
      α-Diversity β-Diversity Phylum level Below phylum level Recovery
      Lee et al. (2010)43 51 C(+) PRG 40.5±11.4 NaP solution (Solin), split-dose Bacillus subtilis 1×109 cfu & Streptococcus faecium 9×109 cfu bid for 2 wk before CS • C(+): lower symptom in PRG than in PLG NA NA NA NA NA
      53 C(+) PLG 42.2±11.7 • C(–): no difference between PRG & PLG
      53 C(–) PRG 40.6±10.6
      54 C(–) PLG 41.7±10.8
      D'Souza et al. (2017)44 133 HC PRG 61.6±13.8 Sodium picosulfate Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM 1.25×1010 & Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07 1.25×1010 cfu qd for 2 wk after CS • Lower pain days in PRG than PLG NA NA NA NA NA
      126 HC PLG 60.1±12.8 • Patients with preexisting abdominal pain benefit from probiotics
      Mullaney et al. (2019)45 75 HC PRG 58.6 Sodium picosulphate+PEG (Prep kit C)+colonoscopy with CO2 Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM 1.25×1010 & Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07 1.25×1010 cfu qd for 2 w after CS • No difference between PRG & PLG NA NA NA NA NA
      75 HC PLG 58.2 • Lower incidence of bloating in PRG who had preexisting GI symptoms
      Deng et al. (2020)46 16 HC PRG 53.5 2 L PEG single-dose Bifidobacterium infantis >0.5×106 cfu, Lactobacillus acidophilus >0.5×106 cfu, Enterococcus faecalis >0.5×106 cfu, Bacillus cereus >0.5×105 cfu tid, for 5–7 d after CS NA • PLG: ↓ 7 d after CS • PLG: significantly differs compared with baseline after 7 d •PLG: ↑ Proteobacteria, ↑ Actinobacter NA • PLG: Proteobacteria & Actinobacter were recovered,
      16 HC PLG 48.2 • PRG: ↑ 7 d after CS • PRG: restore to baseline level after 7d • PRG: ↑ Proteobacteria, ↓ Firmicutes ↑ Bifidobacterium, ↑ Streptococcus, ↑ Acinetobacteria, ↓ Fecalibacterium 7 d after CS
      • PRG: Proteobacteria was sharply recovered, ↑ Bacteroidetes, ↑ Bifidobacterium, ↑ Fecalibacterium
      Liu et al. (2022)47 48 CP(+) PRG 58.67±9.44 NA Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis MH-02 2×109 cfu qd, for 7 d after CS • No difference between PRG & PLG PRG>PLG Significantly differences between PRG & PLG NA ↑ Bifidobacterium, ↑ Faecalibacterium, ↑ Dorea, ↑ Roseburia, ↑ Gemmiger, ↓ Clostridium in PRG than PLG Compared to control
      52 CP(+) PLG 59.25±11.33 • Higher laxative use in PLG than PRG • ↓ Bifidobacterium in both groups, but PRG>PLG
      • ↓ Ruminococcus, ↓ Blautia, ↓ Gemmiger,↑ Clostridium in PLG, but → in PRG
      Labenz et al. (2022)48 45 HC PRG 59.3 PEG (Moviprep or Plenvu)+colonoscopy with CO2 Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, Bifidobacterium lactis W51, Enterococcus faecium W54, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, Lactobacillus rhamnosus WGG, Lactococcus lactis W19, 2.7×1010 cfu bid for 30 d after CS • Lower constipation, pain, bloating, diarrhea, and general discomfort in PRG than PLG • PLG: → 30 d after CS • PLG: → 30 d after CS NA • PRG: ↑ Clostridioides sp. CAG:417, ↓ Bacillales bacterium UBA660, ↓ Duodenibacillus, NA
      42 HC PLG 59.9 • PRG: → 30 d after CS • PRG: → 30 d after CS ↓ Ruminiclostridium, ↓ uncultured Clostridioides sp. UMGS1663
      • PLG: ↓ Clostridioides sp. CAG:417
      Son et al. (2023)49 26 HC PRG 54.4±7.8 PEG+AA Lactobacillus acidophilus CBT LA1, Lactobacillus rhamnosus CBT LR5, Bifidobacterium lactis CBT BL3, Bifidobacterium longum CBT BG7, Bifidobacterium bifidum CBT BFs, Streptococcus thermophilus CBT ST3, 1×1010 cfu, for 30 d before CS • Lower symptom duration in PRG than PLG ↓ After 1–2 d after CS in PLG only compared to 2–3 d before → NA Higher number of↓taxa after CS in PLG than PRG • PRG: restored to baseline
      25 HC PLG 53.1±8.3 • PLG: ↓ few taxa including Gastranaerophilales & Clostridia_UCG_014
      Table 1. Studies associated with the effects of bowel preparation and colonoscopy on gut microbiota

      Values are presented as mean±standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

      BP, bowel preparation; CS, colonoscopy; HC, healthy control; NA, non-available; S, stool; DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; PEG, polyethylene glycol; M, mucosal biopsy; TRFLP, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; →, no significant change; OTU, operative taxonomic units; LAB, lactic acid bacteria; CD, Crohn's disease; UC, ulcerative colitis; IDA, iron deficiency anemia; SS, sigmoidoscopy; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; PD-WT, phylogenetic diversity-whole tree metric; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; JPC, Juvenile polyposis coli; AA, ascorbic acid; Cx, complication; MC, microscopic colitis; BAD, bile acid diarrhea; FDr, functional diarrhea; CDr, chronic diarrhea; MgC, magnesium citrate; MgO, magnesium oxide; U, urine; NA, non-available; d, days; wk, weeks; mo, months.

      Table 2. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of probiotics on colonoscopy-induced gastrointestinal symptoms and gut microbiota alterations

      Values are presented as mean±standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

      BP, bowel preparation; CS, colonoscopy; C, constipation; PRG, probiotics group; PLG, placebo group; PBG, probiotic group; NaP, sodium phosphate; cfu, colony-forming unit; bid, twice daily; tid, three times daily; qd, once daily; NA, non-available; HC, healthy control without colon pathology, screening or post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy; PEG, polyethylene glycol; ↑, increase; ↓, decrease; →, no significant change; CP, colonic polyp; AA, ascorbic acid.

      All studies were conducted with stool samples by Illumina MiSeq.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
      Close layer
      TOP