Comparison of Four Bowel Cleansing Agents for Colonoscopy and the Factors Affecting their Efficacy. A Prospective, Randomized Study.


Journal

Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases : JGLD
ISSN: 1842-1121
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointestin Liver Dis
Pays: Romania
ID NLM: 101272825

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 06 2021
Historique:
pubmed: 6 5 2021
medline: 15 1 2022
entrez: 5 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful and effective colonoscopy. Several types of cleansing agents are currently available including low-volume solutions. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different bowel cleansing agents. A single-center, prospective, randomized, and single-blind study was performed. Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomized into one of the following types of laxatives: polyethylenglycol 4L (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OSS), 2L polyethylenglycol + ascorbate (2L-PEG/Asc), or magnesium citrate + sodium picosulfate (MCSP). The primary outcome was quality of bowel cleansing evaluated according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR) and tolerability. Final analysis was performed on 431 patients. The number of patients with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥6 and sub scores ≥2 in each segment) was not significantly different throughout all groups (95.4% PEG; 94.6% OSS; 96.3% 2L-PEG/Asc; 96.2% MCSP; p=0.955). Excellent bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥ 8) was associated with younger age (p=0.007). The groups did not have significantly different PDRs (49.5% PEG; 49.1% OSS; 38% 2L-PEG/Asc; 40.4% MCSP; p=0.201). The strongest predictors of pathology identification were age and male gender. The best-tolerated solution was MCSP (palatability: p<0.001; nausea: p=0.024).

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful and effective colonoscopy. Several types of cleansing agents are currently available including low-volume solutions. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different bowel cleansing agents.
METHODS
A single-center, prospective, randomized, and single-blind study was performed. Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomized into one of the following types of laxatives: polyethylenglycol 4L (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OSS), 2L polyethylenglycol + ascorbate (2L-PEG/Asc), or magnesium citrate + sodium picosulfate (MCSP). The primary outcome was quality of bowel cleansing evaluated according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR) and tolerability.
RESULTS
Final analysis was performed on 431 patients. The number of patients with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥6 and sub scores ≥2 in each segment) was not significantly different throughout all groups (95.4% PEG; 94.6% OSS; 96.3% 2L-PEG/Asc; 96.2% MCSP; p=0.955). Excellent bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥ 8) was associated with younger age (p=0.007). The groups did not have significantly different PDRs (49.5% PEG; 49.1% OSS; 38% 2L-PEG/Asc; 40.4% MCSP; p=0.201). The strongest predictors of pathology identification were age and male gender. The best-tolerated solution was MCSP (palatability: p<0.001; nausea: p=0.024).

Identifiants

pubmed: 33951124
doi: 10.15403/jgld-3401
doi:

Substances chimiques

Cathartics 0
Detergents 0
Polyethylene Glycols 3WJQ0SDW1A

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

213-220

Auteurs

Klara Kmochova (K)

Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. . klara.kmochova@uvn.cz.

Tomas Grega (T)

Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. tomas.grega@uvn.cz.

Ondrej Ngo (O)

Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. ngo@iba.muni.cz.

Gabriela Vojtechova (G)

Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. gabriela.vojtechova@uvn.cz.

Ondrej Majek (O)

Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. majek@iba.muni.cz.

Petr Urbanek (P)

Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. petr.urbanek@uvn.cz.

Miroslav Zavoral (M)

Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. miroslav.zavoral@uvn.cz.

Stepan Suchanek (S)

Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. stepan.suchanek@uvn.cz.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH