Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

被引:0
作者
Akram, Umar [1 ]
Ahmed, Shahzaib [2 ]
Fatima, Eeshal [3 ]
Ahmad, Eeman [2 ]
Ashraf, Hamza [1 ]
Hassan, Syed Adeel [4 ]
Qureshi, Zaheer [5 ]
Altaf, Faryal [6 ]
Buckles, Daniel [7 ]
Iqbal, Javed [8 ]
Ahmed, Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed [9 ]
机构
[1] Allama Iqbal Med Coll, Dept Med, Lahore, Pakistan
[2] Fatima Mem Hosp, Coll Med & Dent, Dept Med, Lahore, Pakistan
[3] Serv Inst Med Sci, Dept Med, Lahore, Pakistan
[4] Univ Kentucky, Div Digest Dis & Nutr, Lexington, KY USA
[5] Quinnipiac Univ, Frank H Netter MD Sch Med, Bridgeport, CT USA
[6] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, BronxCare Hlth Syst, Dept Internal Med, New York, NY USA
[7] Univ Kansas, Med Ctr, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Kansas City, MO USA
[8] Hamad Med Corp, Nursing Dept, Doha, Qatar
[9] Univ Khartoum, Fac Med, Khartoum, Sudan
来源
DEN OPEN | 2025年 / 5卷 / 01期
关键词
adenoma; colonoscopy; colorectal neoplasms; meta-analysis; polyethylene glycols; COLORECTAL-CANCER MORTALITY; BOWEL PREPARATION; PREPARATION QUALITY; IMPACT; GUIDELINES; CONSENSUS; BIAS; OSS;
D O I
10.1002/deo2.70113
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy. Methods: Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50; p-value <0.01; I2 = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.82; p-value = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions. Conclusion: OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 72 条
[1]   Impact of racial disparities in follow-up and quality of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer outcomes [J].
Alagoz, Oguzhan ;
May, Folasade P. ;
Doubeni, Chyke A. ;
Fendrick, A. Mark ;
Vahdat, Vahab ;
Estes, Chris ;
Ellis, Travelle ;
Limburg, Paul J. ;
Brooks, Durado .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2024, 116 (11) :1807-1816
[2]   Oral sulfate solution versus low-volume polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Ali, Ijlal Akbar ;
Roton, Daniel ;
Madhoun, Mohammed .
DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2022, 34 (04) :721-728
[3]   The National Burden of Colorectal Cancer in the United States from 1990 to 2019 [J].
Alsakarneh, Saqr ;
Jaber, Fouad ;
Beran, Azizullah ;
Aldiabat, Mohammad ;
Abboud, Yazan ;
Hassan, Noor ;
Abdallah, Mohamed ;
Abdelfattah, Thaer ;
Numan, Laith ;
Clarkston, Wendell ;
Bilal, Mohammad ;
Shaukat, Aasma .
CANCERS, 2024, 16 (01)
[4]   Comparison of a Novel, Flavor-optimized, Polyethylene Glycol and Sulfate Bowel Preparation With Oral Sulfate Solution in Adults Undergoing Colonoscopy [J].
Bhandari, Raj ;
Goldstein, Michael ;
Mishkin, Daniel S. ;
McGowan, John ;
Cleveland, Mark vB. ;
Di Palma, Jack A. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 57 (09) :920-927
[5]   Impact of Obesity on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy [J].
Borg, Brian B. ;
Gupta, Nitin K. ;
Zuckerman, Gary R. ;
Banerjee, Bhaskar ;
Gyawali, C. Prakash .
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2009, 7 (06) :670-675
[6]  
Brenner H, 2014, NEW ENGL J MED, V371, P184, DOI [10.1056/NEJMoa1311194, 10.1056/NEJMc1405215]
[7]   Association Between Age and Complications After Outpatient Colonoscopy [J].
Causada-Calo, Natalia ;
Bishay, Kirles ;
Albashir, Siwar ;
Al Mazroui, Ahmed ;
Armstrong, David .
JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2020, 3 (06)
[8]   Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Chen, Cheng ;
Shi, Mengyang ;
Liao, Zhongli ;
Chen, Weiqing ;
Wu, Yongzhong ;
Tian, Xu .
DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2022, 34 (06) :1121-1133
[9]   Effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing in reducing colorectal cancer mortality from the One Million Taiwanese Screening Program [J].
Chiu, Han-Mo ;
Chen, Sam Li-Sheng ;
Yen, Amy Ming-Fang ;
Chiu, Sherry Yueh-Hsia ;
Fann, Jean Ching-Yuan ;
Lee, Yi-Chia ;
Pan, Shin-Liang ;
Wu, Ming-Shiang ;
Liao, Chao-Sheng ;
Chen, Hsiu-Hsi ;
Koong, Shin-Lan ;
Chiou, Shu-Ti .
CANCER, 2015, 121 (18) :3221-3229
[10]   Adverse events in older patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Day, Lukejohn W. ;
Kwon, Annette ;
Inadomi, John M. ;
Walter, Louise C. ;
Somsouk, Ma .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2011, 74 (04) :885-896