3 liters of polyethylene glycol vs. standard bowel preparation have equal efficacy in a Chinese population: a randomized, controlled trial

被引:1
作者
Cheng, Peng [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Qingqi [1 ]
Li, Juyuan [1 ]
Pang, Li [1 ]
Feng, Caituan [1 ]
Wang, Ning [1 ]
Bai, Yu [3 ]
Li, Zhaoshen [3 ]
Meng, Xiangjun [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Hainan West Cent Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, 2 Fubo East Rd, Danzhou 571799, Hainan, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 9, Dept Gastroenterol, Sch Med, 280 Mohe Rd, Shanghai 201999, Peoples R China
[3] Second Mil Med Univ, Changhai Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, Shanghai 200000, Peoples R China
[4] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 9, Dept Gastroenterol, Sch Med, Shanghai 201999, Peoples R China
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH | 2022年 / 14卷 / 08期
基金
海南省自然科学基金;
关键词
PEG; colonoscopy; quality of bowel preparation; tolerability; ADENOMA DETECTION RATE; COLORECTAL-CANCER; COLONOSCOPY; IMPACT; QUALITY; SIMETHICONE; ASSOCIATION; VALIDATION; RISK;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends 4L Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) as the standard regimen for bowel preparation (BP). The current study compared 3L and 4L PEG with regard to their effectiveness, tolerability, and safety among Chinese patients to identify the best bowel cleansing method for this population. Methods: The study employed a prospective, observer-blinded, randomized and controlled de-sign in a high-volume endoscopic center. Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned (1:1) to the 3L-PEG or 4L-PEG group. The quality of bowel cleansing, procedure time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient tolerance, and adverse events were compared. Results: A total of 330 patients were included in the study. After exclusions, 160 cases in the 3L-PEG group and 158 cases in the 4L-PEG group were included in the final analy-sis. The quality of bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) for both the whole intestine and each segment had no significant differences between the groups (P > 0.05). No significant differences were found with regard to procedure time or ADR. The incidences of adverse events such as nausea (P = 0.001), vomiting (P = 0.002), and bloating (P < 0.001) were lower in the 3L-PEG group. Moreover, there was a higher rate of satisfaction in the 3L-PEG group than in the 4L-PEG group (P = 0.009). Conclusions: 3L-PEG bowel cleansing represents an optimal alternative to a 4L-PEG preparation, showing similar efficacy and superior levels of satisfaction, acceptability, and safety among users. We recommend 3L PEG as a routine regimen in the clinical setting for Chinese patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03356015, registered in 29 November, 2017, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03356015).
引用
收藏
页码:5641 / 5650
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Lubiprostone plus polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) versus PEG-ELS for bowel preparation in chronic constipation: a randomized controlled trial
    Tangvoraphonkchai, K.
    Manasirisuk, W.
    Sawadpanich, K.
    Suttichaimongkol, T.
    Mairiang, P.
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01)
  • [42] Polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid is as effective as sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate for bowel preparation: A randomized trial
    Choi, Hyun-Seok
    Chung, Jun-Won
    Lee, Ji Won
    Lim, Min Young
    Park, Dong Kyun
    Kim, Yoon Jae
    Kwon, Kwang Ahn
    Kim, Jung Ho
    JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 2016, 17 (04) : 268 - 273
  • [43] Addition of Lubiprostone to polyethylene glycol(PEG) enhances the quality & efficacy of colonoscopy preparation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial
    Rupa Banerjee
    Hrushikesh Chaudhari
    Nirish Shah
    Arjunan Saravanan
    Manu Tandan
    D. Nageshwar Reddy
    BMC Gastroenterology, 16
  • [44] Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial
    Chaussade, Stanislas
    Schmoecker, Christoph
    Toulemonde, Pierre
    Munoz-Navas, Miguel
    O'Mahony, Valerie
    Henri, Franck
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (05): : 2166 - 2173
  • [45] Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial
    Stanislas Chaussade
    Christoph Schmöcker
    Pierre Toulemonde
    Miguel Muñoz-Navas
    Valérie O’Mahony
    Franck Henri
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2017, 31 : 2166 - 2173
  • [46] Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study
    Liu, Wan-qi
    Shu, Lei
    Zhou, Xiaoli
    Wang, Xiao-feng
    Liu, Song
    Shi, Zhao-hong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2024, 39 (01)
  • [47] Safety and efficacy comparison of polyethylene glycol, hemp seed oil, and 5% sugar brine for bowel preparation in older patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Xing Wang Zhu
    Jun Yan
    Long Miao
    Ying Li He
    Hai Ping Wang
    Xun Li
    Trials, 24
  • [48] Clear Liquids versus Polyethylene Glycol Preparation for Video Capsule Endoscopy of the Small Bowel: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Bahar, Runalia
    Gupta, Asha
    Mann, Surinder K.
    DIGESTION, 2019, 99 (03) : 213 - 218
  • [49] Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department: High-Volume vs. Low-Volume Peg Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial
    Saviano, Angela
    Petruzziello, Carmine
    Riccioni, Maria Elena
    Di Pumpo, Marcello
    Petrucci, Martina
    Brigida, Mattia
    Zanza, Christian
    Candelli, Marcello
    Franceschi, Francesco
    Ojetti, Veronica
    REVIEWS ON RECENT CLINICAL TRIALS, 2023, 18 (01) : 76 - 81
  • [50] Effect of bowel preparation completion time on bowel cleansing efficacy: Prospective randomized controlled trial of different bowel preparation completion times precolonoscopy
    Kim, Hye Min
    Kim, Hyo Suk
    An, Young Eun
    Chang, Jae Hyuck
    Kim, Tae Ho
    Kim, Chang Whan
    Gweon, Tae-Geun
    DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2024, 36 (12) : 1347 - 1354