Randomized single blind trial of two low-volume bowel preparations for screening computed tomographic colonography

被引:2
作者
Forbes, GM
Edwards, JT
Foster, NM
Wood, CJ
Mendelson, RM
机构
[1] Royal Perth Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Perth, WA 6001, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, Royal Perth Hosp, Sch Med & Pharmacol, Perth, WA 6001, Australia
[3] Univ Western Australia, Royal Perth Hosp, Sch Surg & Pathol, Perth, WA 6001, Australia
来源
ABDOMINAL IMAGING | 2005年 / 30卷 / 01期
关键词
bowel preparation; computed tomographic colonography; adverse events; acceptability;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-004-0226-z
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Bowel preparation is an important part of computed tomographic colonography (CTC); we evaluated two small-volume preparations for screening CTC with regard to quality of preparation and patient acceptability. Methods: Asymptornatic subjects at average risk for colorectal cancer from a community-based CTC screening program were randomized to bowel preparation comprising magnesium/bisacodyl/picolax or polyethylene glycol (PEG)/picolax. CTC images were evaluated by a blinded investigator for residual feces and fluid; subjects completed a questionnaire regarding acceptability of the preparation. Results: In 176 subjects randomized to magnesium/bisacodyl/picolax (n = 82) or PEG/picolax (n = 94), the former preparation was discontinued because of syncope or presyncope in four (5%) subjects. Another 137 subjects received PEG/picolax without a significant adverse event. There were no other major differences in acceptability of the preparations as reported by subjects. The quality of bowel preparations for reporting CTC was similar. Conclusion: For subjects having screening CTC, both small-volume bowel preparations are generally well tolerated and result in minimal fluid and fecal residue; however, the magnesium/bisacodyl/picolax preparation was accompanied by an unacceptable incidence of syncope and is no longer used by us.
引用
收藏
页码:48 / 52
页数:5
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
*ADV DRUG REACT AD, 2002, AUST ADV DRUG REACT, V21, P1
[2]   Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial [J].
Atkin, WS ;
Cook, CF ;
Cuzick, J ;
Edwards, R ;
Northover, JMA ;
Wardle, J .
LANCET, 2002, 359 (9314) :1291-1300
[3]   CT colonography without cathartic preparation: Feasibility study [J].
Callstrom, MR ;
Johnson, CD ;
Fletcher, JG ;
Reed, JE ;
Ahlquist, DA ;
Harmsen, WS ;
Tait, K ;
Wilson, LA ;
Corcoran, KE .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 219 (03) :693-698
[4]   Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: Community-based study [J].
Edwards, JT ;
Mendelson, RM ;
Fritschi, L ;
Foster, NM ;
Wood, C ;
Murray, D ;
Forbes, GM .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 230 (02) :459-464
[5]   A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps [J].
Fenlon, HM ;
Nunes, DP ;
Schroy, PC ;
Barish, MA ;
Clarke, PD ;
Ferrucci, JT .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 341 (20) :1496-1503
[6]   Colon cancer screening with virtual colonoscopy: Promise, polyps, politics [J].
Ferrucci, JT .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2001, 177 (05) :975-988
[7]  
FOSTER NM, 2000, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V15, pJ81
[8]   Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation [J].
Hsu, CW ;
Imperiale, TF .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1998, 48 (03) :276-282
[9]   COST-EFFECTIVENESS MODEL FOR COLON-CANCER SCREENING [J].
LIEBERMAN, DA .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1995, 109 (06) :1781-1790
[10]   Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography [J].
Macari, M ;
Lavelle, M ;
Pedrosa, I ;
Milano, A ;
Dicker, M ;
Megibow, AJ ;
Xue, XN .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 218 (01) :274-277