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

被引:5
|
作者
Kmochova, Klara [1 ,2 ]
Grega, Tomas [1 ,2 ]
Ngo, Ondrej [3 ]
Vojtechova, Gabriela [1 ,2 ]
Majek, Ondrej [3 ]
Urbanek, Petr [1 ,2 ]
Zavoral, Miroslav [1 ,2 ]
Suchanek, Stepan [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Charles Univ Prague, Fac Med 1, Dept Med, Prague, Czech Republic
[2] Mil Univ Hosp, Prague, Czech Republic
[3] Masaryk Univ, Inst Biostat & Anal, Fac Med, Brno, Czech Republic
关键词
bowel preparation; cleansing agents; colonoscopy; quality of colonoscopy; screening; polyp detection rate; ORAL SULFATE-SOLUTION; ADENOMA DETECTION RATE; COLORECTAL-CANCER; POLYETHYLENE-GLYCOL; TRIAL; RISK; MULTICENTER; INDICATORS; CITRATE;
D O I
10.15403/jgld-3401
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background & 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). Conclusion: All tested laxatives provided comparable efficacy in terms of bowel cleansing quality and PDR. The low-volume agent MCSP was the best tolerated.
引用
收藏
页码:213 / 220
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy: A multicentre prospective regional study
    Rotondano, Gianluca
    Rispo, Antonio
    Bottiglieri, Maria E.
    De Luca, Leonardo
    Lamanda, Roberto
    Orsini, Luigi
    Bruzzese, Dario
    Galloro, Giuseppe
    DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, 2015, 47 (08) : 669 - 674
  • [12] Efficacy of elobixibat as bowel preparation agent for colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multi-center study
    Yamaguchi, Daisuke
    Hidaka, Hidenori
    Matsunaga, Takuya
    Akutagawa, Takashi
    Tanaka, Yuichiro
    Jubashi, Amane
    Takeuchi, Yuki
    Tsuruoka, Nanae
    Sakata, Yasuhisa
    Miyahara, Koichi
    Tominaga, Naoyuki
    Kawakubo, Hiroharu
    Takamori, Ayako
    Shimoda, Ryo
    Noda, Takahiro
    Ogata, Shinichi
    Tsunada, Seiji
    Esaki, Motohiro
    DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2022, 34 (01) : 171 - 179
  • [13] Comparison of bowel-cleansing efficacy of split-dose and same-day dose bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy in patients with gastrectomy: a prospective randomized study
    Tae-Geun Gweon
    Cheal Wung Huh
    Jeong Seon Ji
    Chang Hyun Kim
    Jin-Jo Kim
    Seung-Man Park
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2020, 34 : 4413 - 4421
  • [14] Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
    Choi, Youn, I
    Lee, Jong-Joon
    Chung, Jun-Won
    Kim, Kyoung Oh
    Kim, Yoon Jae
    Kim, Jung Ho
    Park, Dong Kyun
    Kwon, Kwang An
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (10) : 1 - 11
  • [15] Predictive Factors of Adequate Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy in the Elderly: A Retrospective Analysis of a Prospective Cohort
    Maida, Marcello
    Facciorusso, Antonio
    Sinagra, Emanuele
    Morreale, Gaetano
    Sferrazza, Sandro
    Scalisi, Giuseppe
    Pallio, Socrate
    Camilleri, Salvatore
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2022, 12 (11)
  • [16] Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG
    Arieira, Catia
    Dias de Castro, Francisca
    Boal Carvalho, Pedro
    Magalhaes, Joana
    Xavier, Sofia
    Sousa, Carla
    Rosa, Bruno
    Cotter, Jose
    ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN, 2021, 09 (11) : E1602 - E1610
  • [17] Inclusion of a Spasmolytic in Bowel Cleansing A Prospective Randomized Study
    Beyazit, Yavuz
    Koklu, Seyfettin
    Ozturk, Zeynel Abidin
    Yueksel, Osman
    Ibis, Mehmet
    Arhan, Mehmet
    Gultuna, Selcan
    Sezer, Seda
    Yuksel, Ilhami
    Babali, Aysegul
    GASTROENTEROLOGY NURSING, 2011, 34 (05) : 352 - 355
  • [18] A randomized, prospective trial on efficacy and tolerability of low-volume bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy
    Yoo, In Kyung
    Lee, Jong Soo
    Chun, Hoon Jai
    Jeen, Yoon Tae
    Keum, Bora
    Kim, Eun Sun
    Choi, Hyuk Soon
    Lee, Jae Min
    Kim, Seung Han
    Nam, Seung Joo
    Kang, Hyo Sung
    Lee, Hong Sik
    Kim, Chang Duck
    Um, Soon Ho
    Seo, Yeon Seok
    Ryu, Ho Sang
    DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, 2015, 47 (02) : 131 - 137
  • [19] Can nutritional supplements and rectal enema be used as bowel cleansing for colonoscopy? - results of a randomized controlled pilot study
    Gustafsson, Ulf O.
    Segelman, Josefin
    Ljungqvist, Olle
    Thorell, Anders
    Nygren, Jonas
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 49 (04) : 485 - 491
  • [20] Bowel Cleansing Agents in Clinical Practice: A Cross-Sectional Study on Safety, Efficacy, and Predictor of Good Bowel Preparation
    Joshi, Vivek
    Jain, Mayank
    Srinivas, M.
    Mahadevan, B.
    Kumar, G. S. Sameer
    Ganesh, P.
    Reddy, Alla Siddharth
    Venkataraman, Jayanthi
    JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2019, 10 (01) : 39 - 43