Objective To compare the quality of cleansing, adverse events, and patient tolerability of four different methods of colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy. Methods Three hundred and twenty patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into four groups in a prospective, single-blind, controlled trial. Group A received 4 litres of compound polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder (PEG). Group B received 2 litres of PEG plus oral phenolphthalein tablets. Group C received 2 litres of PEG, patients in group D received magnesium sulfate plus phenolphthalein tablets. The quality of cleansing, adverse events and patient tolerability were compared between the four groups. Results Group A and B (90.0%, 88.8%, respectively) showed a significantly greater quality of colon cleansing, compared with groups C and D (73.8%, 67.5%, respectively) (P<0.05). The incidence of adverse events in Group D (42.5%) was significantly higher, compared with group A, B, and C (21.3%, 25.0%, 27.6%, respectively) (P<0.05). A significantly lower tolerability was also observed in group D (75.0%), compared with group A, B, and C (95.0%, 92.5%, 87.5%, respectively) (P<0.05). Conclusions Four litres of PEG and low –volume PEG plus other synergistic laxatives are safe, effective and well tolerated by patients for colon cleansing, and can provide better colon cleansing quality.
Key words
bowel preparation /
colonoscopy /
pdyethylene glycol electrolyte powder /
magnesium sulfate /
phenolphthalein
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Clark B T, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate [J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2014, 109(11):1714-1723.
[2] Connor A, Tolan D, Hughes S, et al. Consensus guidelines for the safe prescription and administration of oral bowel—cleansing agents [J]. Gut, 2012, 61(11): 1525-1532.
[3] Bini E J, Unger J S, Rieber J M, et al. Prospective, randomized,single--blind comparison of two preparation for screening flexible sigmoidoseopy [J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2000, 52(2): 218-222.
[4] Van Doorn S C, Dekker E. Colonoscopy quality begins with a clean colon[J]. Endoscopy, 2012, 44(7): 639-640.
[5] Johnson D A, Barkun A N, Cohen L B, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer [J]. Gastroenterology, 2014, 147(4): 903-924.
[6] Carpentier P, Foquin A, Dorandeu F. Hypertonie mannitol in mice poisoned by a convulsive dose of soman:antilethal activity without neuroprotection [J]. Toxwology, 2010, 268(1-2): 78-88.
[7] Ell C, Fischbach W, Keller R, et al. A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01) [J]. Endoscopy, 2003, 35(4): 300-304.
[8] Coghlan E, Laferrere L, Ayunta H, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy:comparative study using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [J]. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam, 2012, 42(3): 186-l92.
[9] Marschall H U, Barrels F. Life threatening complications of nasogastric administration of polyethylene glycolelectrolyte solutions (Golytely) for bowel cleansing [J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 1998, 47(5): 408-410.
[10] Walia R, Steffen R, Feinberg L, et al. The tolerability, safety and efficacy of PEG 3350 as a one day bowel preparation in children[J]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr, 2013, 56(2): 225-228.
[11] Johnson D A, Barkun A N, Cohen L B, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer [J]. Gastroenterology, 2014, 47(4): 903-924.
[12] Brahmania M, Ou G, Bressler B, et al. 2 L versus 4 L of PEG3350 + electrolytes for outpatient colonic preparation: a randomized, controlled trial [J], Gastrointest Endosc, 2014,79(3):408-416.
PDF(674 KB)
