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

Varování

Publikace nespadá pod Fakultu sportovních studií, ale pod Lékařskou fakultu. Oficiální stránka publikace je na webu muni.cz.
Autoři

KMOCHOVA Klara GREGA Tomas NGO Ondřej VOJTECHOVA Gabriela MÁJEK Ondřej URBANEK Petr ZAVORAL Miroslav SUCHANEK Stepan

Rok publikování 2021
Druh Článek v odborném periodiku
Časopis / Zdroj Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases
Fakulta / Pracoviště MU

Lékařská fakulta

Citace
www https://www.jgld.ro/jgld/index.php/jgld/article/view/3401
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.15403/jgld-3401
Klíčová slova bowel preparation; cleansing agents; colonoscopy; quality of colonoscopy; screening; polyp detection rate
Popis 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.
Související projekty:

Používáte starou verzi internetového prohlížeče. Doporučujeme aktualizovat Váš prohlížeč na nejnovější verzi.

Další info