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
  • [21] Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets vs polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing
    Jung, Yoon Suk
    Lee, Chang Kyun
    Kim, Hyo Jong
    Eun, Chang Soo
    Han, Dong Soo
    Park, Dong Il
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 20 (42) : 15845 - 15851
  • [22] Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets vs polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing
    Yoon Suk Jung
    Chang Kyun Lee
    Hyo Jong Kim
    Chang Soo Eun
    Dong Soo Han
    Dong Ⅱ Park
    World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2014, 20 (42) : 15845 - 15851
  • [23] A Randomized Trial of Standard vs. Split-dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte (PEG-E) Bowel Preparation for Inpatient Colonoscopy 2009 ACG/Olympus Award
    Lim, Roxanne
    Barkatullah, Sameer
    Soudagar, A. Samad
    Brown, Michael
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2009, 104 : S169 - S169
  • [24] Polyethylene glycol (PEG) vs. sodium phosphate (NaP) for bowel preparation: A meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials by treatment ARM
    Juluri, Ravi
    Eckert, George
    Imperiale, Thomas
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2008, 103 : S188 - S189
  • [25] Randomized Controlled Trial of Polyethylene Glycol versus Oral Sodium Phosphate for Bowel Preparation in Unsedated Colonoscopy
    Yang, Dong
    Tao, Ke
    Chen, Geng
    Zhang, Luping
    He, Qingying
    Xu, Hong
    GASTROENTEROLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2020, 2020
  • [26] EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF SHANKHA PRAKSHALANA, A YOGIC TECHNIQUE VERSUS POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL SOLUTION FOR BOWEL PREPARATION IN COLONOSCOPY: A SUPERIORITY RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
    Panigrahi, Manas
    Chouhan, Mohd Imran
    Manik, Rajesh
    Ghosh, R. U. Ajay
    Jain, Harsh
    Nayak, Hemanta
    Padhy, Biswa
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2023, 97 (06) : AB202 - AB202
  • [27] Efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients A randomized controlled trial
    Lee, Jin
    Jeong, Su Jin
    Kim, Tae Hyung
    Park, Yong Eun
    Choi, Joon Hyuk
    Heo, Nae-Yun
    Park, Jongha
    Ha Park, Seung
    Moon, Young Soo
    Kim, Tae Oh
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (02)
  • [28] Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial
    Li, De-feng
    Luo, Ming-han
    Du, Qing-qing
    Zhang, Hai-yang
    Tian, Yan-hui
    Liu, Ting-ting
    Shi, Rui-yue
    Xiong, Feng
    Lai, Ming-guang
    Li, Ying-xue
    Luo, Su
    Song, Yang
    Wu, Ben-hua
    Xu, Zheng-lei
    Zhang, Ding-guo
    Yao, Jun
    Wang, Li-sheng
    JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2020, 35 (09) : 1488 - 1494
  • [29] Pediatric bowel preparation: Sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, citric acid vs polyethylene glycol, a randomized trial
    Cuffari, Carmen
    Ciciora, Steven L.
    Ando, Masakazu
    Boules, Mena
    Croffie, Joseph M.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 26 (40) : 6260 - 6269
  • [30] Pediatric bowel preparation: Sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, citric acid vs polyethylene glycol, a randomized trial
    Carmen Cuffari
    Steven L Ciciora
    Masakazu Ando
    Mena Boules
    Joseph M Croffie
    World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2020, (40) : 6260 - 6269