共 50 条
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