Comparison Between an Oral Sulfate Solution and a 2 L of Polyethylene Glycol/Ascorbic Acid as a Split Dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

被引:26
|
作者
Lee, Han Hee [1 ,2 ]
Lim, Chul-Hyun [1 ,2 ]
Kim, Jin Su [1 ,2 ]
Cho, Yu Kyung [1 ,2 ]
Lee, Bo-In [1 ,2 ]
Cho, Young-Seok [1 ,2 ]
Lee, In Seok [1 ,2 ]
Choi, Myung-Gyu [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Catholic Univ Korea, Coll Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Gastroenterol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Catholic Photomed Res Inst, Seoul, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
colonoscopy; bowel preparation; oral sulfate solution; polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid; ASCORBIC-ACID; SODIUM-PHOSPHATE; TASK-FORCE; GLYCOL; EFFICACY; COLON; SOCIETY; IMPACT; VOLUME; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1097/MCG.0000000000001137
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Aims: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an oral sulfate solution (OSS) versus 2 L of polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (2L-PEG/Asc) for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective, single-center, single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial was performed. The primary outcome was the rate of successful bowel cleansing, evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes were examination time, polyp, and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR), tolerability, and safety. Ease of use, palatability, intention to reuse, and satisfaction were evaluated using a questionnaire. Results: A total of 187 participants were randomized to receive either OSS (n=93) or 2L-PEG/Asc (n=94). Successful bowel cleansing was achieved in 86.0% (80/93) of the OSS group, which was noninferior to the 2L-PEG/Asc group (88.3%, 83/94), with a difference of -2.3% by ITT analysis [95% confidence interval (CI) -12.0 to +7.4]. The withdrawal time of the OSS group was significantly shorter than that of the 2L-PEG/Asc group (11.8 +/- 5.2 vs. 14.3 +/- 8.5; P=0.016). Ease of use, palatability, intention to reuse, and satisfaction were similar between the 2 groups. Adverse events were also similar between the 2 groups. Mucosal erythema (4.3%) and aphthous lesions (2.1%) were found only in the 2L-PEG/Asc group. Conclusions: OSS was as effective as 2L-PEG/Asc for successful bowel cleansing and had acceptable tolerability. OSS is a promising and safe low-volume preparation alternative for colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02761213.)
引用
收藏
页码:E431 / E437
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of oral sodium phosphate to polyethylene glycol-based solution for bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children
    Gremse, DA
    Sacks, AI
    Raines, S
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY AND NUTRITION, 1996, 23 (05): : 586 - 590
  • [22] A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy
    Rex, Douglas K.
    DiPalma, Jack A.
    McGowan, John
    Cleveland, Mark vB.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2014, 80 (06) : 1113 - 1123
  • [23] Bowel Preparation Efficacy and Safety of 1 L vs 2 L Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Jeon, Han Jo
    Keum, Bora
    Bang, Eun Ju
    Lee, Kang Won
    Kim, Sang Hyun
    Lee, Jae Min
    Choi, Hyuk Soon
    Kim, Eun Sun
    Jeen, Yoon Tae
    Lee, Hong Sik
    Chun, Hoon Jai
    CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 14 (03) : e00532
  • [24] A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of 1-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid plus prucalopride versus 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation
    Choi, Seong Ji
    Kim, Eun Sun
    Choi, Byeong Kwang
    Min, Geeho
    Kim, Woojung
    Lee, Jung Min
    Lee, Jae Min
    Kim, Seung Han
    Choi, Hyuk Soon
    Keum, Bora
    Jeen, Yoon Tae
    Lee, Hong Sik
    Chun, Hoon Jai
    Kim, Chang Duck
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 53 (12) : 1619 - 1624
  • [25] Comparison of Quality of Bowel Preparation Between 4L Polyethylene Glycol and 2L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid With and Without Simethicone - a Preliminary Report
    Kang, Sun Mi
    Kim, Eun Young
    Kim, Si Hye
    Kim, Byung Seok
    Han, Jimin
    Jung, Jin Tae
    Kwon, Joong Goo
    Lee, Chang Hyeong
    Kim, Ho Gak
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2015, 81 (05) : AB318 - AB318
  • [26] Comparison of Bowel Preparation: Low Dose Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid vs. Sodium Picosulfate
    Jeon, Seong Ran
    Kim, Hyun Gun
    Kim, Jin-Oh
    Lee, Hee Tae
    Cho, Jun-Hyung
    Ko, Bong Min
    Cho, Joo Young
    Lee, Joon Seong
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 146 (05) : S733 - S733
  • [27] Optimal Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: 2-L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid Versus 4-L Polyethylene Glycol
    Lee, Jae Min
    Jeen, Yoon Tae
    Yoo, In Kyung
    Kim, Seung Han
    Nam, Seung-Joo
    Choi, Hyuk Soon
    Kim, Eun Sun
    Keum, Bora
    Koo, Ja Seol
    Lee, Hongsik
    Chun, Hoon Jai
    Kim, Chang Duck
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2015, 81 (05) : AB315 - AB315
  • [28] Comparison of the Effectiveness Between a Solution of Sulfate Salts and Polyethylene Glycol in Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy and Randomized, Single-Blind Study
    Kmochova, Klara
    Grega, Tomas
    Ngo, Ondrej
    Majek, Ondrej
    Zavoral, Miroslav
    Suchanek, Stepan
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2017, 85 (05) : AB258 - AB258
  • [29] ORAL LACTULOSE IS SUPERIOR TO POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL FOR COLONOSCOPY BOWEL PREPARATION
    Ramos, Josue Aliaga
    Carvalho, Danilo
    Arantes, Vitor
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2023, 97 (06) : AB146 - AB147
  • [30] Comparison of the efficacy and safety of an oral sulfate solution and 3-L polyethylene glycol on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial
    Pan, Peng
    Zhao, Shengbing
    Wang, Shuling
    Song, Yihang
    Gu, Lun
    Chen, Youxiang
    Zhao, Jiangrong
    Lu, Lungen
    Li, Xiuling
    Xu, Hongzhi
    Liu, Gaifang
    Li, Yanqing
    Xu, Le
    Wang, Jiangbin
    Li, Zhaoshen
    Bai, Yu
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2023, 98 (06) : 977 - 986.e14