• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

A single or split dose picosulphate/magnesium citrate before colonoscopy: comparison regarding tolerance and efficacy with polyethylene glycol. A randomized trial

V. Kojecky, J. Dolina, B. Kianicka, M. Misurec, M. Varga, J. Latta, V. Vaculin,

. 2014 ; 23 (2) : 141-6.

Jazyk angličtina Země Rumunsko

Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, randomizované kontrolované studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc15023318

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To compare the efficacy and tolerance of sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (PMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a single or split dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicenter study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive PMC (PMC4/0) or PEG (PEG4/0) in a single dose 4L day before colonoscopy or a split dose 2+2L PMC (PMC2/2) or 3+1L PEG (PEG3/1) one day before and in the morning before the colonoscopy. Each patient was interviewed to determine his/her subjective tolerance of the preparation before the procedure. The quality of bowel cleansing was assessed in a blinded test performed by multiple endoscopists using the Aronchick scale. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were enrolled, 88.2% were included in the analysis. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 and 2) was significantly more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (81.6% PMC2/2, 87.3% PEG3/1 vs. 73.0% PEG4/0, p = 0.024). In single dose regimens, PMC performed better than PEG (82.6% vs. 73.0%). Single or split dose PMC preparations were comparable. A PMC based solution was generally better tolerated than PEG regardless of the regimen used (p < 0.001). Nausea was reported mostly after the 4L PEG (32.8%, p < 0.001), incontinence after a split PMC dose (34.4%, p = 0.002), and bloating after the 4L PEG (38.0%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of vomiting. CONCLUSION: Colonic preparation with PMC yields similar results as a split PEG dose, regardless of whether PMC is administered in single or separate doses. PMC is better tolerated than any PEG-based preparation. A single 4L PEG the day before the colonoscopy is less appropriate for bowel cleansing.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc15023318
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20231027100048.0
007      
ta
008      
150709s2014 rm f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.232.vk1 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)24949605
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a rm
100    1_
$a Kojecky, Vladimir $u Internal Clinic IPVZ, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic. kojecky@bnzlin.cz.
245    12
$a A single or split dose picosulphate/magnesium citrate before colonoscopy: comparison regarding tolerance and efficacy with polyethylene glycol. A randomized trial / $c V. Kojecky, J. Dolina, B. Kianicka, M. Misurec, M. Varga, J. Latta, V. Vaculin,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND & AIMS: To compare the efficacy and tolerance of sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (PMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a single or split dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicenter study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive PMC (PMC4/0) or PEG (PEG4/0) in a single dose 4L day before colonoscopy or a split dose 2+2L PMC (PMC2/2) or 3+1L PEG (PEG3/1) one day before and in the morning before the colonoscopy. Each patient was interviewed to determine his/her subjective tolerance of the preparation before the procedure. The quality of bowel cleansing was assessed in a blinded test performed by multiple endoscopists using the Aronchick scale. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were enrolled, 88.2% were included in the analysis. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 and 2) was significantly more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (81.6% PMC2/2, 87.3% PEG3/1 vs. 73.0% PEG4/0, p = 0.024). In single dose regimens, PMC performed better than PEG (82.6% vs. 73.0%). Single or split dose PMC preparations were comparable. A PMC based solution was generally better tolerated than PEG regardless of the regimen used (p < 0.001). Nausea was reported mostly after the 4L PEG (32.8%, p < 0.001), incontinence after a split PMC dose (34.4%, p = 0.002), and bloating after the 4L PEG (38.0%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of vomiting. CONCLUSION: Colonic preparation with PMC yields similar results as a split PEG dose, regardless of whether PMC is administered in single or separate doses. PMC is better tolerated than any PEG-based preparation. A single 4L PEG the day before the colonoscopy is less appropriate for bowel cleansing.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a purgativa $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D002400
650    _2
$a citráty $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D002951
650    _2
$a kyselina citronová $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D019343
650    _2
$a kolonoskopie $x metody $7 D003113
650    _2
$a rozvrh dávkování léků $7 D004334
650    _2
$a fixní kombinace léků $7 D004338
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a organokovové sloučeniny $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D009942
650    _2
$a adherence pacienta $7 D010349
650    _2
$a pikoliny $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D010847
650    _2
$a polyethylenglykoly $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D011092
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a jednoduchá slepá metoda $7 D016037
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
700    1_
$a Dolina, Jiri $u Dept. of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Dolina, Jiří $u 2nd Clinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, St ́. Anne ́s University Hospital, Brno,Czech Republic. $7 xx0224967
700    1_
$a Misurec, Miroslav $u Internal Clinic IPVZ, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Varga, Michal $u Internal Clinic IPVZ, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Latta, Jiri $u Internal Clinic IPVZ, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Vaculin, Vladimir $u Hospital Vsetin Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00180296 $t Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases $x 1842-1121 $g Roč. 23, č. 2 (2014), s. 141-6
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24949605 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20150709 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20231027100042 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1083656 $s 906311
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2014 $b 23 $c 2 $d 141-6 $i 1842-1121 $m Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases $n J Gastrointestin Liver Dis $x MED00180296
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20150709

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace