• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial

V. Kojecky, J. Matous, R. Keil, M. Dastych, R. Kroupa, Z. Zadorova, M. Varga, J. Dolina, M. Kment, A. Hep,

. 2017 ; 32 (12) : 1763-1766. [pub] 20170924

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo

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

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc18033706

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and low-volume polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEGA) in a single- or split-dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. Outpatients received either PEG or SPMC or PEGA in a single or a split dose before the colonoscopy. Quality and tolerability of the preparation and complaints during preparation were recorded. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-three patients were analysed. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 + 2) was more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (PEG 90.1 vs 68.8%, PEGA 86.0 vs 71.6%, SPMC 84.3 vs 60.2%, p < 0.001). SPMC was the best tolerated followed by PEGA (p < 0.006) and PEG as the worst (p < 0.001). Tolerability did not correlate with the regimen and amount of the solution used. Female gender is associated with a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting and pain (p < 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Both PEG, PEGA and SPMC are fully comparable in terms of colonic cleansing when used in similar regimens. The split-dose preparation is more effective in all agents. SPMC and PEGA are better tolerated than PEG. The preparation regimen and/or the volume do not affect tolerability.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18033706
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230116083720.0
007      
ta
008      
181008s2017 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00384-017-2901-x $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28944412
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Kojecky, Vladimir $u Internal Clinic, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
245    12
$a A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial / $c V. Kojecky, J. Matous, R. Keil, M. Dastych, R. Kroupa, Z. Zadorova, M. Varga, J. Dolina, M. Kment, A. Hep,
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and low-volume polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEGA) in a single- or split-dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. Outpatients received either PEG or SPMC or PEGA in a single or a split dose before the colonoscopy. Quality and tolerability of the preparation and complaints during preparation were recorded. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-three patients were analysed. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 + 2) was more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (PEG 90.1 vs 68.8%, PEGA 86.0 vs 71.6%, SPMC 84.3 vs 60.2%, p < 0.001). SPMC was the best tolerated followed by PEGA (p < 0.006) and PEG as the worst (p < 0.001). Tolerability did not correlate with the regimen and amount of the solution used. Female gender is associated with a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting and pain (p < 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Both PEG, PEGA and SPMC are fully comparable in terms of colonic cleansing when used in similar regimens. The split-dose preparation is more effective in all agents. SPMC and PEGA are better tolerated than PEG. The preparation regimen and/or the volume do not affect tolerability.
650    _2
$a kyselina askorbová $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D001205
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    12
$a kolonoskopie $7 D003113
650    _2
$a Česká republika $7 D018153
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a projímadla $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D054368
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a organokovové sloučeniny $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $7 D009942
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 léčebná irigace $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D007507
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
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 Matous, Jan $u 2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Keil, Radan $u Department of Internal Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Dastych, Milan $u Department of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Kroupa, Radek $u Department of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Zadorova, Zdena $u 2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Varga, Michal $u Internal Clinic, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Dolina, Jiri $u Department of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. jidoli@post.cz.
700    1_
$a Kment, Milan $u 2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Hep, Aleš, $u Department of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. $d 1952-2022 $7 mzk2003169597
773    0_
$w MED00002307 $t International journal of colorectal disease $x 1432-1262 $g Roč. 32, č. 12 (2017), s. 1763-1766
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28944412 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20181008 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230116083718 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1340260 $s 1030700
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 32 $c 12 $d 1763-1766 $e 20170924 $i 1432-1262 $m International journal of colorectal disease $n Int J Colorectal Dis $x MED00002307
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20181008

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace