-
Something wrong with this record ?
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,
Language English Country Germany
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 1997-03-01 to 2018-12-31
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2000-02-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 1997-03-01 to 2018-12-31
- MeSH
- Citrates administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Colonoscopy * MeSH
- Ascorbic Acid administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Citric Acid administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Therapeutic Irrigation adverse effects methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Organometallic Compounds administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Picolines administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Polyethylene Glycols administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Laxatives administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Cathartics administration & dosage adverse effects MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Czech Republic MeSH
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.
2nd Department of Internal Medicine 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic
References provided by 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