-
Something wrong with this record ?
The optimal bowel preparation intervals before colonoscopy: A randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions
V. Kojecky, J. Matous, R. Keil, M. Dastych, Z. Zadorova, M. Varga, R. Kroupa, J. Dolina, M. Misurec, A. Hep, M. Griva,
Language English Country Netherlands
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial
- MeSH
- Time Factors MeSH
- Citrates administration & dosage MeSH
- Colonoscopy * MeSH
- Ascorbic Acid administration & dosage MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Organometallic Compounds administration & dosage MeSH
- Picolines administration & dosage MeSH
- Polyethylene Glycols administration & dosage MeSH
- Preoperative Care methods MeSH
- Cathartics administration & dosage MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Patient Satisfaction MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Czech Republic MeSH
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The optimal duration of bowel preparation has only been assessed for polyethylene glycol (PEG). The aim of the study was to determine the intervals for achieving a satisfactory quality/tolerability of the preparation using PEG/ascorbic acid (PEGA) and sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (SPMC), and to compare them with 4L of PEG. METHODS: A randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. The 612 outpatients referred to a colonoscopy, were prepared using PEG, SPMC, PEGA. The quality, tolerability, duration of the preparation, and the interval from the end of the preparation to the colonoscopy was assessed. RESULTS: Optimum duration of the preparation was similar for both PEG and SPMC (≥7.3 vs. ≥8.8 h, overall ≥8.4 h). Optimum interval to the colonoscopy was ≤11.8 h and did not differ between preparations (PEG, PEGA ≤ 11.8, SPMC ≤ 13.3 h). These times were the only predictors for a satisfactory preparation. The tolerability depends on the product type (SPMC) only. Timing of the preparation or the other factors had no impact on tolerability. CONCLUSION: The optimum intervals for bowel preparation are identical for all preparations. Satisfactory preparation is achived at the preparation length ≥8.4 h and the time to colonoscopy ≤11.8 h.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19001115
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20230116083622.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 190107s2018 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.dld.2017.10.010 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)29102524
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Kojecky, Vladimir $u Internal Clinic, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
- 245 14
- $a The optimal bowel preparation intervals before colonoscopy: A randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions / $c V. Kojecky, J. Matous, R. Keil, M. Dastych, Z. Zadorova, M. Varga, R. Kroupa, J. Dolina, M. Misurec, A. Hep, M. Griva,
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND & AIMS: The optimal duration of bowel preparation has only been assessed for polyethylene glycol (PEG). The aim of the study was to determine the intervals for achieving a satisfactory quality/tolerability of the preparation using PEG/ascorbic acid (PEGA) and sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (SPMC), and to compare them with 4L of PEG. METHODS: A randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. The 612 outpatients referred to a colonoscopy, were prepared using PEG, SPMC, PEGA. The quality, tolerability, duration of the preparation, and the interval from the end of the preparation to the colonoscopy was assessed. RESULTS: Optimum duration of the preparation was similar for both PEG and SPMC (≥7.3 vs. ≥8.8 h, overall ≥8.4 h). Optimum interval to the colonoscopy was ≤11.8 h and did not differ between preparations (PEG, PEGA ≤ 11.8, SPMC ≤ 13.3 h). These times were the only predictors for a satisfactory preparation. The tolerability depends on the product type (SPMC) only. Timing of the preparation or the other factors had no impact on tolerability. CONCLUSION: The optimum intervals for bowel preparation are identical for all preparations. Satisfactory preparation is achived at the preparation length ≥8.4 h and the time to colonoscopy ≤11.8 h.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a kyselina askorbová $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D001205
- 650 _2
- $a purgativa $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D002400
- 650 _2
- $a citráty $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D002951
- 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 mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a organokovové sloučeniny $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D009942
- 650 _2
- $a spokojenost pacientů $7 D017060
- 650 _2
- $a pikoliny $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D010847
- 650 _2
- $a polyethylenglykoly $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D011092
- 650 _2
- $a předoperační péče $x metody $7 D011300
- 650 _2
- $a časové faktory $7 D013997
- 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 Dept. of Internal Medicine, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Keil, Radan $u Dept. of Internal Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Dastych, Milan $u Dept. of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Zadorova, Zdena $u 2nd Dept. of Internal Medicine, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Varga, Michal $u Internal Clinic, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Kroupa, Radek $u Dept. of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Dolina, Jiri $u Dept. of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: jidoli@post.cz.
- 700 1_
- $a Misurec, Miroslav $u Internal Clinic, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Hep, Aleš, $u Dept. of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. $d 1952-2022 $7 mzk2003169597
- 700 1_
- $a Griva, Martin $u Internal Clinic, Bata Regional Hospital, Zlin, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00166709 $t Digestive and liver disease $x 1878-3562 $g Roč. 50, č. 3 (2018), s. 271-276
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29102524 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20190107 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20230116083620 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1365036 $s 1039238
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2018 $b 50 $c 3 $d 271-276 $e 20171101 $i 1878-3562 $m Digestive and liver disease $n Dig. Liver Dis. $x MED00166709
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20190107
