-
Something wrong with this record ?
Comparison of Four Bowel Cleansing Agents for Colonoscopy and the Factors Affecting their Efficacy. A Prospective, Randomized Study
K. Kmochova, T. Grega, O. Ngo, G. Vojtechova, O. Majek, P. Urbanek, M. Zavoral, S. Suchanek
Status minimal Language English
Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
Grant support
NV16-29614A
MZ0
CEP Register
Digital library NLK
Full text - Article
NLK
Free Medical Journals
from 2006
Freely Accessible Science Journals
from 2006
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2009-09-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2006
PubMed
33951124
DOI
10.15403/jgld-3401
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Detergents * MeSH
- Single-Blind Method MeSH
- Colonoscopy MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Polyethylene Glycols adverse effects MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Cathartics * adverse effects MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful and effective colonoscopy. Several types of cleansing agents are currently available including low-volume solutions. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different bowel cleansing agents. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, randomized, and single-blind study was performed. Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomized into one of the following types of laxatives: polyethylenglycol 4L (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OSS), 2L polyethylenglycol + ascorbate (2L-PEG/Asc), or magnesium citrate + sodium picosulfate (MCSP). The primary outcome was quality of bowel cleansing evaluated according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR) and tolerability. RESULTS: Final analysis was performed on 431 patients. The number of patients with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥6 and sub scores ≥2 in each segment) was not significantly different throughout all groups (95.4% PEG; 94.6% OSS; 96.3% 2L-PEG/Asc; 96.2% MCSP; p=0.955). Excellent bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥ 8) was associated with younger age (p=0.007). The groups did not have significantly different PDRs (49.5% PEG; 49.1% OSS; 38% 2L-PEG/Asc; 40.4% MCSP; p=0.201). The strongest predictors of pathology identification were age and male gender. The best-tolerated solution was MCSP (palatability: p<0.001; nausea: p=0.024).
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22008606
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20221031125459.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 220329s2021 Rom f 000 0|0 0|e
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.15403/jgld-3401 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33951124
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a Romania
- 100 1_
- $a Kmochova, Klara $u Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. . klara.kmochova@uvn.cz
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of Four Bowel Cleansing Agents for Colonoscopy and the Factors Affecting their Efficacy. A Prospective, Randomized Study / $c K. Kmochova, T. Grega, O. Ngo, G. Vojtechova, O. Majek, P. Urbanek, M. Zavoral, S. Suchanek
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful and effective colonoscopy. Several types of cleansing agents are currently available including low-volume solutions. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different bowel cleansing agents. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, randomized, and single-blind study was performed. Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomized into one of the following types of laxatives: polyethylenglycol 4L (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OSS), 2L polyethylenglycol + ascorbate (2L-PEG/Asc), or magnesium citrate + sodium picosulfate (MCSP). The primary outcome was quality of bowel cleansing evaluated according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR) and tolerability. RESULTS: Final analysis was performed on 431 patients. The number of patients with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥6 and sub scores ≥2 in each segment) was not significantly different throughout all groups (95.4% PEG; 94.6% OSS; 96.3% 2L-PEG/Asc; 96.2% MCSP; p=0.955). Excellent bowel preparation (BBPS total scores ≥ 8) was associated with younger age (p=0.007). The groups did not have significantly different PDRs (49.5% PEG; 49.1% OSS; 38% 2L-PEG/Asc; 40.4% MCSP; p=0.201). The strongest predictors of pathology identification were age and male gender. The best-tolerated solution was MCSP (palatability: p<0.001; nausea: p=0.024).
- 650 12
- $a purgativa $x škodlivé účinky $7 D002400
- 650 _2
- $a kolonoskopie $7 D003113
- 650 12
- $a detergenty $7 D003902
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a polyethylenglykoly $x škodlivé účinky $7 D011092
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a jednoduchá slepá metoda $7 D016037
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
- 700 1_
- $a Grega, Tomas $u Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. tomas.grega@uvn.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Ngo, Ondrej $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. ngo@iba.muni.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Vojtechova, Gabriela $u Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. gabriela.vojtechova@uvn.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Majek, Ondrej $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. majek@iba.muni.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Urbanek, Petr $u Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. petr.urbanek@uvn.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Zavoral, Miroslav $u Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. miroslav.zavoral@uvn.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Suchanek, Stepan $u Department of Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. stepan.suchanek@uvn.cz
- 773 0_
- $w MED00180296 $t Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases $x 1841-8724 $g Roč. 30, č. 2 (2021), s. 213-220
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33951124 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20220329 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20221031125457 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a min $b bmc $g 1775132 $s 1159800
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2021 $b 30 $c 2 $d 213-220 $e 20210618 $i 1841-8724 $m Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases $n J Gastrointestin Liver Dis $x MED00180296
- GRA __
- $a NV16-29614A $p MZ0
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20220329