• 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

. 2021 ; 30 (2) : 213-220. [pub] 20210618

Status minimal Language English

Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial

Grant support
NV16-29614A MZ0 CEP Register

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...