期刊文献+

Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation 被引量:7

Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation
暂未订购
导出
摘要 AIM: To compare the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and physical tolerability of two oral lavage solutions prior to colonoscopy in a Taiwan Residents population. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP) in a split regimen of two 45 mL doses separated by 12 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects who had completed the preparation. Secondary endpoints included colonic cleansing evaluated with an overall assessment and segmental evaluation, the tolerance and acceptability assessed by a selfadministered structured questionnaire, and a safety profile such as any unexpected adverse events, electrolyte tests, physical exams, vital signs, and body weights. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group(84.2% vs 27.5%, P<0.001). The amount of fluid suctioned was significantly less in patients taking NaP vs PEG (50.13±54.8 cc vs 121.13±115.4 cc, P<0.001),even after controlling for completion of the oral solution(P = 0.031). The two groups showed a comparable overall assessment of bowel preparation with a rate of 'good' or 'excellent' in 78.9% of patients in the NaPgroup and 82.5% in PEG group (P = 0.778). Patients taking NaP tended to have significantly better colonic segmental cleansing relative to stool amount observedin the descending (94.7% vs 70%, P = 0.007) andtransverse (94.6% vs 74.4%, P = 0.025) colon. Slightly more patients graded the taste of NaP as 'good' or 'very good' compared to the PEG patients (32.5% vs 12.5%;P = 0.059). Patients' willingness to take the same preparation in the future was 68.4% in the NaP compared to 75% in the PEG group (P = 0.617). There was a significant increase in serum sodium and a significant decrease in phosphate and chloride levels in NaP group on the day following the colonoscopy without any clinical sequelae. Prolonged (>24 h) hemodynamic changes were also observed in 20-35% subjects of either group.CONCLUSION: Both bowel cleansing agents proved to be similar in safety and effectiveness, while NaP appeared to be more cost-effective. After identifying and excluding patients with potential risk factors, sodium phosphate should become an alternative preparation for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy in the Taiwan Residents population. AIM: To compare the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and physical tolerability of two oral lavage solutions prior to colonoscopy in a Taiwan Residents population. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NAP) in a split regimen of two 45 mL doses separated by 12 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects who had completed the preparation. Secondary endpoints included colonic cleansing evaluated with an overall assessment and segmental evaluation, the tolerance and acceptability assessed by a selfadministered structured questionnaire, and a safety profile such as any unexpected adverse events, electrolyte tests, physical exams, vital signs, and body weights. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.2% vs 27.5%, P〈0.001). The amount of fluid suctioned was significantly less in patients taking NaP vs PEG (50.13±54.8 cc vs 121.13±115.4 cc, P〈0.001), even after controlling for completion of the oral solution (P = 0.031). The two groups showed a comparable overall assessment of bowel preparation with a rate of "good" or "excellent" in 78.9% of patients in the NaP group and 82.5% in PEG group (P = 0.778). Patients taking NaP tended to have significantly better colonic segmental cleansing relative to stool amount observed in the descending (94.7% vs 70%, P = 0.007) and transverse (94.6% vs 74.4%, P = 0.025) colon. Slightly more patients graded the taste of NaP as "good" or "Very good" compared to the PEG patients (32.5% vs 12.5%; P = 0.059). Patients' willingness to take the same preparation in the future was 68.4% in the NaP compared to 75% in the PEG group (P = 0.617). There was a significant increase in serum sodium and a significant decrease in phosphate and chloride levels in NaP group on the day following the colonoscopy without any clinical sequelae. Prolonged (〉24 h) hemodynamic changes were also observed in 20-35% subjects of either group. CONCLUSION: Both bowel cleansing agents proved to be similar in safety and effectiveness, while NaP appeared to be more cost-effective. After identifying and excluding patients with potential risk factors, sodium phosphate should become an alternative preparation for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy in the Taiwan Residents population.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2005年第47期7486-7493,共8页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
基金 This study was conducted at the Division of Colorectal Surgery at ChangHua Christian Hospital, Changhua 500, Taiwan, China
关键词 COLONOSCOPY Bowel preparation Sodium phosphate Polyethylene glycol 磷酸钠 聚氧乙烯 结肠镜 手术治疗
  • 相关文献

参考文献36

  • 1[1]Yang HC,Sheu MH,Wang JH,Chang CY.Bowel preparation of outpatients for intravenous urography:efficacy of castor oil versus bisacodyl.Kaohsiung JMed Sci 2005;21:153-158
  • 2[2]Chen CC,Ng WW,Chang FY,Lee SD.Magnesium citrate-bisacodyl regimen proves better than castor oil for colonoscopic preparation.J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999;14:1219-1222
  • 3[3]Strates BS,Hofmann LM.A randomized study of two preparations for large bowel radiology.Pharmatherapeutica 1987;5:57-61
  • 4[4]Delegge M,Kaplan R.Efficacy of bowel preparation with the use of a prepackaged,low fibre diet with a low sodium,magnesium citrate cathartic vs.a clear liquid diet with a standard sodium phosphate cathartic.Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;21:1491-1495
  • 5[5]Zmora O,Pikarsky AJ,Wexner SD.Bowel preparation for colorectal surgery.Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:1537-1549
  • 6[6]Donovan IA,Arabi Y,Keighley MR,Alexander-Williams J.Modification of the physiological disturbances produced by whole gut irrigation by preliminary mannitol administration.Br J Surg 1980;67:138-139
  • 7[7]Minervini S,Alexander-Williams J,Donovan IA,Bentley S,Keighley MR.Comparison of three methods of whole bowel irrigation.Am J Surg 1980;140:400-402
  • 8[8]Grundel K,Schwenk W,Bohm B,Muller JM.Improvements in mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery.Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:1348-1352
  • 9[9]Davis GR,Santa Ana CA,Morawski SG,Fordtran JS.Devel opment of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion.Gastroenterology 1980;78:991-995
  • 10[10]DiPalma JA,Brady CE 3rd,Stewart DL,Karlin DA,McKinney MK,Clement DJ,Coleman TW,Pierson WP.Comparison of colon cleansing methods in preparation for colonoscopy.Gastroenterology 1984;86:856-860

同被引文献13

  • 1王晓艳,王芬,肖定华,唐五良,沈守荣.无线胶囊内镜在消化道疾病诊断中的应用分析[J].中国内镜杂志,2004,10(12):11-14. 被引量:9
  • 2Adolfo Parra-Blanco,David Nicolás-Pérez,Antonio Gimeno-García,Begoa Grosso,Alejandro Jiménez,Juan Ortega,Enrique Quintero.The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing,and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions:A randomized study[J].World Journal of Gastroenterology,2006,12(38):6161-6166. 被引量:20
  • 3陈孝,张子其,张钰,张建萍.肠道准备对胶囊内镜图像质量及消化道通过情况的影响[J].中华消化内镜杂志,2007,24(1):35-37. 被引量:47
  • 4MINE Y, MORIKAGE K, OKU S, et al. Effect of mosapride cit-rate 'hydrate on the colon cleansing action of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) in guinea pigs[J]. J Phar- macol Sci, 2009, 110(4): 415-423.
  • 5Parente F, Marino B, Crosta C. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy in the era of mass screening for colo-rectal cancer: a practical appr- oach[J]. Dig Liver Dis,2009, 41 (2):87-95.
  • 6De Jong AE, Vasen HF. The frequency of a positive family history for coloreetal cancer: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Neth J Med, 2006, 64(10):367-370.
  • 7Parente F, Marino B, Crosta C. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy in the era of mass screening for colo-rectal cancer: a practical approach[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2009,41 (2):87-95.
  • 8Huppertz-Hauss G, Bretthauer M, Sauar J, et al, Polyethylene glycol versus sodium phosphate in bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: a ran- domized trial[J]. Endoscopy, 2005,37(6):537-541.
  • 9Lee J, McCallion K, Acheson AG, Irwin ST. A prospective ran. domised study comparing polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate bowel cleansing solutions for colonoscopy[J]. Ulster Med J, 1999, 68 (2):68-72.
  • 10Juluri R, Eckert G, Imperiale TF. Polyethylene glycol versus sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm recta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2011,11:38.

引证文献7

二级引证文献54

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部