A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11120%2F17%3A43915610" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11120/17:43915610 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216224:14110/17:00098392 RIV/00216208:11130/17:10365571 RIV/65269705:_____/17:00067916 RIV/00064173:_____/17:N0000111 RIV/00064203:_____/17:10365571

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2901-x" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2901-x</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2901-x" target="_blank" >10.1007/s00384-017-2901-x</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 &lt; 0.001). SPMC was the best tolerated followed by PEGA (p &lt; 0.006) and PEG as the worst (p &lt; 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 &lt; 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 &lt; 0.001). SPMC was the best tolerated followed by PEGA (p &lt; 0.006) and PEG as the worst (p &lt; 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 &lt; 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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30219 - Gastroenterology and hepatology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

ISSN

0179-1958

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

32

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

12

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

4

Strana od-do

1763-1766

Kód UT WoS článku

000415692100014

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85029905735