Literature DB >> 12664385

A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*).

C Ell1, W Fischbach, R Keller, M Dehe, G Mayer, B Schneider, U Albrecht, W Schuette.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: There are conflicting data regarding the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy. This study was carried out to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three widely used bowel lavage solutions: the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution based on the GoLytely formulation (PEG-EL1; Klean-Prep); a sulphate-free PEG-EL solution based on the NuLytely formulation (PEG-EL2, Endofalk); and a sodium phosphate preparation (NaP, Fleet Phospho-Soda). PATIENT AND METHODS: A total of 185 consecutive patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively randomly assigned to undergo pre-colonoscopic bowel cleansing with either 4 l of PEG-EL1 (n=64), 3 l of PEG-EL2 (n=59), or 90 ml of NaP (n=62). The quality of preparatory colonic cleansing for each segment from the rectum to the ascending colon was scored on a five-level rating scale (1, very good to 5, very poor) by endoscopists who were blinded with regard to the type of preparation used. The primary outcome measure for the comparison of treatments was the "worst" score in any of the rated bowel segments. Safety and tolerability were evaluated by means of a symptom questionnaire completed by each patient immediately before the procedure.
RESULTS: Of the 185 patients who were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments, 175 underwent colonoscopy and 173 were evaluable with regard to efficacy - 59, 54, and 60 patients treated with PEG-EL1, PEG-EL2, and NaP, respectively. The treatment groups were comparable with regard to the baseline characteristics. PEG-EL1 was statistically significantly superior to the other treatments in relation to the "worst cleansing" score ( P</=0.003). In addition, colonoscopic visualization was markedly better in each of the five bowel segments and general "very good" or "good" ratings were achieved in more than 90 % of patients treated with PEG-EL1. The percentages were consistently lower in the other two groups, particularly in the ascending colon. With the exception of the sigmoid, the differences in all segments of the large bowel were statistically significant (P</=0.04). Patient satisfaction was comparable between the treatment groups. Adverse events (mainly nausea/vomiting and abdominal pain) and deviations in laboratory values occurred more frequently in the NaP group.
CONCLUSIONS: Preparatory PEG-EL1 (Klean-Prep) was significantly superior to PEG-EL2 (Endofalk) and NaP (Fleet Phospho-Soda) in achieving effective cleansing of the entire colon prior to colonoscopy. On the basis of these data, PEG-EL1 can be regarded as the "gold standard" for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12664385     DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-38150

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  38 in total

Review 1.  [Conventional and virtual colonoscopy].

Authors:  C Ell; T Rabenstein
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 2.  Commonly used preparations for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability, and safety--a Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position paper.

Authors:  Alan Barkun; Naoki Chiba; Robert Enns; Margaret Marcon; Susan Natsheh; Co Pham; Dan Sadowski; Stephen Vanner
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES).

Authors:  Steven D Wexner; David E Beck; Todd H Baron; Robert D Fanelli; Neil Hyman; Bo Shen; Kevin E Wasco
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-06-08       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ravi Juluri; George Eckert; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-04-14       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation.

Authors:  Kai-Lin Hwang; William Tzu-Liang Chen; Koung-Hong Hsiao; Hong-Chang Chen; Ting-Ming Huang; Chien-Ming Chiu; Ger-Haur Hsu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Oral colorectal cleansing preparations in adults.

Authors:  Sherief Shawki; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

7.  A pilot study using reduced-volume oral sulfate solution as a preparation for colonoscopy among a Japanese population.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Aihara; Shoichi Saito; Tomohiko Ohya; Naoto Tamai; Tomohiro Kato; Hisao Tajiri
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  Colorectal cancer screening in Europe: differences in approach; similar barriers to overcome.

Authors:  Nicholas J West; Christian Boustière; Wolfgang Fischbach; Fabrizio Parente; Roger J Leicester
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Phase- and size-adjusted CT cut-off for differentiating neoplastic lesions from normal colon in contrast-enhanced CT colonography.

Authors:  W Luboldt; M Kroll; A Wetter; T L Toussaint; N Hoepffner; K Holzer; A Kluge; T J Vogl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-09-23       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Jensch; Shandra Bipat; Jan Peringa; Ayso H de Vries; Anneke Heutinck; Evelien Dekker; Lubbertus C Baak; Alexander D Montauban van Swijndregt; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.