OBJECTIVE: In an attempt to improve patient tolerance for colonoscopy cleansing, a reduced volume lavage regimen with 2 L sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution (SF-ELS, NuLYTELY, Braintree Laboratories, Braintree, MA) plus 20 mg p.o. bisacodyl (Half Lytely, Braintree Laboratories) was compared with standard 4 L SF-ELS lavage for safety and efficacy. METHODS: At two centers, 200 patients undergoing colonoscopy for routine indications were randomized to receive the reduced volume or standard 4 L method. The day before scheduled colonoscopy, study subjects were allowed a normal breakfast and clear liquids for lunch and dinner. Those randomized to receive the reduced volume method received four 5-mg bisacodyl tablets p.o. at noon. Six hours later, they received 2 L SF-ELS given as 10 oz every 10 min. Subjects randomized to receive 4 L SF-ELS also drank their solution at 6:00 PM in a similar fashion. Colonoscopists, unaware as to the randomized preparation received, rated efficacy of cleansing. Patient tolerance and various hematological and biochemical parameters were assessed. RESULTS: Physician assessment of colon cleansing showed no differences between those patients randomized to receive reduced volume (n = 93) or 4 L (n = 93) SF-ELS cleansing (p = 0.16). There was a profound reduction in preparation side effects. The reduced volume preparation had less fullness (p < 0.01), nausea (p < 0.01), vomiting (p = 0.01), and overall discomfort (p < 0.01). There were no clinically significant changes in hematology or blood chemistry associated with either preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced volume preparation with 2 L SF-ELS and bisacodyl is safe and effective. Clinical symptoms from the reduced volume preparation are significantly reduced compared with traditional 4 L gut lavage.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In an attempt to improve patient tolerance for colonoscopy cleansing, a reduced volume lavage regimen with 2 L sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution (SF-ELS, NuLYTELY, Braintree Laboratories, Braintree, MA) plus 20 mg p.o. bisacodyl (Half Lytely, Braintree Laboratories) was compared with standard 4 L SF-ELS lavage for safety and efficacy. METHODS: At two centers, 200 patients undergoing colonoscopy for routine indications were randomized to receive the reduced volume or standard 4 L method. The day before scheduled colonoscopy, study subjects were allowed a normal breakfast and clear liquids for lunch and dinner. Those randomized to receive the reduced volume method received four 5-mg bisacodyl tablets p.o. at noon. Six hours later, they received 2 L SF-ELS given as 10 oz every 10 min. Subjects randomized to receive 4 L SF-ELS also drank their solution at 6:00 PM in a similar fashion. Colonoscopists, unaware as to the randomized preparation received, rated efficacy of cleansing. Patient tolerance and various hematological and biochemical parameters were assessed. RESULTS: Physician assessment of colon cleansing showed no differences between those patients randomized to receive reduced volume (n = 93) or 4 L (n = 93) SF-ELS cleansing (p = 0.16). There was a profound reduction in preparation side effects. The reduced volume preparation had less fullness (p < 0.01), nausea (p < 0.01), vomiting (p = 0.01), and overall discomfort (p < 0.01). There were no clinically significant changes in hematology or blood chemistry associated with either preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced volume preparation with 2 L SF-ELS and bisacodyl is safe and effective. Clinical symptoms from the reduced volume preparation are significantly reduced compared with traditional 4 L gut lavage.
Authors: Amy K Hara; Mark D Kuo; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Judy Yee; Abraham Dachman; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; C Daniel Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
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
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
Authors: Richard K Zimmerman; Melissa Tabbarah; Jeanette Trauth; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Edmund M Ricci Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Annalisa de Leone; Darina Tamayo; Giancarla Fiori; Davide Ravizza; Cristina Trovato; Giuseppe De Roberto; Linda Fazzini; Marco Dal Fante; Cristiano Crosta Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-09-16