PURPOSE: Bowel preparations for colonoscopy have to balance the demand for adequate cleansing action of the bowel and patient acceptability. There has been no study comparing Picoprep-3 (sodium picosulfate), a relatively new product, to Fleet (sodium phosphate), a well-studied and widely used preparation. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of these two bowel preparations for colonoscopy. METHODS: A randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial was conducted. A total of 400 consecutive patients presenting for elective colonoscopy at St George Private Hospital during a 20-week period were randomly assigned to receive Picoprep-3 or Fleet. Patients were asked to record the effects of the preparation, noting tolerability, taste, and side effects. Two hundred patients were assigned to the Picoprep-3 group and 200 to the Fleet group. Surgeons were blinded to the preparation used and rated the quality of the bowel preparation on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the optimal score). RESULTS: Picoprep-3 was found to be better tolerated (P < 0.0001) and better tasting (P < 0.0001) than Fleet. Patients in the Picoprep-3 group reported significantly less nausea (P < 0.001), vomiting (P < 0.004), dizziness (P < 0.01), abdominal pains (P = 0.0005), and thirst (P < 0.0001) associated with the preparation. There was no significant difference in visualization of the colon between the two groups as judged by the two colonoscopists (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy preparation with Picoprep-3 has similar efficacy but superior taste and tolerability compared with Fleet. Picoprep-3 caused less adverse side effects in the study population.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Bowel preparations for colonoscopy have to balance the demand for adequate cleansing action of the bowel and patient acceptability. There has been no study comparing Picoprep-3 (sodium picosulfate), a relatively new product, to Fleet (sodium phosphate), a well-studied and widely used preparation. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of these two bowel preparations for colonoscopy. METHODS: A randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial was conducted. A total of 400 consecutive patients presenting for elective colonoscopy at St George Private Hospital during a 20-week period were randomly assigned to receive Picoprep-3 or Fleet. Patients were asked to record the effects of the preparation, noting tolerability, taste, and side effects. Two hundred patients were assigned to the Picoprep-3 group and 200 to the Fleet group. Surgeons were blinded to the preparation used and rated the quality of the bowel preparation on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the optimal score). RESULTS:Picoprep-3 was found to be better tolerated (P < 0.0001) and better tasting (P < 0.0001) than Fleet. Patients in the Picoprep-3 group reported significantly less nausea (P < 0.001), vomiting (P < 0.004), dizziness (P < 0.01), abdominal pains (P = 0.0005), and thirst (P < 0.0001) associated with the preparation. There was no significant difference in visualization of the colon between the two groups as judged by the two colonoscopists (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy preparation with Picoprep-3 has similar efficacy but superior taste and tolerability compared with Fleet. Picoprep-3 caused less adverse side effects in the study population.
Authors: Ki Hwan Song; Wu Seok Suh; Jin Sik Jeong; Dong Sik Kim; Sang Woo Kim; Dong Min Kwak; Jong Seong Hwang; Hyun Jin Kim; Man Woo Park; Min Chul Shim; Ja-Il Koo; Jae Hwang Kim; Dae Ho Shon Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2014-10-28
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: Alexander W Keedy; Judy Yee; Rizwan Aslam; Stefanie Weinstein; Luis A Landeras; Janak N Shah; Kenneth R McQuaid; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jonthan Love; Edmond-Jean Bernard; Alan Cockeram; Lawrence Cohen; Martin Fishman; James Gray; David Morgan Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.522