Literature DB >> 17259833

Prospective blinded trial comparing 45-mL and 90-mL doses of oral sodium phosphate for bowel preparation before computed tomographic colonography.

David H Kim1, Perry J Pickhardt, J Louis Hinshaw, Andrew J Taylor, Rajat Mukherjee, Patrick R Pfau.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) bowel preparation using single- (45 mL) versus double-dose sodium phosphate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hundred consecutive patients undergoing screening CTC were randomly assigned with either single (45 mL) or double dose of sodium phosphate. Stool/fluid tagging remained constant. Two radiologists with extensive CTC experience, blinded to the groups, prospectively scored the colon for residual stool and fluid by using a 4-point scale.
RESULTS: There was an excellent cleansing in both groups characterized by low stool/fluid scores. A stool score of 1 or 2 (indicating a stool-free segment or only minimal particles <5 mm) was seen in 90.3% (271/300) of segments in the single-dose group and 87% (261/300) in the double-dose group. Similarly, there was minimal residual fluid with a score of 1 or 2 (indicating <25% of lumen occupied by fluid) in 82% (488/600) of segments in the single-dose group and 87% (522/600) in the double-dose group. Overall, no significant associations were noted between the sodium phosphate regimens and residual stool/fluid in most colonic segments. In addition, no significant differences were seen in the stool or fluid tagging.
CONCLUSIONS: Both single- and double-dose sodium phosphate resulted in excellent colonic cleansing without any significant differences. Tagging of residual stool and fluid was equally excellent for both groups. These findings indicate that a single 45-mL dose of oral sodium phosphate, in conjunction with stool and fluid tagging, results in high-quality CTC bowel preparation that is comparable to the clinically proven double-dose regimen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17259833     DOI: 10.1097/01.rct.0000230003.61392.2b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr        ISSN: 0363-8715            Impact factor:   1.826


  10 in total

Review 1.  Missed lesions at CT colonography: lessons learned.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2013-02

2.  [CT colonography: patient preparation and examination technique].

Authors:  P Lefere; S Gryspeerdt; T Mang
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Computed tomography colonography for the practicing radiologist: A review of current recommendations on methodology and clinical indications.

Authors:  Paola Scalise; Annalisa Mantarro; Francesca Pancrazi; Emanuele Neri
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-28

4.  Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography.

Authors:  Brandon Johnson; J Louis Hinshaw; Jessica B Robbins; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Intra-individual comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation at CT colonography: automated volumetric analysis of residual fluid for quality assessment.

Authors:  P Bannas; J Bakke; A Munoz del Rio; P J Pickhardt
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography.

Authors:  Peter Bannas; Joshua Bakke; James L Patrick; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2015-01

7.  Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography.

Authors:  Delia Campanella; Lia Morra; Silvia Delsanto; Vincenzo Tartaglia; Roberto Asnaghi; Alberto Bert; Emanuele Neri; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Temporal and multiinstitutional quality assessment of CT colonography.

Authors:  Robert L Van Uitert; Ronald M Summers; Jacob M White; Keshav K Deshpande; J Richard Choi; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination.

Authors:  Jake Theis; David H Kim; Meghan G Lubner; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-01

10.  Advances in CT Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.

Authors:  Judy Yee; Stefanie Weinstein; Tara Morgan; Patrick Alore; Rizwan Aslam
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 4.207

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.