Literature DB >> 18060280

Randomized clinical trial comparing sodium picosulfate with mannitol on the preparation FOR colonoscopy in hospitalized patients.

Suzana Müller1, Carlos Fernando de Magalhães Francesconi, Ismael Maguilnik, Helenice Pankowsky Breyer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cleansing of the colon for a colonoscopy exam must be complete so as to allow the visualization and inspection of the intestinal lumen. The ideal cleansing agent should be easily administered, have a low cost, and minimum collateral effects. Sodium picosulfate together with the magnesium citrate is a cathartic stimulant and mannitol is an osmotic laxative, both usually used for this purpose. AIMS: Assess the colon cleanliness comparing the use of mannitol and sodium picosulfate as well as evaluate the level of patient satisfaction, the presence of foam, pain, and abdominal distension in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study with 80 patients that compared two groups: mannitol (40) and sodium picosulfate (40). Both groups received the same dietary orientation. The study was approved by the hospital's Ethics and Research Committee. The endoscopist was blind to the type of preparation. Outcomes evaluated: level of the colons cleanliness, patients satisfaction, the presence of foam, abdominal pain and distension, and the duration of the exam. The data was analyzed by means of the chi-squared test for proportions and Mann-Whitney for independent samples.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in relation to the level of the colon's cleanliness, patients satisfaction, the presence of foam, abdominal pain, and the duration of the exam. Fifteen percent of the exams of the mannitol group were interrupted while from the sodium picosulfate group it was 5%. The presence of foam was similar for both groups. The average duration for carrying out the exam was 28.44 minutes for the mannitol group and 35.59 minutes for the sodium picosulfate group. Abdominal distension was more frequent in the mannitol group. If they would have to do the same exam, the answer was that 80% said yes from the mannitol group and 92.5% from the sodium picosulfate group.
CONCLUSION: The quality of the colon preparation, foam formation, exam duration, and the collateral effects (nauseas, vomiting, and abdominal pain) were similar in both kinds of preparations. Abdominal distension was greater in the mannitol group. Both methods of preparation were well accepted by the hospitalized patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18060280     DOI: 10.1590/s0004-28032007000300013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arq Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0004-2803


  5 in total

Review 1.  The in-patient colonoscopy: a difficult endeavor.

Authors:  Robert Enns; Darin Krygier
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.522

2.  Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Elyse R Johnston; Dyanna L Gregory; Jody D Ciolino; Andrew Cooper; Rajesh N Keswani
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  An Automated Inpatient Split-dose Bowel Preparation System Improves Colonoscopy Quality and Reduces Repeat Procedures.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Elyse R Johnston; Adam B Gluskin; Dyanna L Gregory; Rachel Cyrus; Lindsay Werth; Jody D Ciolino; David P Grande; Rajesh N Keswani
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 3.062

4.  Colonic Fermentation Promotes Decompression sickness in Rats.

Authors:  Sébastien de Maistre; Nicolas Vallée; Emmanuel Gempp; Kate Lambrechts; Pierre Louge; Claude Duchamp; Jean-Eric Blatteau
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 5.  Strategies to Improve Inpatients' Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Paraskevas Gkolfakis; Georgios Tziatzios; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; Konstantinos Triantafyllou
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 2.260

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.