Literature DB >> 18562740

Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography.

Sebastiaan Jensch1, Ayso H de Vries, Dennis Pot, Jan Peringa, Shandra Bipat, Jasper Florie, Rogier E van Gelder, Jaap Stoker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to prospectively evaluate image quality and patient acceptance of CT colonography (CTC) with fecal tagging using different levels of catharsis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive increased-risk patients were randomized. Group 1 received orally 20 mg of bisacodyl, group 2 received 30 mg of bisacodyl, group 3 received 20 mg of bisacodyl and 8.2 g of magnesium citrate, and group 4 received 30 mg of bisacodyl and 16.4 g of magnesium citrate. All patients used a 2-day low-fiber diet and received diatrizoate meglumine and barium for fecal tagging. One reviewer blindly scored subjective image quality (fecal tagging, amount of residual feces [liquid or solid], luminal distention, and image readability) on a 5- to 6-point scale using a 2D review technique. The mean and SD of attenuation of tagging were measured as well as the relative SD as a measure of homogeneity. Furthermore, patient acceptance (burden related to diarrhea, abdominal pain, flatulence, and overall burden) was evaluated. Ordinal regression, generalized estimating equations, and parametric and nonparametric tests were used for analysis.
RESULTS: Image readability was evaluated as good or excellent in all examinations except one in group 2 (nondiagnostic) and two in group 3 (moderate). Group 2 contained more feces than group 4 (p = 0.04). With regard to mean attenuation and homogeneity of tagging, no significant differences were observed between groups. Group 4 experienced more severe diarrhea than groups 1 and 2 and higher overall burden than groups 1 and 3 (p < 0.042).
CONCLUSION: The mildest preparation with 20 mg of bisacodyl provided good image quality of CTC images. Increasing the amount of laxatives did not improve image quality or tagging characteristics but was associated with a lower patient acceptance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18562740     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3128

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  14 in total

1.  National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients.

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

2.  The elephant in the room: bowel preparation for CT colonography.

Authors:  Ronald Summers
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Leonardo Ventura; Grazia Grazzini; Alessandra Borgheresi; Silvia Delsanto; Massimo Falchini; Beatrice Mallardi; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Milani; Stefano Pallanti; Marco Zappa; Mario Mascalchi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability.

Authors:  A Pollentine; A Mortimer; P McCoubrie; L Archer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl.

Authors:  Zhi-Yuan Chen; He-Song Shen; Ming-Yue Luo; Chai-Jie Duan; Wen-Li Cai; Hong-Bing Lu; Guo-Peng Zhang; Yang Liu; Jerome Z Liang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  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

7.  CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes.

Authors:  Marjolein H Liedenbaum; A H de Vries; C I B F Gouw; A F van Rijn; S Bipat; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Using CT colonography as a triage technique after a positive faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  M H Liedenbaum; A F van Rijn; A H de Vries; H M Dekker; M Thomeer; C J van Marrewijk; L Hol; M G W Dijkgraaf; P Fockens; P M M Bossuyt; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  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

10.  CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population.

Authors:  Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Ayso H de Vries; Anne F van Rijn; Helena M Dekker; François E J A Willemssen; Monique E van Leerdam; Corine J van Marrewijk; Paul Fockens; Shandra Bipat; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2010-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.