Literature DB >> 18712479

Randomized study comparing two regimens of oral sodium phosphates solution versus low-dose polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl.

Pramod Malik1, David H Balaban, William O Thompson, Deborah J B Galt.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Low-volume bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy are reported to improve patient acceptance and compliance. We sought to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of three low-volume regimens: an oral sodium phosphates solution 45/45 ml (NaP-45/45), a reduced-dose oral sodium phosphates solution 45/30 ml (NaP-45/30), and polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl (PEG-2L).
RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were evaluated (mean age 55.2 +/- 8.9 years). Bowel cleansings rated as excellent and good were significantly different among the groups: NaP-45/45 = 98%, NaP-45/30 = 88%, and PEG-2L = 76% (P < 0.04). Side effects were not significantly different except for greater thirst in the NaP-45/45 group (P = 0.001) and increased vomiting in females using PEG-2L (two-tailed interaction, P < 0.10). Willingness to retake the preparation was higher among the sodium phosphates regimens (88, 95, and 73%, respectively; P = 0.019).
CONCLUSIONS: Better cleansing and willingness to retake the regimen was achieved with the oral sodium phosphates solutions than with polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18712479     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-008-0420-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  33 in total

1.  The time course and effect on serum electrolytes of oral sodium phosphates solution in healthy male and female volunteers.

Authors:  Michael Caswell; William O Thompson; Joseph A Kanapka; Deborah J B Galt
Journal:  Can J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-11-01

2.  Incidence of minor complications and time lost from normal activities after screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

Authors:  Cynthia W Ko; Stacy Riffle; Jean A Shapiro; Michael D Saunders; Scott D Lee; Bruce Y Tung; Rahul Kuver; Anne M Larson; Kris V Kowdley; Michael B Kimmey
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population.

Authors:  Ronald M Summers; Jianhua Yao; Perry J Pickhardt; Marek Franaszek; Ingmar Bitter; Daniel Brickman; Vamsi Krishna; J Richard Choi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  R M Ness; R Manam; H Hoen; N Chalasani
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Increased serum levels of complement C3a anaphylatoxin indicate the presence of colorectal tumors.

Authors:  Jens K Habermann; Uwe J Roblick; Brian T Luke; Darue A Prieto; William J J Finlay; Vladimir N Podust; John M Roman; Elisabeth Oevermann; Thomas Schiedeck; Nils Homann; Michael Duchrow; Thomas P Conrads; Timothy D Veenstra; Stanley K Burt; Hans-Peter Bruch; Gert Auer; Thomas Ried
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Low volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy: randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial of liquid sodium phosphate versus tablet sodium phosphate.

Authors:  David H Balaban; Byrd S Leavell; Michael J Oblinger; William O Thompson; Nancy D Bolton; Daniel J Pambianco
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Two liters of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution versus sodium phosphate as bowel cleansing regimen for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  C M Poon; D W H Lee; S K Mak; C W Ko; K C Chan; K W Chan; K S Sin; A C W Chan
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Thomas F Imperiale; Danielle R Latinovich; L Lisa Bratcher
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Maurits J Wiersema; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Bisacodyl reduces the volume of polyethylene glycol solution required for bowel preparation.

Authors:  W J Adams; A P Meagher; D Z Lubowski; D W King
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  4 in total

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

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

2.  Rescue bowel preparation: same day 2 L polyethylene glycol addition, not superior to bisacodyl addition 7 days later.

Authors:  Jong Wook Kim; Jeung Hye Han; Sun-Jin Boo; Ock Bae Ko; Soo-Kyung Park; Sang Hyoung Park; Dong-Hoon Yang; Kee Wook Jung; Kyung-Jo Kim; Byong Duk Ye; Seung-Jae Myung; Suk-Kyun Yang; Jin-Ho Kim; Jeong-Sik Byeon
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-04-20       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate tablets and polyethylene glycol solution for bowel cleansing in healthy Korean adults.

Authors:  Seung-Hwa Lee; Duck-Joo Lee; Kwang-Min Kim; Sang-Wook Seo; Joon-Koo Kang; Eun-Hye Lee; Dong-Ryul Lee
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.759

4.  Does It work in Clinical Practice? A Comparison of Colonoscopy Cleansing Effectiveness in Clinical Practice Versus Efficacy from Selected Prospective Trials.

Authors:  Chang Nancy Wang; Ruobing Yang; Lawrence Hookey
Journal:  J Can Assoc Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-02-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.