Literature DB >> 20646695

A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy.

Douglas K Rex1, Jack A Di Palma, Reynaldo Rodriguez, John McGowan, Mark Cleveland.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy improve tolerability.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of a new low-volume sulfate solution with a standard 4-L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
DESIGN: Multicenter, single-blind, randomized, noninferiority study.
SETTING: Five academic and community endoscopy centers in the United States. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-six outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 4 L sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution (SF-ELS) given the night before colonoscopy versus 12 oz oral sulfate solution (OSS) given in equally divided doses the evening before and the morning of colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Successful (ie, good or excellent) bowel preparation.
RESULTS: Successful bowel preparation was more frequent with OSS than with SF-ELS (98.4% vs 89.6%; P = .04). Excellent preparation also was achieved more frequently with OSS (71.4% vs 34.3%; P < .001). Patients receiving OSS had less residual stool in the cecum and ascending colon and less residual fluid in the cecum and ascending, transverse, and descending colon compared with SF-ELS. The percentage of patients with GI side effects and adverse events was not significantly different between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: The OSS was administered in split doses, whereas the SF-ELS was administered the evening before (which is its FDA-approved regimen).
CONCLUSIONS: Oral sulfate solution is promising as a safe low-volume preparation for colonoscopy. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00856843.). Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20646695     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.03.1054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  29 in total

1.  Removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (water exchange) is consistently associated with an increase in adenoma detection rate - review of data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of water-related methods.

Authors:  Fw Leung; Jo Harker; Jw Leung; Rm Siao-Salera; Sk Mann; Fc Ramirez; S Friedland; A Amato; F Radaelli; S Paggi; V Terruzzi; Yh Hsieh
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-07-01

2.  Benchmarking and quality-screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Felix W Leung
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-01

3.  A pilot study using reduced-volume oral sulfate solution as a preparation for colonoscopy among a Japanese population.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Aihara; Shoichi Saito; Tomohiko Ohya; Naoto Tamai; Tomohiro Kato; Hisao Tajiri
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Optimal Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy in the Elderly Patient.

Authors:  Samuel B Ho; Rita Hovsepians; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.923

5.  The impact of opiate pain medications and psychoactive drugs on the quality of colon preparation in outpatient colonoscopy.

Authors:  Vladimir M Kushnir; Pavan Bhat; Reena V Chokshi; Alexander Lee; Brian B Borg; Chandra Prakash Gyawali; Gregory S Sayuk
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 4.088

6.  Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of Competing Colonoscopy Preparations: Results of a Prospective Trial.

Authors:  Phillip Gu; Daniel Lew; Sun Jung Oh; Aarshi Vipani; Jeffrey Ko; Kevin Hsu; Ebrahim Mirakhor; Varun Pattisapu; Tia Bullen; Garth Fuller; Brennan M R Spiegel; Christopher V Almario
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 7.  Bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: Balancing efficacy, safety, cost and patient tolerance.

Authors:  Nicole M Harrison; Michael C Hjelkrem
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-01-10

8.  Retrospective analysis showing the water method increased adenoma detection rate - a hypothesis generating observation.

Authors:  Joseph W Leung; Lynne D Do; Rodelei M Siao-Salera; Catherine Ngo; Dhavan A Parikh; Surinder K Mann; Felix W Leung
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-01

9.  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

10.  Polyethylene glycol plus an oral sulfate solution as a bowel cleansing regimen for colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, single-arm study in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Pankaj K Kashyap; Ravit Peled
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.409

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.