Literature DB >> 21873253

Reduced cathartic bowel preparation for CT colonography: prospective comparison of 2-L polyethylene glycol and magnesium citrate.

Alexander W Keedy1, Judy Yee, Rizwan Aslam, Stefanie Weinstein, Luis A Landeras, Janak N Shah, Kenneth R McQuaid, Benjamin M Yeh.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare adequacy of colonic cleansing, adequacy of solid stool and fluid tagging, and patient acceptance by using reduced-volume, 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus magnesium citrate bowel preparations for CT colonography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional Committee on Human Research and was compliant with HIPAA; all patients provided written consent. In this randomized, investigator-blinded study, 50 patients underwent oral preparation with either a 2-L PEG or a magnesium citrate solution, tagging with oral contrast agents, and subsequent CT colonography and segmentally unblinded colonoscopy. The residual stool (score 0 [best] to 3 [worst]) and fluid (score 0 [best] to 4 [worst]) burden and tagging adequacy were qualitatively assessed. Residual fluid attenuation was recorded as a quantitative measure of tagging adequacy. Patients completed a tolerance questionnaire within 2 weeks of scanning. Preparations were compared for residual stool and fluid by using generalized estimating equations; the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the qualitative tagging score, mean residual fluid attenuation, and adverse effects assessed on the patient experience questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean residual stool (0.90 of three) and fluid burden (1.05 of four) scores for PEG were similar to those for magnesium citrate (0.96 [P = .58] and 0.98 [P = .48], respectively). However, the mean fecal and fluid tagging scores were significantly better for PEG (0.48 and 0.28, respectively) than for magnesium citrate (1.52 [P < .01] and 1.28 [P < .01], respectively). Mean residual fluid attenuation was higher for PEG (765 HU) than for magnesium citrate (443 HU, P = .01), and mean interpretation time was shorter for PEG (14.8 minutes) than for magnesium citrate (18.0 minutes, P = .04). Tolerance ratings were not significantly different between preparations.
CONCLUSION: Reduced-volume PEG and magnesium citrate bowel preparations demonstrated adequate cleansing effectiveness for CT colonography, with better tagging and shorter interpretation time observed in the PEG group. Adequate polyp detection was maintained but requires further validation because of the small number of clinically important polyps. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21873253      PMCID: PMC3176421          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  44 in total

1.  Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography.

Authors:  M Macari; M Lavelle; I Pedrosa; A Milano; M Dicker; A J Megibow; X Xue
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients.

Authors:  J Yee; G A Akerkar; R K Hung; A M Steinauer-Gebauer; S D Wall; K R McQuaid
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  E R Weitzman; J Zapka; B Estabrook; K V Goins
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results.

Authors:  Didier Bielen; Maarten Thomeer; Dirk Vanbeckevoort; Gabriel Kiss; Frederik Maes; Guy Marchal; Paul Rutgeerts
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-11-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.

Authors:  Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-02-08       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Jensch; Ayso H de Vries; Jan Peringa; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Lubbertus C Baak; Joep F Bartelsman; Anneke Heutinck; Alexander D Montauban van Swijndregt; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance.

Authors:  Philippe A Lefere; Stefaan S Gryspeerdt; Jef Dewyspelaere; Marc Baekelandt; Bartel G Van Holsbeeck
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Colorectal cancer test use from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Jean A Shapiro; Laura C Seeff; Trevor D Thompson; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.254

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.  CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Andrew Slater; David N Burling; Emily Tam; Rebecca Greenhalgh; Louise Gartner; Julia Scarth; Robert Pearce; Paul Bassett; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  10 in total

1.  Virtual colonoscopy: Utility, impact and overview.

Authors:  Dhakshina Ganeshan; Khaled M Elsayes; David Vining
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2013-03-28

2.  Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens.

Authors:  F Iafrate; M Iannitti; M Ciolina; P Baldassari; A Pichi; A Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 5.315

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.  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

5.  Iohexol versus diatrizoate for fecal/fluid tagging during CT colonography performed with cathartic preparation: comparison of examination quality.

Authors:  Bohyun Kim; Seong Ho Park; Gil-Sun Hong; Ju Hee Lee; Jong Seok Lee; Hyun Jin Kim; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-01-11       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  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

Review 7.  Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications.

Authors:  Andrea Laghi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Comparison of a 4-Day versus 2-Day Low Fiber Diet Regimen in Barium Tagging CT Colonography in Incomplete Colonoscopy Patients.

Authors:  Kaan Meric; Nuray Bakal; Ebubekir Şenateş; Sibel Aydın; Zeynep Gamze Kılıçoğlu; Fatma Esra Bahadır Ülger; Esin Yencilek; Banu Erkalma Şenateş; Masum Şimşek
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2015-03-22       Impact factor: 2.260

9.  Effect of dose splitting of a low-volume bowel preparation macrogol-based solution on CT colonography tagging quality.

Authors:  Francesco Mistretta; Nicolò Damiani; Delia Campanella; Simone Mazzetti; Alessia Gulino; Giovanni Cappello; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 6.313

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.