OBJECTIVE: Many protocols of bowel preparation are available for use in children; however, none of them is commonly accepted. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus low-volume PEG combined with bisacodyl (BPEG) versus sennosides for colonoscopy preparation in children. METHODS:Participants ages 10 to 18 years were randomly assigned to receive either PEG 60 or PEG 30 mLkg⁻¹ day⁻¹ plus oral bisacodyl 10 to 15 mg/day or sennosides 2 mg kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ for 2 days. A blinded assessment of bowel cleansing was made by the endoscopist according to the Aronchick and Ottawa scales. Patient acceptability was evaluated with the visual-analog scale. Analysis was done on an available case analysis basis. RESULTS: Of 240 patients enrolled in the study 234 patients were available for analysis of the efficacy of colon cleansing. There were no significant differences found among the 3 groups for the proportions of participants with excellent/good (PEG: 35/79, BPEG: 26/79, sennosides 25/76) and poor/inadequate (PEG: 20/79, BPEG: 28/79, sennosides 28/76) bowel preparation evaluated with the Aronchick scale and for the mean Ottawa total score (PEG: 5.47 ± 3.63, BPEG: 6.22 ± 3.3, sennosides: 6.18 ± 3.53). Acceptability of bowel cleansing protocol was similar in all of the groups (P = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 cleansing methods showed similar efficacy and tolerability; however, none of them was satisfactory.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Many protocols of bowel preparation are available for use in children; however, none of them is commonly accepted. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus low-volume PEG combined with bisacodyl (BPEG) versus sennosides for colonoscopy preparation in children. METHODS:Participants ages 10 to 18 years were randomly assigned to receive either PEG 60 or PEG 30 mL kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ plus oral bisacodyl 10 to 15 mg/day or sennosides 2 mg kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ for 2 days. A blinded assessment of bowel cleansing was made by the endoscopist according to the Aronchick and Ottawa scales. Patient acceptability was evaluated with the visual-analog scale. Analysis was done on an available case analysis basis. RESULTS: Of 240 patients enrolled in the study 234 patients were available for analysis of the efficacy of colon cleansing. There were no significant differences found among the 3 groups for the proportions of participants with excellent/good (PEG: 35/79, BPEG: 26/79, sennosides 25/76) and poor/inadequate (PEG: 20/79, BPEG: 28/79, sennosides 28/76) bowel preparation evaluated with the Aronchick scale and for the mean Ottawa total score (PEG: 5.47 ± 3.63, BPEG: 6.22 ± 3.3, sennosides: 6.18 ± 3.53). Acceptability of bowel cleansing protocol was similar in all of the groups (P = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: All 3 cleansing methods showed similar efficacy and tolerability; however, none of them was satisfactory.
Authors: R Park; S Mikami; J LeClair; A Bollom; C Lembo; S Sethi; A Lembo; M Jones; V Cheng; E Friedlander; S Nurko Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2015-03-22 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Thomas Berger; Martin Classen; Harald Engelhardt; Klaus-Michael Keller; Martin W Laass; Ralph Melchior; Carsten Posovszky; Burkhard Rodeck; Katharina Schaper; Rolf Behrens Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2016-06-02
Authors: Anthony Lamanna; Lauren D Dughetti; Julie A Jordan-Ely; Kyla M Dobson; Megan Dynan; Adeline Foo; Louise M P Kooiman; Naomi Murakami; Kaic Fiuza; Siavash Foroughi; Marcelo Leal; Suzanna Vidmar; Anthony G Catto-Smith; John M Hutson; Bridget R Southwell Journal: JGH Open Date: 2018-06-27