BACKGROUND: The 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) lavage solution has been proved to be similarly safe and effective as 4 L PEG formulations, in spite of the reduced volume. OBJECTIVE: To compare low-volume PEG-based solution combined with ascorbic acid with high-volume PEG-based solution combined with simethicon in terms of efficacy and patient tolerability. METHODS: This was a single-blind prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomized to receive either 2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) or 4 L PEG plus simethicon (PEG+Sim). The primary endpoint was overall colon cleansing evaluation, assessed by blinded investigators using Aronchick score. Secondary end points included patient compliance and tolerability and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received PEG+Asc and 60 received PEG+Sim. Overall bowel cleansing score was considered adequate in 81.67% of the PEG+Asc and 80% of the PEG+Sim groups, respectively. Excellent and good ratings were recorded in 11.6% and 38.3% receiving PEG+Asc as compared with 26.6% and 23.3% of patients receiving PEG+Sim. Patient tolerability and safety were similar with both the preparations. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, low-volume PEG+Asc has comparable efficacy, safety, and tolerability as high-volume PEG+Sim; therefore, it can be considered as a good alternative solution for bowel preparation. More improvements are necessary to achieve the target of a perfect preparation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) lavage solution has been proved to be similarly safe and effective as 4 L PEG formulations, in spite of the reduced volume. OBJECTIVE: To compare low-volume PEG-based solution combined with ascorbic acid with high-volume PEG-based solution combined with simethicon in terms of efficacy and patient tolerability. METHODS: This was a single-blind prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomized to receive either 2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) or 4 L PEG plus simethicon (PEG+Sim). The primary endpoint was overall colon cleansing evaluation, assessed by blinded investigators using Aronchick score. Secondary end points included patient compliance and tolerability and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received PEG+Asc and 60 received PEG+Sim. Overall bowel cleansing score was considered adequate in 81.67% of the PEG+Asc and 80% of the PEG+Sim groups, respectively. Excellent and good ratings were recorded in 11.6% and 38.3% receiving PEG+Asc as compared with 26.6% and 23.3% of patients receiving PEG+Sim. Patient tolerability and safety were similar with both the preparations. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, low-volume PEG+Asc has comparable efficacy, safety, and tolerability as high-volume PEG+Sim; therefore, it can be considered as a good alternative solution for bowel preparation. More improvements are necessary to achieve the target of a perfect preparation.
Authors: Kyong Joo Lee; Hong Jun Park; Hyun-Soo Kim; Kwang Ho Baik; Yeon Soo Kim; Sung Chul Park; Hyun Il Seo Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Goretti Hernandez; Ana Aldea; David Nicolás-Pérez; Alejandro Jiménez; Marta Carrillo; Vanesa Felipe; Onofre Alarcón-Fernández; Manuel Hernandez-Guerra; Rafael Romero; Inmaculada Alonso; Yanira Gonzalez; Zaida Adrian; Miguel Moreno; Laura Ramos; Enrique Quintero Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 10.864