PURPOSE: Both 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (2-L PEG/Asc) and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SP/MC) are low-volume combined agents for colonic preparation. The aim of the current study was to compare the preparation adequacy and patient tolerability of 2-L PEG/Asc and SP/MC. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled study in outpatients undergoing daytime colonoscopy at a tertiary academic hospital. We compared preparation adequacy based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR), compliance, tolerability for ease and palatability, intention to reuse, and patient satisfaction using a questionnaire between 2-L PEG/Asc and three sachets of SP/MC, both given in a split-dose method. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients were evaluated based on intention to treat (ITT) and 356 patients per protocol (PP). No significant differences in preparation adequacy were observed in ITT and PP analyses, based on the BBPS (p > 0.05). The PDR and ADR were greater than 60 and 40% in both groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Compliance levels were higher in the 2-L PEG/Asc group than in the SP/MC group (p < 0.001). Satisfaction (ITT, p = 0.014; PP, p = 0.032) and palatability (ITT and PP, p < 0.001) levels were higher in the SP/MC group than in the 2-L PEG/Asc group, but values for tolerability for ease and intention to reuse were similar in both groups (ITT and PP, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both 2-L PEG/Asc and SP/MC had adequate bowel cleansing efficacy to satisfy PDR and ADR as quality indicator and had showed similar tolerability.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Both 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (2-L PEG/Asc) and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SP/MC) are low-volume combined agents for colonic preparation. The aim of the current study was to compare the preparation adequacy and patient tolerability of 2-L PEG/Asc and SP/MC. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled study in outpatients undergoing daytime colonoscopy at a tertiary academic hospital. We compared preparation adequacy based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR), compliance, tolerability for ease and palatability, intention to reuse, and patient satisfaction using a questionnaire between 2-L PEG/Asc and three sachets of SP/MC, both given in a split-dose method. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients were evaluated based on intention to treat (ITT) and 356 patients per protocol (PP). No significant differences in preparation adequacy were observed in ITT and PP analyses, based on the BBPS (p > 0.05). The PDR and ADR were greater than 60 and 40% in both groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Compliance levels were higher in the 2-L PEG/Asc group than in the SP/MC group (p < 0.001). Satisfaction (ITT, p = 0.014; PP, p = 0.032) and palatability (ITT and PP, p < 0.001) levels were higher in the SP/MC group than in the 2-L PEG/Asc group, but values for tolerability for ease and intention to reuse were similar in both groups (ITT and PP, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both 2-L PEG/Asc and SP/MC had adequate bowel cleansing efficacy to satisfy PDR and ADR as quality indicator and had showed similar tolerability.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Philip O Katz; Douglas K Rex; Michael Epstein; Nav K Grandhi; Stephen Vanner; Lawrence C Hookey; Vivian Alderfer; Raymond E Joseph Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Christian Ell; Wolfgang Fischbach; Hans-Joachim Bronisch; Stefan Dertinger; Peter Layer; Michael Rünzi; Thomas Schneider; Günther Kachel; Jörg Grüger; Michael Köllinger; Waltraud Nagell; Karl-Josel Goerg; Roland Wanitschke; Hans-Jürgen Gruss Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Miguel Muñoz-Navas; José Luis Calleja; Guillermo Payeras; Antonio José Hervás; Luis Esteban Abreu; Víctor Orive; Pedro L Menchén; José María Bordas; José Ramón Armengol; Cristina Carretero; Vicente Pons Beltrán; Inmaculada Alonso-Abreu; Román Manteca; Adolfo Parra-Blanco; Fernando Carballo; Juan Manuel Herrerías; Carlos Badiola Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Seung In Seo; Jin Gu Kang; Hyoung Su Kim; Myoung Kuk Jang; Hak Yang Kim; Woon Geon Shin Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: E Waldmann; D Penz; B Majcher; J Zagata; H Šinkovec; G Heinze; A Dokladanska; A Szymanska; M Trauner; A Ferlitsch; M Ferlitsch Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-11-04 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Antonio Afonso de Miranda Neto; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Kelly E Hathorn; Francisco Tustumi; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura; Igor Braga Ribeiro Journal: Clin Exp Gastroenterol Date: 2020-10-07
Authors: Jae Hyuck Jun; Koon Hee Han; Jong Kyu Park; Hyun Il Seo; Young Don Kim; Sang Jin Lee; Baek Gyu Jun; Min Sik Hwang; Yoon Kyoo Park; Myeong Jong Kim; Gab Jin Cheon Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Stefan Schubert; Michael Mross; Tobias Klugmann; Michael Klemt-Kropp; Imke Behnken; Gillaume Bonnaud; Eric Keulen; Marcel Groenen; Michael Blaker; Thierry Ponchon; Wilfred Landry; Meredin Stoltenberg Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-04