Literature DB >> 25458542

Ascorbic acid PEG-2L is superior for early morning colonoscopies in colorectal cancer screening programs: a prospective non-randomized controlled trial.

C Rodríguez de Miguel1, A Serradesanferm2, M López-Cerón1, S Carballal1, A Pozo2, F Balaguer1, A Cárdenas1, G Fernández-Esparrach1, A Ginés1, B González-Suárez1, L Moreira1, I Ordás1, E Ricart1, O Sendino1, E C Vaquero1, M Ubré3, S del Manzano1, J Grau2, J Llach1, A Castells1, M Pellisé4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The quality of colon cleansing and the tolerability of anterograde preparation are essential to the success of colorectal cancer screening. AIM: To compare the tolerability and efficacy of low-volume preparations vs the standard regimen in individuals scheduled for an early morning colonoscopy. STUDY: Participants in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program using the fecal immunochemical test who were scheduled for a colonoscopy from 09:00 a.m. to 10:20 a.m. were prospectively included and assigned to: (1) control group (PEG-ELS 4L): PEG 4L and electrolytes; (2) group AscPEG-2L: a combination of PEG and ascorbic acid 2L; and (3) group PiMg: sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate 500 mL plus 2L of clear fluids. Tolerability was evaluated with a questionnaire and the quality of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.
RESULTS: A total of 292 participants were included: 98 in the PEG-ELS 4L control group, 96 in the AscPEG-2L study group and 98 in the PiMg study group. Low-volume treatments were better tolerated than the standard solution (AscPEG-2L 94.8% and PiMg 93.9% vs PEG-ELS 4L 75.5%; p < 0.0001). The effectiveness of AscPEG-2L was superior to that of PEG-ELS 4L and PiMg (p = 0.011 and p = 0.032, respectively). Patient acceptance was higher for single-dose than for split-dose administration but efficacy was higher with the split dose than with other doses.
CONCLUSIONS: In early morning colonoscopies, ascPEG-2L appears to be the best option, especially when administered in a split-dose.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and AEEH y AEG. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bowel cleansing; Clinical trial; Colonoscopia; Colonoscopia de calidad; Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer screening; Cribado de cáncer colorectal; Ensayo clínico; Preparación anterógrada; Preparation; Quality endoscopy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25458542     DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2014.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0210-5705            Impact factor:   2.102


  3 in total

1.  Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Authors:  Li-Juan Yi; Xu Tian; Yuan-Ping Pi; Ling Feng; Hui Chen; Xiao-Ling Liu; Wei-Qing Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.889

2.  Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Different Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes Solution Bowel Preparation for Morning Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Hefeng Tian; Hui Li; Xuanrui Zhu; Wenlong Liu; Ying Fan; Lei Shi; Xiu Wang
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2022-08-31

3.  A Randomized, Endoscopist-Blinded, Prospective Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Patient Tolerability between Bowel Preparation Protocols Using Sodium Picosulfate Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene-Glycol (1 L and 2 L) for Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Sang Hoon Kim; Ji Hyeong Kim; Bora Keum; Han Jo Jeon; Se Hyun Jang; Seong Ji Choi; Seung Han Kim; Jae Min Lee; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Sun Kim; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hong Sik Lee; Hoon Jai Chun; Chang Duck Kim
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 2.260

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.