AIM: To compare the efficacy and palatability of 4 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) plus sugar-free menthol candy (PEG + M) vs reduced-volume 2 L ascorbic acid-supplemented PEG (AscPEG). METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial setting, ambulatory patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either PEG + M or AscPEG, both split-dosed with minimal dietary restriction. Palatability was assessed on a linear scale of 1 to 5 (1 = disgusting; 5 = tasty). Quality of preparation was scored by assignment-blinded endoscopists using the modified Aronchick and Ottawa scales. The main outcomes were the palatability and efficacy of the preparation. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to retake the same preparation again in the future and completion of the prescribed preparation. RESULTS: Overall, 200 patients were enrolled (100 patients per arm). PEG + M was more palatable than AscPEG (76% vs 62%, P = 0.03). Completing the preparation was not different between study groups (91% PEG + M vs 86% AscPEG, P = 0.38) but more patients were willing to retake PEG + M (54% vs 40% respectively, P = 0.047). There was no significant difference between PEG + M vs AscPEG in adequate cleansing on both the modified Aronchick (82% vs 77%, P = 0.31) and the Ottawa scale (85% vs 74%, P = 0.054). However, PEG + M was superior in the left colon on the Ottawa subsegmental score (score 0-2: 94% for PEG + M vs 81% for AscPEG, P = 0.005) and received significantly more excellent ratings than AscPEG on the modified Aronchick scale (61% vs 43%, P = 0.009). Both preparations performed less well in afternoon vs morning examinations (inadequate: 29% vs 15.2%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: 4 L PEG plus menthol has better palatability and acceptability than 2 L ascorbic acid- PEG and is associated with a higher rate of excellent preparations; Clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT01788709.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the efficacy and palatability of 4 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) plus sugar-free menthol candy (PEG + M) vs reduced-volume 2 L ascorbic acid-supplemented PEG (AscPEG). METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial setting, ambulatory patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either PEG + M or AscPEG, both split-dosed with minimal dietary restriction. Palatability was assessed on a linear scale of 1 to 5 (1 = disgusting; 5 = tasty). Quality of preparation was scored by assignment-blinded endoscopists using the modified Aronchick and Ottawa scales. The main outcomes were the palatability and efficacy of the preparation. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to retake the same preparation again in the future and completion of the prescribed preparation. RESULTS: Overall, 200 patients were enrolled (100 patients per arm). PEG + M was more palatable than AscPEG (76% vs 62%, P = 0.03). Completing the preparation was not different between study groups (91% PEG + M vs 86% AscPEG, P = 0.38) but more patients were willing to retake PEG + M (54% vs 40% respectively, P = 0.047). There was no significant difference between PEG + M vs AscPEG in adequate cleansing on both the modified Aronchick (82% vs 77%, P = 0.31) and the Ottawa scale (85% vs 74%, P = 0.054). However, PEG + M was superior in the left colon on the Ottawa subsegmental score (score 0-2: 94% for PEG + M vs 81% for AscPEG, P = 0.005) and received significantly more excellent ratings than AscPEG on the modified Aronchick scale (61% vs 43%, P = 0.009). Both preparations performed less well in afternoon vs morning examinations (inadequate: 29% vs 15.2%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: 4 L PEG plus menthol has better palatability and acceptability than 2 L ascorbic acid- PEG and is associated with a higher rate of excellent preparations; Clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT01788709.
Authors: Amer M A El Sayed; Zeina A Kanafani; Fadi H Mourad; Assaad M Soweid; Kassem A Barada; Clarisse S Adorian; Walid A Nasreddine; Ala I Sharara Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Heitham Abdul-Baki; Jana G Hashash; Ihab I Elhajj; Cecilio Azar; Lara El Zahabi; Fadi H Mourad; Kassem A Barada; Ala I Sharara Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Wendy Atkin; Edward Dadswell; Kate Wooldrage; Ines Kralj-Hans; Christian von Wagner; Rob Edwards; Guiqing Yao; Clive Kay; David Burling; Omar Faiz; Julian Teare; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle; Steve Halligan Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David P Gerard; Diane B Foster; Manfred W Raiser; John L Holden; Theodore G Karrison Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Ala I Sharara; Hamza Daroub; Camille Georges; Rani Shayto; Ralph Nader; Jean Chalhoub; Ammar Olabi Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-08-10