Literature DB >> 26301330

Polyethylene glycol versus sodium picosulfalte bowel preparation in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program.

Omar Kherad, Sophie Restellini, Myriam Martel, Alan N Barkun.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy is an important predictor of colonoscopy quality.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in terms of effectiveness between different existing colon cleansing products in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program.
METHODS: The records of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec) between April 2013 and April 2014 were retrospectively extracted from a dedicated electronic digestive endoscopic institutional database.
RESULTS: Overall, 2867 charts of patients undergoing colonoscopy were assessed, of which 1130 colonoscopies were performed in a screening setting; patients had adequate bowel preparation in 90%. Quality of preparation was documented in only 61%. Bowel preparation was worse in patients receiving sodium picosulfate (PICO) alone compared with polyethylene glycol, in a screening setting (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.2 to 0.6]). Regardless of the preparation type, the odds of achieving adequate quality cleansing was 6.6 for patients receiving a split-dose regimen (OR 6.6 [95% CI 2.1 to 21.1]). In multivariable analyses, clinical variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation in combined population were use of PICO, a nonsplit regimen and inpatient status. The polyp detection rate was very high (45.6%) and was correlated with withdrawal time.
CONCLUSION: Preparation quality needs to be more consistently included in the colonoscopy report. Split-dose regimens increased the quality of colon cleansing across all types of preparations and should be the preferred method of administration. Polyethylene glycol alone provided better bowel cleansing efficacy than PICO in a screening setting but PICO remains an alternative in association with an adjuvant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26301330      PMCID: PMC4610650          DOI: 10.1155/2015/350587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 2291-2789


  36 in total

Review 1.  The safety profile of oral sodium phosphate for colonic cleansing before colonoscopy in adults.

Authors:  Lawrence C Hookey; William T Depew; Stephen Vanner
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 2.  Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer.

Authors:  David A Johnson; Alan N Barkun; Larry B Cohen; Jason A Dominitz; Tonya Kaltenbach; Myriam Martel; Douglas J Robertson; C Richard Boland; Frances M Giardello; David A Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Comparison of colon cleansing methods in preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  J A DiPalma; C E Brady; D L Stewart; D A Karlin; M K McKinney; D J Clement; T W Coleman; W P Pierson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda.

Authors:  C A Aronchick; W H Lipshutz; S H Wright; F Dufrayne; G Bergman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Virender K Sharma; Pat de Garmo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Thomas F Imperiale; Danielle R Latinovich; L Lisa Bratcher
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Prospective, randomized trial comparing sodium phosphate solution with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy preparation.

Authors:  J B Marshall; J J Pineda; J S Barthel; P D King
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1993 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Comparison of reduced volume versus four liters sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing.

Authors:  Jack A DiPalma; Bruce G Wolff; Alan Meagher; Mark vB Cleveland
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Short report: comparison of two orally administered bowel preparations for colonoscopy--polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulphate.

Authors:  M Dakkak; K Aziz; J R Bennett
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 8.171

10.  Comparison of three colon cleansing methods: evaluation of a randomized clinical trial with 300 ambulatory patients.

Authors:  P J Hangartner; R Münch; J Meier; R Ammann; H Bühler
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 10.093

View more
  3 in total

1.  A randomized clinical prospective trial comparing split-dose picosulfate/ magnesium citrate and polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation.

Authors:  Alaa Rostom; Catherine Dube; Kirles Bishay; Lilia Antonova; Steven J Heitman; Robert Hilsden
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Comparison of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with an Auditable Application of the US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines.

Authors:  Valérie Heron; Myriam Martel; Talat Bessissow; Yen-I Chen; Etienne Désilets; Catherine Dube; Yidan Lu; Charles Menard; Julia McNabb-Baltar; Robin Parmar; Alaa Rostom; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  J Can Assoc Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-06-29

3.  Computed Tomography Image Segmentation of the Proximal Colon by U-Net for the Clinical Study of Somatostatin Combined with Intestinal Obstruction Catheter.

Authors:  Chunpeng Dou; Kuiwu Li; Liang Wang
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 2.238

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.