Literature DB >> 27349220

Randomized trial comparing oral sulfate solution with 4-L polyethylene glycol administered in a split dose as preparation for colonoscopy.

Hyo-Joon Yang1, Soo-Kyung Park1, Jee Hyun Kim2, Jong Pil Im2, Dong Han Yeom3, Geom Seog Seo3, Dong Il Park1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The present study aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of low-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) to 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions administered in a split-dose regimen as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The safety and tolerability were also compared between the two regimens.
METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind, active-control, parallel group, and non-inferiority trial, consecutive outpatients and health checkup recipients aged 19-65 years undergoing elective colonoscopy were enrolled to receive OSS or 4-L PEG in a split-dose regimen. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The occurrence of any adverse events, acceptance, compliance, and satisfaction during bowel preparation were evaluated by participant interviews.
RESULTS: Overall, 210 participants were randomized, and 199 were administered by the study agents. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 98.0% (97/99) of the OSS group, which was non-inferior to the PEG group (96%; 96/100) with a difference of +2.8% (95% confidence interval; -2.8, +6.8). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events except for abdominal pain, which was more frequent in the OSS (7.1%, 7/99) than in the PEG (1.0%, 1/100; P = 0.035) group. Acceptance, compliance, and satisfaction were significantly higher in the OSS than in the PEG group (all P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Split-dose OSS was non-inferior to split-dose 4-L PEG with regard to bowel preparation efficacy before colonoscopy in adult outpatients or screening colonoscopy recipients aged ≤65 years with acceptable safety and superior tolerability.
© 2016 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cathartics; colonoscopy; polyethylene glycols; sulfates

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27349220     DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13477

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0815-9319            Impact factor:   4.029


  6 in total

Review 1.  Update on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Cristina C Rutherford; Audrey H Calderwood
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-03

2.  Predicting Suboptimal Bowel Preparation: Taking It Up a PEG.

Authors:  Shaheel M Sahebally
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study.

Authors:  Vincenzo Occhipinti; Paola Soriani; Francesco Bagolini; Valentina Milani; Emanuele Rondonotti; Maria Laura Annunziata; Flaminia Cavallaro; Sara Vavassori; Maurizio Vecchi; Luca Pastorelli; Gian Eugenio Tontini
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2021-12-16

Review 4.  Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Milena Di Leo; Andrea Iannone; Monica Arena; Giuseppe Losurdo; Maria Angela Palamara; Giuseppe Iabichino; Pierluigi Consolo; Maria Rendina; Carmelo Luigiano; Alfredo Di Leo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s.

Authors:  Francesco Auriemma; Sandro Sferrazza; Mario Bianchetti; Maria Flavia Savarese; Laura Lamonaca; Danilo Paduano; Nicole Piazza; Enrica Giuffrida; Lupe Sanchez Mete; Alessandra Tucci; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Chiara Iannelli; Alessandro Repici; Benedetto Mangiavillano
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2022-07-27

Review 6.  Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Mengyang Shi; Zhongli Liao; Weiqing Chen; Yongzhong Wu; Xu Tian
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 6.337

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.