Davide Bellini1, Nicola Panvini2, Simone Vicini1, Marco Rengo1, Paola Lucchesi1, Damiano Caruso3, Iacopo Carbone1, Andrea Laghi3. 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome - I.C.O.T. Hospital, Via Franco Faggiana, 1668, 04100, Latina, Italy. 2. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome - I.C.O.T. Hospital, Via Franco Faggiana, 1668, 04100, Latina, Italy. npanvini88@gmail.com. 3. Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035-1039, 00189, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether the quality of a low-volume reduced bowel preparation (LV-RBP) for CT Colonography (CTC) is noninferior to full-volume reduced bowel preparation (FV-RBP) regimen. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, consecutive participants referred for CTC were randomly assigned to receive LV-RBP (52.5 g of PMF104 in 500 mL of water) or FV-RBP (105 g of PMF104 in 1000 mL of water). Images were independently reviewed by five blinded readers who rated the quality of bowel preparation from 0 (best score) to 3 (worst score). The primary outcome was the noninferiority of LV-RBP to FV-RBP in the proportion of colonic segments scored 0 for cleansing quality, with noninferiority margin of 10%. Volume of residual fluids, colonic distension, lesions and polyps detection rates and patient tolerability were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: From March 2019 to January 2020, 110 participants (mean age 65 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 74 women) were allocated to LV-RBP (n = 55) or FV-RBP (n = 55) arms. There were 92% segment scored 0 in colon cleansing quality in LV-RBP and 94% in FV-RBP for prone scans, and 94% vs 92% for supine scans. Risk difference was - 2.1 (95% CI -5.9 to 1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI -2.4 to 5.4) for prone and supine positions, respectively. Residual fluids and colonic distension were also noninferior in LV-RBP. LV-RBP was associated with a lower number of evacuations during preparation (7 ± 5 vs 10 ± 6, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The LV-RBP for CTC demonstrated noninferior quality of colon cleansing with improved gastrointestinal tolerability compared to FV-RBP regimen.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the quality of a low-volume reduced bowel preparation (LV-RBP) for CT Colonography (CTC) is noninferior to full-volume reduced bowel preparation (FV-RBP) regimen. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, consecutive participants referred for CTC were randomly assigned to receive LV-RBP (52.5 g of PMF104 in 500 mL of water) or FV-RBP (105 g of PMF104 in 1000 mL of water). Images were independently reviewed by five blinded readers who rated the quality of bowel preparation from 0 (best score) to 3 (worst score). The primary outcome was the noninferiority of LV-RBP to FV-RBP in the proportion of colonic segments scored 0 for cleansing quality, with noninferiority margin of 10%. Volume of residual fluids, colonic distension, lesions and polyps detection rates and patient tolerability were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: From March 2019 to January 2020, 110 participants (mean age 65 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 74 women) were allocated to LV-RBP (n = 55) or FV-RBP (n = 55) arms. There were 92% segment scored 0 in colon cleansing quality in LV-RBP and 94% in FV-RBP for prone scans, and 94% vs 92% for supine scans. Risk difference was - 2.1 (95% CI -5.9 to 1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI -2.4 to 5.4) for prone and supine positions, respectively. Residual fluids and colonic distension were also noninferior in LV-RBP. LV-RBP was associated with a lower number of evacuations during preparation (7 ± 5 vs 10 ± 6, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The LV-RBP for CTC demonstrated noninferior quality of colon cleansing with improved gastrointestinal tolerability compared to FV-RBP regimen.
Authors: Philippe A Lefere; Stefaan S Gryspeerdt; Jef Dewyspelaere; Marc Baekelandt; Bartel G Van Holsbeeck Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marjolein H Liedenbaum; A H de Vries; C I B F Gouw; A F van Rijn; S Bipat; E Dekker; J Stoker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Emanuele Neri; Steve Halligan; Mikael Hellström; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Daniele Regge; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Andrea Laghi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315