OBJECTIVES: Adequate preparation of the bowel is essential for accurate colonoscopic examination. We compared colonic preparation with sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate (SPS-Mg) with sulphate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage (PEG-EL) solution before colonoscopy, for quality of bowel cleansing, patient discomfort, and side effects. METHODS:Sixty-eight consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3 sachets of SPS-Mg (16.5 g each) (n = 39) or 3 L of PEG-EL (n = 29) on the day before colonoscopy. Shortly before the procedure each patient was interviewed to determine the degree of discomfort (1 = none or mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) and side effects. The quality of bowel cleansing was graded by a gastroenterologist who was unaware of the method of preparation (from 1 = poor to 4 = excellent). RESULTS: Of the 29 PEG-EL patients, four (14%) did not complete the preparation because of side effects. The degree of discomfort was significantly greater with PEG-EL (mean score, 2.3 +/- 0.7) than with SPS-Mg (mean score, 1.4 +/- 0.5; p < 0.01). Nausea and vomiting were significantly more common in the PEG-EL group (38% vs 13%; p < 0.05). Using intention-to-treat analysis, bowel cleansing proved to be significantly better with SPS-Mg than with PEG-EL (mean score +/- SD, 3.05 +/- 0.9 and 2.57 +/- 1.0, respectively; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Colonic preparation with SPS-Mg is better tolerated, associated with significantly fewer side effects, and results in higher quality bowel cleansing than preparation with PEG-EL.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Adequate preparation of the bowel is essential for accurate colonoscopic examination. We compared colonic preparation with sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate (SPS-Mg) with sulphate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage (PEG-EL) solution before colonoscopy, for quality of bowel cleansing, patient discomfort, and side effects. METHODS: Sixty-eight consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3 sachets of SPS-Mg (16.5 g each) (n = 39) or 3 L of PEG-EL (n = 29) on the day before colonoscopy. Shortly before the procedure each patient was interviewed to determine the degree of discomfort (1 = none or mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) and side effects. The quality of bowel cleansing was graded by a gastroenterologist who was unaware of the method of preparation (from 1 = poor to 4 = excellent). RESULTS: Of the 29 PEG-ELpatients, four (14%) did not complete the preparation because of side effects. The degree of discomfort was significantly greater with PEG-EL (mean score, 2.3 +/- 0.7) than with SPS-Mg (mean score, 1.4 +/- 0.5; p < 0.01). Nausea and vomiting were significantly more common in the PEG-EL group (38% vs 13%; p < 0.05). Using intention-to-treat analysis, bowel cleansing proved to be significantly better with SPS-Mg than with PEG-EL (mean score +/- SD, 3.05 +/- 0.9 and 2.57 +/- 1.0, respectively; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Colonic preparation with SPS-Mg is better tolerated, associated with significantly fewer side effects, and results in higher quality bowel cleansing than preparation with PEG-EL.
Authors: Amy K Hara; Mark D Kuo; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Judy Yee; Abraham Dachman; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; C Daniel Johnson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alan Barkun; Naoki Chiba; Robert Enns; Margaret Marcon; Susan Natsheh; Co Pham; Dan Sadowski; Stephen Vanner Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Carolina Jimenez-Rivera; Donna Haas; Margaret Boland; Janice L Barkey; David R Mack Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2009-12-06 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Jonthan Love; Edmond-Jean Bernard; Alan Cockeram; Lawrence Cohen; Martin Fishman; James Gray; David Morgan Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Stergios Vradelis; Evangelos Kalaitzakis; Yalda Sharifi; Otto Buchel; Satish Keshav; Roger W Chapman; Barbara Braden Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 5.742