ABSTRACT
Resumen Introducción La efectividad de la colonoscopia depende de múltiples factores, destacando la calidad de preparación intestinal y la tolerabilidad que tenga el paciente a la preparación administrada. Objetivo Comparar dos agentes de preparación intestinal, el polietilenglicol (PEG) y el picosulfato de sodiocitrato de magnesio (PSCM) en términos de efectividad y tolerabilidad de la preparación. Pacientes y Método Ensayo clínico aleatorizado en pacientes ambulatorios sometidos a colonoscopia en Clínica INDISA. Evaluando efectividad y tolerabilidad con el Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) y cuestionario de Lawrence [compuesto por escala Likert, dos preguntas cualitativas y escala visual análoga (EVA)], respectivamente. Resultados 189 pacientes, de los cuales 123 se aleatorizaron a PEG y 66 a PSCM. El BBPS en los pacientes que utilizaron PEG, la media fue 7,51 (DS 1,66) y con PSCM fue 7,12 (DS 1,71) (p = 0,111). Al analizar la tolerabilidad con escala Likert, la media con PEG fue 0,94 (DS 0,68) y con PSCM fue 0,63 (DS 0,61) (p = 0,0004). La EVA con PEG tuvo una media de 7,68 (DS 2,4) y con PSCM de 9,04 (DS 1,59) (p < 0,0001). Al preguntar ausentismo laboral, no hubo diferencias significativas en ambos grupos y al preguntar si ocuparía la misma preparación en una futura colonoscopia, hubo significancia estadística a favor del PSCM (p = 0,026). Conclusión No encontramos diferencias en la efectividad de preparación intestinal al comparar PEG y PSCM, sin embargo, el PSCM es mejor tolerado.
Introduction The effectiveness of colonoscopy depends on multiple factors, being two of the most important ones an adequate bowel preparation and the patient's tolerability to the preparation. Objectives Compare effectiveness and tolerability of two bowel preparation agents, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC). Patients and Methods Randomized clinical trial on outpatients that went into colonoscopy in INDISA Clinic. We evaluated effectiveness and tolerability with Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) and Lawrence questionnaire [composed by Likert scale, two qualitative questions and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain], respectively. Results 189 patients, 123 were randomized to PEG and 66 to SPMC. BBPS average in patients in the PEG branch was 7.51 (SD 1.66) and for SPMC 7.12 (SD 1.71) (p = 0.111). Likert scale for evaluating tolerability average for PEG was 0.94 (SD 0.68) and for SPMC 0.63 (SD 0.61) (p = 0.0004). VAS scale for PEG had an average of 7.68 (SD 2.4) and for PSCM 9.04 (SD 1.59) (p < 0.0001). When we asked for workplace absenteeism, there were no significant differences between both groups and when we asked about using the same intestinal preparation in a future colonoscopy there was statistical significance in favor to SPMC (p = 0.026). Conclusions No differences were noted on effectiveness between the PEG and SPMC bowel preparations. Nevertheless, SPMC appeared to be better tolerated by patients.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adolescent , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Organometallic Compounds/administration & dosage , Polyethylene Glycols/administration & dosage , Cathartics/administration & dosage , Colonoscopy/methods , Citrates/administration & dosage , Picolines/administration & dosage , Preoperative Care/methods , Single-Blind Method , Surveys and Questionnaires , Patient SatisfactionABSTRACT
La adecuada limpieza intestinal (LI) es fundamental para lograr el máximo rendimiento diagnóstico durante una colonoscopia. Existen diversos esquemas de LI, y en pediatría aún no hay consenso respecto al más adecuado. OBJETIVO: Describir la efectividad, adherencia y efectos adversos de protocolos de LI diferenciados por edad en pacientes pediátricos sometidos a colonoscopia. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Estudio descriptivo que incluyó pacientes < 18 años sometidos a colonoscopia. Se aplicaron esquemas de LI diferenciados por edad: < 6 meses (supositorio de glicerina); 6 meses-3 años, 11 meses (polietilenglicol [PEG] 3.350 sin electrolitos); 4 años-9 años, 11 meses (PEG 3.350 sin electrolitos + bisacodilo); 10 años-18 años (PEG 3.350 con electrolitos). Se registraron datos demográficos, clínicos, adherencia y efectos adversos. La efectividad fue determinada durante colonoscopia de acuerdo con la escala previamente validada (Boston modificada). RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 159 pacientes, de los cuales 87 fueron varones (55%), mediana de edad de 4 años (rango un mes-17 años). Se logró LI exitosa en el 78% de los pacientes. La mayor efectividad se alcanzó en < 6 meses (96%) y 10-18 años (91%). El grupo de 4 años-9 años, 11 meses, que evidenció menor efectividad (69%) tuvo mayor proporción de estreñimiento previo (29%). Se obtuvo buena adherencia en el 87% de los pacientes. Se observaron efectos adversos en un tercio de los pacientes (especialmente en el grupo 10-18 años), que fueron leves y no determinaron la suspensión del medicamento. CONCLUSIONES: Con los esquemas de preparación utilizados se lograron resultados satisfactorios, obteniendo LI exitosa en 4 de cada 5 pacientes. Los resultados difirieron entre grupos, lo que podría deberse, al menos en parte, al protocolo utilizado y al hábito intestinal previo.
Adequate intestinal cleanliness is crucial to achieve optimal colonoscopy performance. Several bowel preparation (BP) schemes have been proposed, but there is still no consensus as regards which is the most suitable in paediatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness, adherence, and adverse effects of BP protocols differentiated by age group in paediatric patients subjected to colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Prospective, study that included patients < 18 years subjected to colonoscopy. BP protocols differentiated by age group were indicated as follows: < 6 m (glycerine suppository); 6 m-3y 11 m (poly-ethylene-glycol (PEG 3350 without electrolytes); 4y-9y 11 m (PEG 3350 without electrolytes + bisacodyl); 10 y-18 y (PEG 3350 with electrolytes). Demographic, clinical information, adherence and adverse effects were registered. Effectiveness was determined using a validated scale (Boston modified) during colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included, of which 87 (55%) were males, and with a median age of 4 years (range 1 m-17 years). Seventy eight percent of patients achieved successful BP. The higher effectiveness was observed in the groups of < 6 m (96%) and 10-18 y (91%). Constipation was significantly more frequent (29%) in the 4 yo-9 yo 11 m in which lower effectiveness was observed (69%). Good adherence was observed in 87% of patients. Adverse effects were observed in a third of patients, although they were mild and did not lead to the suspension of the BP. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory results were achieved with the BP schemes used, with a successful BP being obtained in 4 out of 5 patients. Results were different between groups, which is probably related to previous bowel transit and indicated medication.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Infant , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Cathartics/administration & dosage , Cathartics/adverse effects , Colonoscopy , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Age Factors , Outcome Assessment, Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation is an essential factor affecting the visibility of colonic mucosa and safety of related therapeutic interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of three bowel preparation agents –2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEGA), sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SPMC), and oral sodium phosphate tablet (NaP)– for morning colonoscopy. METHODS: Here, we analyzed the medical records of patients who had taken bowel preparation agents using the split-dose method and undergone colonoscopy in a single hospital. The efficacy of bowel preparation agents was evaluated using the Ottawa bowel preparation assessment tool. The safety and tolerability of the agents were assessed by measuring the renal function and electrolytes prior to and after the procedure as well as by assessing the self-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 365 patients (PEGA:163, SPMC: 93, NaP: 109), 98.6% ingested more than 90% of the agents. NaP showed an inferior cleansing efficacy, and serum phosphate elevation was significantly higher in the NaP group. However, the satisfaction score was lowest in the PEGA group. Age (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–0.99, p=0.04) and preparation agents (OR of PEGA versus NaP 5.0, 95% CI 2.28–10.97, p<0.001) (OR of SPMC versus NaP 2.73, 95% CI 1.22–6.08, p=0.01) were independently associated with bowel preparation success. CONCLUSIONS: According to our analysis, NaP showed an inferior cleansing efficacy compared with PEGA and SPMC, which may be attributed to the complex administration method and lower water intake. However, large-volume ingestion remains unsatisfactory for patients. Detailed bowel preparation instructions could enhance bowel cleansing efficacy.
Subject(s)
Humans , Ascorbic Acid , Cathartics , Citric Acid , Colon , Colonoscopy , Drinking , Eating , Electrolytes , Magnesium , Medical Records , Methods , Mucous Membrane , Polyethylene Glycols , Polyethylene , Sodium , TabletsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: There are no studies that looked into the bubble eliminating efficacy of polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEGA), which has been one of the shortcomings of polyethylene glycol (PEG). In this study, we compared newly introduced PEGA regimen by adding either simethicone or 1 L of water. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study was carried out at Dongguk Universtiy Gyeongju Hospital from July 2014 to September 2014. A total of 90 patients were randomly assigned to 3 groups; PEGA group (n=30) which served as control, simethicone addition group (n=30) to which simethicone 400 mg was additionally prescribed, and water addition group (n=30) to whom additional 1 L of water was given. Cleansing effectiveness, gas elimination efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction were compared between the groups. RESULTS: PEGA group demonstrated the highest cleansing effectiveness, but there was no statistically significant difference among the groups. Simethicone addition group showed significantly lesser amount of bubbles than the other groups (2.57±2.05 vs. 1.10±1.83 vs. 2.60±2.84, p=0.017). The rates of side effects in each group were 20.00% vs. 16.77% vs. 53.33%. Water addition group had significantly more side effects than the PEGA group and the simethicone addition group (p=0.003). The patient satisfaction score of each group was 3.37±0.85 vs. 3.73±0.74 vs. 3.20±0.66 with simethicone addition group showing significantly higher satisfaction than water addition group (p=0.020). CONCLUSIONS: PEGA bowel preparation agent showed satisfactory bowel cleansing despite the decrease in dosage, and addition of simethicone resulted in better bubble elimination.
Subject(s)
Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ascorbic Acid/chemistry , Cathartics/adverse effects , Colon/drug effects , Colonoscopy , Patient Compliance , Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects , Prospective Studies , Simethicone/chemistry , Water/chemistryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Performance of polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) is often unsatisfactory as bowel preparation agent for colonoscopy. In order to provide equivalent efficacy with better patient tolerance, sodium phosphate tablet (SPT) has been developed. This study was carried out to compare the efficacy and compliance of two bowel preparation methods: PEG with ascorbic acid (PEGA) vs. SPT preparation. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed. Primary efficacy variable was overall quality of colon cleansing assessed by Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) during colonoscopy. Patient's satisfaction and adverse events were evaluated by means of symptom questionnaire completed by each patient immediately before colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to undergo pre-colonoscopic bowel preparation with either SPT (n=96) or PEGA (n=93). Overall BBPS score was 8.3+/-1.12 in the SPT group and 8.4+/-0.96 in the PEGA group (p=0.441). Among the 189 patients, 90 had polyps (47.6%) and 50 had adenomas (26.5%). The polyp/adenoma detection rate was 54.2% (n=52)/27.1% (n=26) for SPT group and 40.9% (n=38)/25.8% (n=24) for PEGA group (p=0.079 and 0.790, respectively). More number of patients were unable to take the prescribed dose of PEGA compared with the SPT regimen (8.6% vs. 2.0%, p=0.045). Overall satisfaction score was 7.9+/-1.63 in the SPT group and 7.4+/-1.53 in the PEGA group (p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Degree of colon preparation, polyp/adenoma detection rate and adverse effect were similar between SPT group and PEGA group. Patient compliance and satisfaction were greater in the SPT group.
Subject(s)
Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Abdominal Pain/etiology , Adenoma/pathology , Ascorbic Acid/therapeutic use , Cathartics/adverse effects , Colonic Polyps/pathology , Colonoscopy , Nausea/etiology , Patient Satisfaction , Phosphates/therapeutic use , Polyethylene Glycols/therapeutic use , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of an educational video program on bowel preparation for a colonoscopy. METHODS: The study used a non-equivalent control group and non-synchronized design as a quasi-experimental research involving 101 participants undergoing bowel preparation for a colonoscopy (experimental group 51, control group 50 subjects) at W. university hospital, from Aug. 7 to Oct. 31, 2013. The control group received verbal education with an explanatory note while the experimental group received education using a video program. To measure knowledge of diet restrictions and compliance with ingesting bowel preparation solutions, a questionnaire, based on The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Guide (2003), developed by Sam-Sook You, was used after revisions and supplementation was done. To measure bowel cleanness, the 'Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale' was adopted. Data were analyzed using the SPSS WIN 12.0 program. RESULTS: A higher proportion of the experimental group showed a positive change in knowledge level on diet restrictions (U=1011.50, p=.035) and ingestion of bowel preparation solutions (U=980.50, p=.019), a higher level of compliance with diet restrictions (U=638.50, p<.001), ingesting bowel preparation solutions (U=668.00, p<.001) and the level of bowel cleanness (chi2=17.00, p<.001) than the control group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that a video educational program for patients having a colonoscopy can improve knowledge, level of compliance with diet restrictions, ingestion of bowel preparation solutions, and bowel cleanness. Therefore video educational program should be used with this patient group.
Subject(s)
Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Cathartics/chemistry , Colon/physiology , Colonoscopy , Diet , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Patient Compliance/psychology , Patient Education as Topic , Program Evaluation , Prospective Studies , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for full visualization of colonic mucosa because detection of small polyps and neoplasms depends on the quality of bowel cleansing. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy, tolerability of preparation and side effect between two groups: clear-liquid diet with polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution versus no diet restriction with PEG solution. METHODS: This was a randomized single-blind prospective study. A total of 330 patients were randomly assigned to receive either 2 L PEG solution with a clear-liquid diet on the day before colonoscopy and another 2 L PEG solution on the day of the procedure (group 1) or 2 L PEG solution with a general diet on the day before colonoscopy and another 2 L PEG solution on the day of the procedure (group 2). RESULTS: 162 patients were assigned to group 1 and 168 patients to group 2. The satisfactory quality of bowel preparation was not significantly different between the two groups (80.2%, 78.6%, P=0.707). Patient's compliance of the clear-liquid diet in group 1 was 50%. The satisfactory quality of bowel preparation was weakly better when the clear-liquid diet was given 2 or 3 times a day (group 1A) than 0 or once a day (group 1B) (74.1%, 86.4%, P=0.048). The tolerability of the PEG solution and side effects of preparation were not significantly different in the two groups (P=0.573, 0.686). CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation with no diet restriction and split-dose PEG solution was similar to preparation with a clear-liquid diet in efficacy, tolerability and side effect. Therefore, the use of the clear-liquid diet protocol should improve patient's compliance.