ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare a lactulose oral solution with a polyethylene glycol (PEG) formulation for colonoscopy preparation using the following metrics: quality of cleansing, colonoscopy outcomes, patient/physician satisfaction, and patient tolerability. METHODS: The enrolled patients were randomly divided into two groups and received a single 2 L dose of either PEG (PEG group) or lactulose (Lac group). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for assessing the cleansing quality of the bowel preparations. Patient tolerability and adverse events were obtained through the completion of questionnaires. RESULTS: The lactulose oral solution showed superior bowel cleansing compared to PEG, as evidenced by higher BBPS scores in the Lac group for all segments of the colon (P < 0.05). The detection rates of polyps and intestinal lesions in the Lac group (30.68% and 36.36%, respectively) were significantly higher than those in the PEG group (12.50% vs. 13.63%, respectively). For the degree of satisfaction, the Lac group had significantly higher scores compared to the PEG group, as evaluated by both the patients and endoscopist. PEG was associated with an increased incidence of nausea. There were no statistical differences between the groups in terms of vomiting, abdominal pain or fullness, dizziness, unfavorable palatability, dry mouth, palpitation, tinnitus, and tongue numbness. CONCLUSION: A single 2 L dose of a lactulose oral solution had higher efficacy, improved tolerability, and acceptable safety for bowel preparation when compared to the same volume of PEG. Thus, a lactulose oral solution may be a potential bowel-cleansing option for colonoscopy preparation.
ABSTRACT
Objective. This prospective and randomized study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nasopharyngeal airway relative to the nasal oxygen tube in obese patients undergoing painless gastroscopy. Materials and Methods. Obese patients (BMI ≥ 28 kg/m(2); n = 260) were randomly and equally apportioned to the nasopharyngeal airway (Group A) or nasal oxygen tube (Group B) group. Three patients were excluded due to failure of insertion of the nasopharyngeal airway. The duration of endoscopy, anesthetic dose, recovery time, and adverse events were recorded. The satisfaction of the anesthetist, physicians, and patient was scored. Results. The SpO2 reduction was significantly less in Group A than in Group B. Use of a respirator for assisted ventilation occurred significantly less in Group A. The groups were similar regarding mean arterial pressure, heart rate, anesthetic dose, duration of gastroscopy, recovery time, and adverse events. Satisfaction of the physician and anesthetist was greater in Group A; the groups were similar in patient satisfaction. Conclusions. Use of the nasopharyngeal airway for obese patients during painless gastroscopy resulted in less SpO2 reduction relative to the nasal oxygen tube. Altogether, it is a safe and effective device for obese patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.
