Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography.
Zacharias, Nicholas; Lubner, Meghan G; Kim, David H; Pickhardt, Perry J.
Afiliação
  • Zacharias N; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA.
  • Lubner MG; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA.
  • Kim DH; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA.
  • Pickhardt PJ; Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA. ppickhardt2@uwhealth.org.
Abdom Radiol (NY) ; 48(11): 3322-3331, 2023 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37644134
PURPOSE: To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC. METHODS: 398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison. RESULTS: Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Abdom Radiol (NY) Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Abdom Radiol (NY) Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: Estados Unidos