scholarly journals High-Volume Split-Dose versus Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Preparations: which is a better choice?

Author(s):  
Hongyu Huang ◽  
Xian Zhang ◽  
Kai Deng
2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. AB144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Paggi ◽  
Franco Radaelli ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Andrea Anderloni ◽  
Renato A. Fasoli ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riccardo Marmo ◽  
Gianluca Rotondano ◽  
Giovanni Riccio ◽  
Armando Marone ◽  
Maria Antonia Bianco ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2-3
Author(s):  
A N Barkun ◽  
M Martel ◽  
I L Epstein ◽  
P Hallé ◽  
R J Hilsden ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Adequate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is, in theory, a simple concept but the high rate of inadequate or incomplete bowel cleanliness and its consequences have been the subject of many studies, guidelines, and meta- analyses. The complexity resides in all the pre-endoscopic factors surrounding preparation intake that may? influence quality of the bowel preparation. Aims To identify preendoscopic variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation Methods In this randomized trial conducted in adult outpatients in 10 Canadian hospitals, all early morning (AM) colonoscopies were scheduled between 7h30AM and 10h30AM and patients were randomized to PEG low volume or high- volume split-dose or high- volume day before. Later colonoscopies (PM) were scheduled between 10h30AM and 16h30PM and patients were randomized to PEG low-volume or high- volume split-dose or low- volume same day. A secondary random allocation assigned patients to a clear fluid or low residue diet. Inadequate bowel preparation was identified on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with a total score <6 with any of the 3 colonic segments subscores <2). All preendoscopic variables such as patients related factors, diet and type of bowel preparation were evaluated between groups with chi-square, Fisher’s exact or t-test where appropriate. All variables found to be significantly associated with a clean preparation on univariable analysis at the P=0.15 level were used to construct a multivariable model. Because of stratified randomization by time with possible resulting differing confounders, AM and PM patients were analysed separately. Results Over 29 months, 1726 patients were stratified in the AM group and 1750 patients in the PM group. 16.9% had inadequate bowel preparation in the AM group and 9.8% in the PM group. Pre-endoscopic variables associated with an inadequate bowel cleanliness in AM colonoscopy were a non screening indication (OR 1.36, 95%CI 1.04–1.78), a Charlson score>0 (OR 1.36, 95% 1.03–1.80) and a low residue diet (OR 1.53, 95%CI 1.17–2.01). Amongst PM colonoscopies, variables associated with an inadequate bowel cleanliness were increased age (OR 1.03, 95% 1.01–1.04), a non screening indication (OR 1.90 95%CI 1.35–2.70); a Charlson score>0 (OR 1.63, 95%CI 1.15–2.32), and a low residue diet (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.01; 1.98). Conclusions In this large randomized trial, amongst patients undergoing an AM colonoscopy, pre- endoscopic factors associated with an inadequate bowel preparation were a non screening indication, comorbidities and a low residue diet. Amongst PM colonoscopy patients, in addition to these variables, an increased age was also associated with an inadequate bowel preparation. Funding Agencies received arm-length funding from Pendopharm Inc.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Occhipinti ◽  
Paola Soriani ◽  
Francesco Bagolini ◽  
Valentina Milani ◽  
Emanuele Rondonotti ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Low-volume (LV) preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume (HV) ones in trials. However, real-life clinical outcomes data are lacking. Our aim was to assess patients’ free choice among HV preparations (4L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and LV (2L PEG plus bisacodyl) and to compare efficacy and tolerability. Methods: Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy could choose either LV or HV preparation with schedules (day-before or split-dose) depending on their appointment time. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, clinical outcomes and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.Results: 2,040 patients were enrolled and 1,815 (age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% vs. 38.2%, p=0.0055). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs. 86.6%, p=0.0983) but HV ones resulted higher in detection rates for polyps (PDR; OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03–1.64, p=0.0254), adenomas (ADR; OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.99–1.65, p=0.0519) and advanced adenomas (AADR; OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.96–2.46, p= 0.0723) after adjustment for sex, age, indications. Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7 [5-9]) but a ≥75% dose intake was more frequent with LV.Conclusions: in a real-life setting, LV preparation confirms similar efficacy and tolerability compared to HV. However, with higher PDR and a trend toward higher ADR and AADR, HV should still be considered the reference standard for clinical trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document