Split-dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: 2 Liters Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid versus Sodium Picosulfate versus Oral Sodium Phosphate Tablets.
- Author:
Seok Won LEE
1
;
Chang Seok BANG
;
Tae Young PARK
;
Ki Tae SUK
;
Gwang Ho BAIK
;
Dong Joon KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Bowel preparation solutions; Colonoscopy; Polyethylene glycols; Picosulfate sodium; Sodium phosphate
- MeSH: Ascorbic Acid*; Cathartics; Citric Acid; Colon; Colonoscopy*; Drinking; Eating; Electrolytes; Humans; Magnesium; Medical Records; Methods; Mucous Membrane; Polyethylene Glycols*; Polyethylene*; Sodium*; Tablets*
- From:The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 2017;70(2):89-95
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: 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.
