Comparison among Conventional 4 L Polyethylene Glycol, Split Method of 4 L Polyethylene Glycol and Combination of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol and Sodium Phosphate Solution for Colonoscopy Preparation.
10.4166/kjg.2012.59.6.414
- Author:
So Young JO
1
;
Nayoung KIM
;
Jung Won LEE
;
Ji Hwan LIM
;
Chiun CHOI
;
Ilyoung CHON
;
Ho KIL
;
Bo Young MIN
;
Young Sang BYOUN
;
Ban Seok LEE
;
Sang Eon JANG
;
Hyun Kyung PARK
;
Hyun Jin JO
;
Cheol Min SHIN
;
Sang Hyup LEE
;
Young Soo PARK
;
Jin Hyeok HWANG
;
Jin Wook KIM
;
Sook Hyang JEONG
;
Dong Ho LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. nayoungkim49@empal.com
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; English Abstract
- Keywords:
Colonoscopy;
Bowel preparation solution;
Polyethylene glycols;
Sodium phosphate
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Cathartics/adverse effects/*pharmacology;
Colon/anatomy & histology/*drug effects;
Colonoscopy;
Female;
Humans;
Hyperphosphatemia/etiology;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Patient Compliance;
Phosphates/adverse effects/*pharmacology;
Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects/*pharmacology;
Prospective Studies;
Questionnaires;
Time Factors
- From:The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology
2012;59(6):414-422
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4 L, split method of PEG 4 L and PEG 2 L plus sodium phosphate (NaP) in the aspect of bowel preparation quality, safety, patients' compliance and preference. METHODS: Total 249 subjects were prospectively enrolled and received bowel preparation for colonoscopy from August to October in 2010; PEG 4 L (93 subjects), split method of 4 L PEG (74 subjects) and PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL group (82 subjects). To investigate the completion, preference for bowel preparation and safety, a questionnaire survey was conducted before colonoscopy. RESULTS: There were no significant intergroup differences in the aspect of completion of preparation, cecal intubation time and success rate. Satisfaction and preference were higher in PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL and split method of 4 L PEG compared with PEG 4 L. In the aspect of the bowel preparation quality PEG 4 L showed significantly higher quality in the morning colonoscopy (p<0.001). However, in the afternoon colonoscopy PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL showed better result than PEG 4 L (p=0.009). Hyperphosphatemia was most frequently observed in PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL, but no severe adverse events occurred (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PEG 4 L showed better result than split method of 4 L PEG or PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL in the aspect of bowel preparation quality and safety.
