Efficacy of Bisacodyl Given as Part of a Polyethylene Glycol-based Bowel Preparation Prior to Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Ramdomized Trial.
10.4166/kjg.2014.64.5.268
- Author:
Ki Bae BANG
1
;
Eun Haeng JEONG
;
Woo Shin JEONG
;
Hyun Beom CHAE
;
Nam Hee KIM
;
Tae Hoon LEE
;
Ji Yeon KIM
;
Yoon Suk JUNG
;
Jung Ho PARK
;
Chong Il SOHN
;
Kyu Yong CHOI
;
Dong Il PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. diksmc.park@samsung.com
- Publication Type:English Abstract ; Original Article ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
Bowel preparation;
Bisacodyl;
Polyethylene glycols;
Inpatients
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Bisacodyl/adverse effects/*therapeutic use;
Cathartics/adverse effects/*therapeutic use;
Colon/pathology;
*Colonoscopy;
Female;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Nausea/etiology;
Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects/*therapeutic use;
Prospective Studies
- From:The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology
2014;64(5):268-277
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Inpatient status can cause inadequate bowel preparation. The majority of previous studies regarding bowel preparation have focused on comparing the effects of different purgative regimens in outpatients. However, data on bowel preparation for inpatients are lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate whether bisacodyl plus polyethylene glycol (PEG) can improve bowel preparation in hospitalized patients. METHODS: A prospective, randomized and observer-blind study was performed. A total of 196 hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive 4 L PEG (PEG only group) or 4 L PEG+bisacodyl 10 mg (bisacodyl added group). The adequacy of bowel preparation was scored using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three subjects completed the study; 96 in the bisacodyl added group and 87 in the PEG only group. There were no significant differences between the bisacodyl added group and the PEG only group with respect to the score of bowel cleansing (3.59+/-2.81 vs. 3.82+/-3.03, p=0.607), quality of bowel cleansing (adequate preparation 89.6% vs. 85.1%, p=0.380), and overall adverse events (66.7% vs. 52.9%, p=0.057). However, a larger proportion of patients in the PEG only group were able to ingest the entire solution as prescribed than in the bisacodyl added group (98.9% vs. 75.0%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients, the quality of bowel preparation did not differ depending on whether bisacodyl is added or not. In addition, patient compliance based on consumption of cleansing agent was better in the PEG only group.
