Oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: a randomized controlled study in phase Ⅲ
10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20210412-00053
- VernacularTitle:新型口服硫酸盐溶液用于结肠镜肠道准备的Ⅲ期随机对照研究
- Author:
Ye ZONG
1
;
Fandong MENG
;
Yongdong WU
;
Bangmao WANG
;
Xizhong SHEN
;
Yi CUI
;
Guoxin ZHANG
;
Aiming YANG
;
De'an TIAN
;
Jianting CAI
;
Huahong WANG
;
Shihua CUI
;
Min CUI
;
Shutian ZHANG
Author Information
1. 国家消化系统疾病临床医学研究中心 首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院消化内科，北京 100050
- Keywords:
Colonoscopy;
Sulfates;
Electrolytes;
Bowel preparation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
2022;39(4):261-266
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy of oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder for colonoscopy bowel preparation.Methods:A total of 283 randomized patients from 9 centers in China taking OSS ( n=143) or PEG ( n=140) using two-day split bowel preparation regimen received colonoscopy and assessment. The primary index was the bowel preparation success rate [global Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS)≥ 6 by independent assessment center]. Secondary indices included BBPS global and segmental scores, investigator satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) with the quality of bowel preparation, patient satisfaction assessed by questionnaires, and patient tolerance assessed by Sharma scale. Compliance and safety were compared between the two groups. Results:The bowel preparation success rates were 100.0% for OSS and 99.3% for PEG [adjusted difference 0.7% (95% CI: -5.3% - 6.7%), P<0.001 for non-inferiority]. The BBPS global score in OSS group was significantly higher than that in PEG group (8.1 VS 7.7, P<0.001). The segment BBPS scores were also higher in OSS group than those in PEG group for all 3 segments (right colon: 2.4 VS 2.3, P=0.002; transverse colon: 2.8 VS 2.7, P=0.018; left colon: 2.8 VS 2.7, P=0.007). Investigator Likert score in the OSS group was significantly higher than that in the PEG group (2.6 VS 2.3, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in compliance between OSS and PEG, except for the second dose (90.9% VS 82.6%, P=0.039). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction, Sharma score or proportion of patients with tolerance-related symptoms between the two groups. Safety was comparable between the two groups, and all adverse events were mild to moderate. Conclusion:OSS has comparable efficacy with PEG, with higher BBPS scores in all segments, better investigator satisfaction, better compliance in split dose, and comparable patient tolerance and safety.
