Comparison of the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy between 2.0 L and 1.5 L polyethylene glycol under optimized dietary restrictions: a multicenter randomized controlled study
10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20241202-00459
- VernacularTitle:优化饮食限制下2.0 L与1.5 L聚乙二醇结肠镜肠道准备质量的比较：一项多中心随机对照研究
- Author:
Peng PAN
1
;
Yuping WANG
;
Junyan GAO
;
Xiaofei LI
;
Danian JI
;
Haoran LI
;
Yu BAI
Author Information
1. 海军军医大学第一附属医院消化内科，上海 200433
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Colonoscopy;
Bowel preparation;
Food for special medical purpose;
Dietary restrictions
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
2025;42(8):634-638
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare bowel preparation quality between 2.0 L and 1.5 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens with optimized dietary restrictions.Methods:This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in three hospitals: the First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University ( n=57), Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University ( n=30), and General Hospital of Northern Theater Command ( n=30) from May 5th to 30th, 2024. Participants consumed food for special medical purpose one day before examination or therapeutic colonoscopy and were randomized to receive either 2.0 L PEG (group A) or 1.5 L PEG (group B). Outcomes included the completion rate of bowel preparation, the adequate/excellent bowel preparation rate, Boston bowel preparation scale scores, the subject/endoscopist satisfaction, the willingness to repeat the preparation regimen, and incidence of adverse events. Results:A total of 60 subjects in group A and 57 in group B were included. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups ( P>0.05). The adequate bowel preparation rate [81.7% (49/60) VS 64.9% (37/57), χ2=4.21, P=0.040] and endoscopist satisfaction [88.3% (53/60) VS 70.2% (40/57), χ2=5.91, P=0.015] in group A were significantly higher than those in group B. There were no significant differences in bowel preparation completion rates, the excellent bowel preparation rate, the bowel preparation score, subject satisfaction, willingness to repeat the preparation regimen, or incidence of adverse events ( P>0.05). Conclusion:When combined with optimized dietary restrictions, 2.0 L PEG provides superior bowel preparation quality compared with 1.5 L PEG.
