A randomized controlled trial evaluating a new 2-L PEG solution plus ascorbic acid vs 4-L PEG for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy

2012 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flavio Valiante ◽  
Stefano Pontone ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Angelo Bellumat ◽  
Manuela De Bona ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Ascorbic Acid ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Bowel Cleansing

Impact of preprocedure simethicone on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial

Endoscopy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Bai ◽  
Jun Fang ◽  
Sheng-Bing Zhao ◽  
Dong Wang ◽  
Yan-Qing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Complete Removal ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Bowel Cleansing ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Background and study aims Ideal bowel preparation for colonoscopy requires complete removal of fluid and foam from the colon. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is widely used for bowel preparation, with antifoaming agents such as simethicone commonly used in combination with PEG. Data on the effect of simethicone on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) were limited. This study therefore aimed to investigate whether preprocedure simethicone could increase the ADR. Patients and methods This was a prospective, multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial involving consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy in six centers in China. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: PEG plus simethicone or PEG alone. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes were quality of bowel preparation, measured by the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and bubble scores. Results 583 patients were included. More adenomas were detected in the PEG plus simethicone group than in the PEG alone group (ADR 21.0 % vs. 14.3 %, P = 0.04; advanced ADR 9.0 % vs. 7.0 %, P = 0.38). The mean number of adenomas detected was 2.20 ± 1.36 vs. 1.63 ± 0.89 (P = 0.02). Patients in the PEG plus simethicone group showed better bowel cleansing efficacy: BBPS ≥ 6 in 88.3 % vs. 75.2 % (P < 0.001) and bubble scores of 1.00 ± 1.26 vs. 3.98 ± 2.50 (P < 0.001). Abdominal bloating was reported less frequently in the PEG plus simethicone group (7.8 % vs. 19.7 %, P < 0.001) than in the PEG alone group. Conclusion Combined use of PEG and simethicone is associated with a significantly increased ADR in a Chinese population.Clinical trials registration number: NCT02540239

scholarly journals A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating a Low-Volume PEG Solution Plus Ascorbic Acid versus Standard PEG Solution in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Tajika ◽  
Tsutomu Tanaka ◽  
Makoto Ishihara ◽  
Nobumasa Mizuno ◽  
Kazuo Hara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ascorbic Acid ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Biochemical Parameters ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Patient Acceptability ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Bowel Cleansing ◽  
Hematological And Biochemical Parameters ◽  
Lavage Solution

Evaluation of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution containing ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC) has been controversial in the point of its hyperosmolarity, especially in old population. So we therefore designed the present study to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of 1.5 L PEG+ASC and 2 L standard PEG electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS), not only in the general population, but also in patients of advanced age. Randomization was stratified by age (<70 years or 70> years), and hematological and biochemical parameters were compared in each age group, especially with respect to the safety profile of each regimen. As a result, the 1.5-L PEG-ASC regimen had higher patient acceptability than the 2-L PEG-ELS regimen. Tolerability, bowel cleansing, and safety were similar between regimens. However, we demonstrated significant statistical changes in the hematological and biochemical parameters after taking bowel preparation solutions, not only in the PEG+ASC group, but also in the PEG-ELS group. No significant differences in the safety profile were found between subjects aged less than 70 years and those aged 70 years or more; nevertheless, regardless of age, proper hydration is needed throughout the bowel preparation process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document