大承气汤和聚乙二醇电解质散联用对慢性便秘患者清肠疗效观察

[目的]探讨大承气汤与复方聚乙二醇电解质散联用对慢性便秘患者进行结肠镜检查清肠效果.[方法]将116例拟行结肠镜检查的慢性便秘患者随机纳入治疗组与对照组.治疗组在结肠镜检查前1d服用大承气汤1剂,检查当天服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散;对照组仅检查当天服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散.分别记录2组患者大便清澈时间、大便次数、服药过程中的不良反应程度以及由内镜操作医师评估肠道准备情况.[结果]治疗组患者大便清澈时间短于对照组(P＜0.05)、清肠效果明显优于对照组(P＜0.05),但2组患者排便次数及不良反应比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).[结论]对慢性便秘患者进行结肠镜检查肠道准备,大承气汤与复方聚乙二醇电解质散联用较单用复方聚乙二醇电解质散,可以缩短患者大便清澈时间,并能提高肠道准备效果.     

聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用观察

将498例行结肠镜检查的患者随机分为实验组(240例)和对照组(258例),实验组口服聚乙二醇电解质散清肠,对照组口服果导加硫酸镁清肠.发现实验组肠道准备时间较对照组明显缩短,P＜0.05;两组清洁肠道有效率及肠腔内气泡情况无明显差异;实验组不良反应明显少于对照组;耐受性实验组优于对照组.认为聚乙二醇电解质散应用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备安全有效,准备时间短.     

温灸法对脾肾阳虚型便秘患者肠道准备的临床观察

[目的]通过观察温灸法对于脾肾阳虚型便秘患者结肠镜检查前的肠道准备清洁效果有效性,探讨温灸法在脾肾阳虚型便秘患者肠道准备中应用的可行性。[方法]将61例需行结肠镜检查并符合脾肾阳虚型慢性便秘患者,在肠道清洁前随机分为2组,分别采用口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散法(对照组)、温灸法联合口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散法(治疗组),进行术前肠道准备。观察首次排气排便时间、粪便达到无渣程度所需时间、肠镜检查中肠道清洁程度(I-III级)评价肠道清洁效果。[结果]1对照组与治疗组在首次排便排气时间上差异无统计学意义(P0.05);2治疗组粪便达无渣程度所需时间优于对照组(P0.05);3治疗组肠道清洁程度明显优于对照组(P0.01)。[结论]温灸法能够缩短脾肾阳虚型便秘患者肠道准备达到无渣程度所需时间,提高肠道清洁程度。     

莫沙必利在便秘患者胶囊内镜检查中的应用价值

目的 探讨便秘思者作胶曩内镜检查前口服莫沙必利的临床价值.方法 30例思者采用随机数字表法均分人治疗组和观察组,治疗组检查前1周口服莫沙必利片,检查当日两组肠道准备相同,比较两组首次大便时间、大便次数、大便清澈时间、胃转运时间、小肠转运时间、小肠清洁度及胶囊排出时间.结果 治疗组首次大便时间为69min,明显短于对照组（89min,P＜0.05）大便清洁时间为153min,明显短于对照组（176min,P＜0.05）;排便次数平均为8.8次,多于对照组（平均4.5次,P＜0.05）;治疗组胃内转运时间平均为29min,明显短于对照组（平均57min,P＜0.05）;小肠转运时间平均为235min,明显短于对照组（平均299min,P＜0.05）;治疗组小肠清洁度平均为2.44分,明显好于对照组（1.97分,P＜0.05）,胶囊排出时间治疗组为21h,明显快于对照组（28h）.结论 便秘患者作胶囊内镜检查前口服莫沙必利具有较好的临床价值.     

慢性便秘患者结肠镜检查前肠道准备改良效果研究

[目的]对慢性便秘患者结肠镜检查前的肠道准备方法进行改良并对比3种不同方法对肠道准备效果的影响。[方法]收集2014-01--2015-12期间接受结肠镜检查并常规使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散(PGE)的慢性便秘患者(便秘组)及非便秘患者(非便秘组)各100例。分析2组患者的清肠效果。选取2016-1-2018-05期间行结肠镜检查的200例慢性便秘患者,随机分为3组,即常规PGE组(常规组)65例、改良PGE组68例、改良硫酸镁组67例,观察受检者的肠道清洁程度,同时记录肠镜检查完成时间、不良反应、总体耐受性等。[结果]在常规使用聚乙二醇作肠道准备时,便秘组的清肠合格率为61.0%(61/100),显著低于非便秘组的80.0%(80/100),P0.01。清肠合格率改良PGE组(79.4%,54/68)、改良硫酸镁组(80.6%,54/67)均显著高于常规组(60.0%,39/65),P0.05;而改良PGE组与改良硫酸镁组的清肠合格率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。3组患者结肠镜检查完成时间、不良反应及总体耐受性比较均差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]慢性便秘患者常规方法清肠合格率低,改良肠道准备后可显著提高便秘患者的清肠合格率,且不良反应小,患者耐受性好,值得进一步推广。     

乳果糖与聚乙二醇电解质在结肠镜肠道准备中的应用比较:随机对照单盲临床研究

背景:充分的肠道准备是提高结肠镜检查有效性和阳性率的重要环节,目前临床中应用的缓泻药物均存在一定缺点和局限性,探索理想的肠道准备药物具有重要的临床价值。目的:比较乳果糖、聚乙二醇电解质在结肠镜肠道准备中的效果。方法:选取2019年6月—2019年11月于包头医学院第二附属医院拟行结肠镜检查的患者150例,并随机分为乳果糖组和聚乙二醇电解质组,泻药分两阶段服用。收集患者基本信息、肠道准备中主观感受和不良反应、排便次数和末次粪便性状等资料,对各段肠道的清洁度和泡沫程度进行评分。结果:乳果糖组和聚乙二醇电解质组患者的性别、年龄、BMI、文化程度、平时粪便性状、每日排便次数相比差异均无统计学意义。乳果糖组患者Stage 1排便次数、排便总次数显著高于聚乙二醇电解质组(P 0.05),降结肠清洁度评分显著低于聚乙二醇电解质组(P 0.05)。乳果糖组对泻药的口感评分显著低于聚乙二醇电解质组(P 0.05),但口干发生率显著升高(P 0.05)。相关性分析显示降结肠、乙状结肠清洁度与Stage 1排便次数呈负相关(P 0.05),直肠清洁度与排便总次数呈负相关(P 0.05)。结论:乳果糖在结肠镜肠道准备中具有良好的应用价值,其口感优于聚乙二醇电解质。评估Stage 1排便次数或总排便次数可优化肠道准备质量、提高各段肠道的清洁度。     

便秘患者行结肠镜检查前两种肠道准备方法的效果比较

目的探讨便秘患者结肠镜检查和治疗前更佳的肠道准备方法。方法观察组80例便秘患者先服用聚乙二醇4000散剂(福松),再予甘露醇+口服补液盐口服;对照组80例便秘患者仅服用甘露醇+口服补液盐。观察比较两组的肠道清洁度及有效率,并记录严重不良事件。结果观察组的清洁程度优于对照组(P<0.01),有效率也高于对照组(P<0.05),两组均无严重不良事件发生。结论便秘患者使用甘露醇+口服补液盐清肠前加用聚乙二醇4000散剂通便能提高肠道准备的有效率。     

四种清肠方法的临床效果对比观察

目的比较四种不同清肠方法的清肠效果、肠道内气泡产生情况、不良反应发生情况及患者下一次服用意愿,探索快捷、有效、安全的清肠方法。方法选取240例准备做结肠镜检查的患者,随机分为四组：A组服用20%甘露醇溶液,B组服用聚乙二醇4000散剂,C组服用聚乙二醇4000散剂联合枸橼酸莫沙必利分散片,D组服用磷酸钠盐口服液。比较四组患者肠道清洁程度、肠道内气泡产生情况和不良反应发生情况。结果 C组和D组的清肠效果优于A组和B组,D组的不良反应发生率明显低于其余各组（P〈0.05）,四组的肠道内气泡产生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论聚乙二醇联合莫沙必利及磷酸钠盐这两种清肠方法较理想,磷酸钠盐清肠不良反应发生率最低。     

老年患者结肠镜检查前肠道准备对肠道清洁度及耐受度的影响

目的探究老年患者结肠镜检查前肠道准备对肠道清洁度及耐受度的影响。方法选取2013年至2015年在我院行结肠镜检查的老年患者82例,随机分为研究组(43例)与对照组(39例),研究组给予硫酸镁联合水果味口服补液盐进行肠道准备,对照组给予复方聚乙醇电解质散进行肠道准备。比较两组肠道清洁程度、肠道准备耐受率、肠道准备规定时间内完成率、回盲瓣到达率、大肠息肉发现率、首次排便时间、排便次数及不良反应情况。结果研究组的肠道清洁程度高于对照组(P0.05);研究组的肠道准备耐受程度高于对照组(P0.05),肠道准备耐受率明显高于对照组(P0.05);研究组结肠镜检查后首次排便时间明显短于对照组,且排便次数比对照组多(P0.05);研究组肠道准备规定时间内完成率(93.02%)、回盲瓣到达率(95.35%)、大肠息肉发现率(48.84%)均高于对照组(71.79%、79.49%、25.64%),组间数据经统计学分析有显著性差异(P0.05);在不良反应比较方面,研究组恶心、呕吐、腹痛、腹胀及里急后重和脱水等不良反应的发生率低于对照组(P0.05),总不良反应发生率明显低于对照组(P0.05)。结论老年结肠镜检查患者的肠道准备采用硫酸镁联合水果味口服补液盐,能够有效提高患者耐受率,继而促进肠道清洁,同时还能避免恶心、呕吐及腹痛等不良反应。     

利那洛肽在结肠镜肠道准备中的辅助应用价值—随机对照单盲临床研究

[目的]比较利那洛肽方案、聚乙二醇电解质方案在结肠镜肠道准备中的效果,分析利那洛肽在肠道准备中的辅助应用价值。[方法]对拟行结肠镜检查的患者随机分为利那洛肽组(319例)和对照组(334例)进行肠道准备,利那洛肽组采用利那洛肽290μg+聚乙二醇电解质2 L方案,对照组采用聚乙二醇电解质3 L分2次服用法。收集患者基本信息、肠道准备中主观感受和不良反应、排便次数和末次大便性状等资料,结肠镜操作医生采用单盲原则对镜下各阶段肠道的清洁度和泡沫程度进行评分。应用SPSS23.0软件对2组各指标进行统计分析。[结果]利那洛肽组第2阶段排便次数显著多于对照组,2组的总排便次数比较差异无统计学意义。利那洛肽组升结肠、横结肠、降结肠的清洁度、及肠道清洁度总评分与对照组比较差异无统计学意义。利那洛肽组恶心、头晕、口干的发生率显著低于对照组。利那洛肽方案各阶段肠道清洁度均与末次大便清澈度呈正相关。[结论]利那洛肽可辅助用于肠道准备,可减少传统肠道准备药物的剂量、减少饮水量、减轻肠道准备不适症状,从而促进肠道准备的舒适化程度。     

Efficacy of mosapride citrate with polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy preparation

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive mosapride citrate for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with mosapride in addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte solution. Of 250 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 124 were randomized to receive 2 L PEG plus 15 mg of mosapride citrate (mosapride group), and 126 received 2 L PEG plus placebo (placebo group). Patients completed a questionnaire reporting the acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparation process. The efficacy of bowel preparation was assessed by colonoscopists using a 5-point scale based on Aronchick’s criteria. The primary end point was optimal bowel preparation rates (scores of excellent/good/fair vs poor/inadequate).RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included in the analysis. In the mosapride group, optimal bowel preparation rates were significantly higher in the left colon compared with the placebo group (78.2% vs 65.6%, P < 0.05), but not in the right colon (76.5% vs 66.4%, P = 0.08). After excluding patients with severe constipation, there was a significant difference in bowel preparation in both the left and right colon (82.4% vs 66.7%, 80.8% vs 67.5%, P < 0.05, P < 0.01). The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. Among the subgroup who had previous colonoscopy experience, a significantly higher number of patients in the mosapride group felt that the current preparation was easier compared with patients in the placebo group (34/72 patients vs 24/74 patients, P < 0.05).CONCLUSION: Mosapride citrate may be an effective and safe adjunct to PEG-electrolyte solution that leads to improved quality of bowel preparation, especially in patients without severe constipation.     

注水法行结肠镜检查在便秘患者中的应用

背景:内镜医师普遍认为便秘患者行结肠镜检查的操作难度较非便秘患者相对增加。目的:分析注水法行结肠镜检查在便秘患者中的效果。方法:选择2010年11月~2011年11月江苏省苏北人民医院便秘患者200例,随机分为注水组和注气组。比较两组进镜时间、退镜时间、疼痛程度、满意度以及操作过程中是否需外界辅助。结果:与注气组相比,注水组患者平均进镜时间、退镜时间均无明显差异,疼痛程度明显降低(3.5±2.3对9.5±4.3,P0.05),满意率显著升高(90.8%对17.6%,P0.05),需外界辅助的发生率明显降低(体位变化:33.7%对73.5%、腹部压迫:16.3%对62.7%、调节镜身硬度:8.2%对21.6%,P0.05)。结论:对于便秘患者,注水法行结肠镜检查可明显减轻患者的疼痛不适,对顺利完成结肠镜检查有切实可行的应用价值。     

莫沙必利联合二甲硅油散在慢性便秘患者结肠镜检查肠道准备中的应用

目的观察胃肠动力药莫沙必利联合二甲硅油散在慢性便秘患者行电子结肠镜检查前肠道准备过程中的应用效果。 方法选取徐州医科大学附属淮安医院拟行电子纤维结肠镜检查的慢性便秘患者300例,采用随机数字表法分为A组(复方聚乙二醇电解质散联合二甲硅油散)150例、B组(在A组的基础上联合莫沙必利口服)150例。采用Boston肠道量表进行肠道准备质量的评分、肠道气泡量表用于评估肠道内气泡的数量,并记录患者肠道准备时间,进镜时间及退镜时间、不良反应发生情况以及肠道疾病检出情况。 结果AB组2组实际完成肠镜检查过程分别为143例和146例,B组BBPS大于6分的比例明显高于A组(χ²＝5.141,P<0.05);B组肠道泡沫量评中I、Ⅱ级所占比例明显高于A组(χ²＝5.851,P<0.05)。且肠道准备所用时间、不良反应发生率及肠道病变检出率,B组也明显优于A组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 结论莫沙必利联合二甲硅油散作为肠道准备用药可以明显提高慢性便秘患者肠道清洁质量的同时显著减少肠腔内气泡的产生,也能减少肠道准备所用时间、降低不良反应发生率、提高肠道病变的检出率。     

Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy:A continual search for excellence

Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential to maximize the benefits of colonoscopy.Numerous bowel preparations have been studied,ranging from 4 L polyethylene glycol(PEG) to split-dose regimens to 2 L PEG with an adjunct laxative(senna,bisacodyl,ascorbic acid).Due to the large volume of PEG required for adequate bowel preparation,many studies have focused on reducing this large volume to only 2 L PEG with the addition of an adjunct.Recently,a randomized controlled trial by Tajika et al showed that the addition of mosapride to only 1.5 L PEG was non-inferior to mosapride and 2 L PEG for bowel cleansing but did provide improvements in patient tolerance.This study offers yet another potential bowel preparation for patients undergoing colonoscopy and may trigger further studies with 1.5 L PEG with an adjunct.In this letter,we discuss the current state of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy and offer information to guide clinicians on choosing the appropriate bowel preparation for their patients.     

Factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: Successful colonoscopy depends on insertion of the instrument to the cecum, precise observation, and minimal patient discomfort during the procedure. The aim of this prospective study was to determine whether certain variables are associated with insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy. METHODS: Nine hundred nine consecutive colonoscopic examinations performed by a single endoscopist in patients without obstructive disease of the colorectum were analyzed. Four liters of Colonlyte (Taejun, Seoul, Korea) were used for bowel cleansing, and meperidine (25 mg) was administered intramuscularly 10 minutes before the procedure. The degree of patient discomfort was assessed using a 5-level Likert scale. RESULTS: Among 909 study patients, colonoscopy was completed to the cecum in 876 patients (96.4%). The adjusted completion rate was 98% and mean insertion time for complete colonoscopy was 6.9+/-4.2 minutes. Colonoscopy caused less patient discomfort than barium enema or esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that inadequate bowel cleansing, advanced age, and constipation as an indication are independent factors associated with prolonged insertion time (>10 minutes). Female gender was the only independent factor associated with significant discomfort (> or = level 4) during colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Among the factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy, unsatisfactory bowel preparation was the only correctable factor.     

A randomized controlled trial of four precolonoscopy bowel cleansing regimens

BACKGROUND:

The ideal bowel cleansing regimen for colonoscopy has yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the cleansing efficacy, and patient tolerability and safety of four bowel preparation regimens.

METHODS:

A total of 834 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG); 2 L PEG + 20 mg bisacodyl; 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP); or two sachets of a commercially available bowel cleansing solution (PSMC) + 300 mL of magnesium citrate (M). The primary outcome measure was cleansing efficacy, which was scored by blinded endoscopists using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcome measures were bowel preparation quality according to time of colonoscopy, and patient tolerability and safety.

RESULTS:

The mean total cleansing score was significantly worse in the NaP group compared with the other three groups (P<0.0001). The mean cleansing scores were worse in patients who underwent morning versus afternoon colonoscopy, a finding that was consistent in all four groups. PSMC + M was the best tolerated regimen. No clinically significant mean changes in creatinine or electrolyte levels were identified, although a significantly higher proportion of patients in the NaP group developed hypokelemia (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS:

2 L PEG + 20 mg bisacodyl, or PSMC + M was as efficacious as 4 L PEG and superior to NaP for bowel cleansing. A short interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy (ie, ‘runway time’), irrespective of bowel preparation regimen, appeared to be a more important predictor of bowel cleanliness than the cathartic agents used.     

Comparing reduced-dose sodium phosphate tablets to 2L of polyethylene glycol: A randomized study

AIM To compare the tolerability and quality of bowel cleansing between 2 L polyethylene glycol(PEG)and reduced-dose sodium phosphate(Na P)tablets as a preparation for colonoscopy.METHODS Two hundred patients were randomly assigned to the PEG or Na P groups at the same ratio.The Na P group patients took 30 tablets with 2 L of clear liquid,while the PEG group patients took 2L of PEG.Tolerability was assessed by a questionnaire about taste,volume,and the overall impression.The bowel cleansing quality was evaluated by colonoscopists.RESULTS Although Na P showed better tolerability in terms of taste,volume and overall impression(P0.01,P0.01 and P=0.02,respectively),the overall cleansing quality was better in the PEG group(P0.01).A subgroup analysis,stratified by sex and age,indicated that Na P was associated with better tolerability and equivalent bowel cleansing quality in females of50years of age.CONCLUSION Despite the better tolerability,the use of 30 Na P tablets with 2 L of clear liquid should be limited due to its lower cleansing quality;however,in certain cases the regimen may deserve consideration,particularly in cases involving young women.     

Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation

AIM: To compare the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and physical tolerability of two oral lavage solutions prior to colonoscopy in a Taiwanese population. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP) in a split regimen of two 45 mL doses separated by 12 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects who had completed the preparation. Secondary endpoints included colonic cleansing evaluated with an overall assessment and segmental evaluation, the tolerance and acceptability assessed by a self-administered structured questionnaire, and a safety profile such as any unexpected adverse events, electrolyte tests, physical exams, vital signs, and body weights. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.2% vs 27.5%, P<0.001). The amount of fluid suc-tioned was significantly less in patients taking NaP vs PEG (50.13±54.8 cc vs 121.13±115.4 cc, P<0.001), even after controlling for completion of the oral solution (P= 0.031). The two groups showed a comparable overall assessment of bowel preparation with a rate of "good" or "excellent" in 78.9% of patients in the NaP group and 82.5% in PEG group (P = 0.778). Patients taking NaP tended to have significantly better colonic segmental cleansing relative to stool amount observed in the descending (94.7% vs 70%, P = 0.007) and transverse (94.6% vs 74.4%, P = 0.025) colon. Slightly more patients graded the taste of NaP as "good" or "very good" compared to the PEG patients (32.5% vs 12.5%; P = 0.059). Patients' willingness to take the same preparation in the future was 68.4% in the NaP compared to 75% in the PEG group (P = 0.617). There was a significant increase in serum sodium and a significant decrease in phosphate and chloride levels in NaP group on the day following the colonoscopy without any clinical sequelae. Prolonged (>24 h) hemodynamic changes were also observed in 20-35% subjects of either group. CONCLUSION: Both bowel cleansing agents proved to be similar in safety and effectiveness, while NaP appeared to be more cost-effective. After identifying and excluding patients with potential risk factors, sodium phosphate should become an alternative preparation for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy in the Taiwanese population.     

Purgative bowel cleansing combined with simethicone improves capsule endoscopy imaging

AIM: To evaluate the effects of the various methods of small bowel preparation on the quality of visualization of the small bowel and the gastrointestinal transit time of capsule endoscopy (CE). METHODS: Ninety patients referred for CE were prospectively randomized to three equal groups according to the preparation used: (a) a control group, in which patients were requested to drink 1 L of clear liquids only, 12 h before the examination; (b) a purgative group, in which patients were requested to ingest 1 L of a polyethylene glycol (PEG)/electrolyte solution only, 12 h before the examination; or (c) a purgative combined with simethicone group (P-S group), in which patients were requested to ingest 1 L of PEG, 12 h before the examination, and 300 mg of simethicone, 20 min before the examination. Effects of the different bowel preparations on the gastric transit time (GTT), small bowel transit time (SBTT), examination completion rate, quality of images of the entire small intestine, and cleansing of the proximal small bowel and distal ileum were evaluated. RESULTS: The number of patients with "adequate" cleansing of the entire small intestine was 17 in the P-S group, 12 in the purgative group, and seven in the control group (P= 0.002). The P-S group had significantly better image quality than the control group (P= 0.001). The P-S group had significantly better image quality for the proximal small bowel (segment A [Seg A]) than the control group (P= 0.0001). Both the P-S group (P= 0.0001) and the purgative group (P= 0.0002) had significantly better image quality for the distal ileum (segment B [Seg B]) than the control group; the P-S group had significantly better image quality than the purgative group as well (P= 0.0121). Gastrointestinal transit time was not different among the three groups, nor was the examination completion rate. CONCLUSIONS: Purgative bowel cleansing combined with simethicone before CE improved the quality of imaging of the entire small bowel as well as the visualization of the mucosa in the proximal and distal small intestine.