二甲硅油散在结肠镜检查术前准备中的作用研究

目的研究二甲硅油散在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用。方法对本院消化内镜中心2009年2月～2010年2月结肠镜检查患者连续选择642例进行前瞻、随机、对照系统研究。根据肠道准备方案的不同将研究对象随机分成实验组和对照组,各321例。实验组在结肠镜检查前口服30%硫酸镁50 mL＋二甲硅油散300 mg,对照组则口服30%硫酸镁50 mL而不服用二甲硅油散直接进行结肠镜检查。观察两组患者肠道清洁程度、肠腔气泡程度、肠道严重气泡率。结果两组患者的肠道清洁满意率均较高,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;实验组祛泡效果较好,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。实验组肠道严重气泡率明显低于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论本组研究发现实验组取得了较高的祛泡满意率和较低的严重气泡率,表明口服二甲硅油散具有较好的祛泡效果,适合广泛应用于结肠镜检查前的肠道准备中。     

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.     

口服橄榄油联合聚乙二醇电解质散对慢性便秘患者肠道准备效果的影响

目的 探讨口服橄榄油联合聚乙二醇电解质散（PEG）用于慢性便秘患者的结肠镜检查前肠道准备效果及安全性。方法 采用随机、单盲、前瞻性研究方法,将2017年11月至2018年5月于第四军医大学唐都医院接受结肠镜检查的180例慢性便秘患者均分成3组。C组检查前一晚8点服用1 500 mL PEG溶液,检查当日早5点再服用 1 500 mL PEG 溶液;A组检查前一晚7点半口服橄榄油60 mL和一块冰糖,后续同C组;B组检查前一晚服完PEG溶液后再口服橄榄油60 mL和一块冰糖,后续同C组。记录服药后首次排便时间,入眠前排便次数,排便总次数,各部分结肠的波士顿肠道准备评分及不良反应。计量资料3组间比较采用方差分析,发现差异后组间两两比较采用LSD-t检验;计数资料比较采用Pearson χ2检验。结果 B组有1例在检查过程中因无法继续配合而终止检查,B组和C组各有1例在检查中降结肠发现巨大肿物而被剔除,最终A组60例、B组58例、C组59例纳入数据分析,3组间在年龄、性别构成、身高、体重指数及术前便秘评分构成方面差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。服药后首次排便时间A组为（2.25±2.32）h、B组为（2.43±2.39）h、C组为（3.36±2.79）h,3组间差异有统计学意义（F=3.36,P=0.037）,两两比较中A、C组间和B、C组间差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。入眠前排便次数A组为（3.47±2.09）次、B组为（3.24±1.76）次、C组为（2.49±1.58）次,3组间差异有统计学意义（F=4.65,P=0.011）,两两比较中A、C组间和B、C组间差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。排便总次数A组为（7.20±2.67）次、B组为（6.81±2.31）次、C组为（5.64±2.22）次,3组间差异有统计学意义（F=6.68,P=0.002）,两两比较中A、C组间和B、C组间差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。左侧结肠评分、中段结肠评分及总评分方面,3组间差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）;右侧结肠评分A组为（2.03±0.82）分、B组为（1.95±0.87）分、C组为（1.53±0.80）分,3组间差异有统计学意义（F=6.38,P=0.002）,两两比较中A、C组间和B、C组间差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。服药后不良反应包括恶心、呕吐、腹痛、腹胀,A组分别为7、3、0、3例,B组分别为5、3、0、6例,C组分别为4、2、1、4例,3组间在不良反应构成方面差异无统计学意义（χ2=4.35,P=0.824）。结论口服橄榄油联合PEG溶液可有效提高慢性便秘患者右侧结肠清洁度,在肠道准备过程中缩短首次排便时间,增加入眠前排便次数和排便总次数。对比检查前一晚在服用PEG溶液前还是服完后再口服橄榄油,未见对肠道准备效果及不良反应产生明显影响。     

便秘患者结肠镜检查的肠道准备

我院近２年来对便秘患者肠道准备采用电解质液加服硫酸镁的方法，肠道清洁效果明显好于单独服用电解质液。共２００例，按口服电解质液及加服硫酸镁分组，每组１００例。电解质液组：氯化钠６．１４g、氯化钾０．７５g、碳酸氢钠２．９４g溶于１０００ml温开水中，３倍量共３０００ml溶液于检查前４～５h在３０～６０min内饮完。电解质液加服硫酸镁组，检查前４～５h服５０％硫酸镁３０ml后２０～３０min再服电解质液（方法如上）。结果加服硫酸镁者肠腔清洁度良好为９５％，不服硫酸镁者肠腔清洁度良好仅为５３％。讨论口服电解质液是目前…     

莫沙必利联合聚乙二醇电解质在老年患者结肠镜检肠道准备中的应用

目的 观察聚乙二醇电解质联合莫沙必利用于结肠镜检查前清肠效果和副作用.方法 712例拟行结肠镜检查的老年患者（＞ 60岁）肠道清洁前随机分为A组351例和B组361例,A组口服聚乙二醇电解质,B组口服聚乙二醇电解质和莫沙必利.记录肠道清洁效果及副作用.结果 B组肠道清洁效果满意率（95.3％）高于A组（91.4％）,但差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;B组达到Ⅰ级清洁度的比例（39.3％）高于A组（31.3％）,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.B组恶心发生率和副作用总发生率明显低于A组（3.6％ vs 13.4％; 15.7％ vs 23.7％,P均＜0.05）.结论 聚乙二醇电解质联合莫沙必利用于老年人肠道清肠准备效果好、副作用发生率低.     

高剂量复方聚乙二醇电解质散对便秘患者结肠镜肠道准备的效果分析

目的:探讨高剂量(4 L)复方聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG)对便秘患者进行肠道准备的效果、患者的不良反应及耐受情况。方法:根据罗马Ⅳ便秘诊断标准,纳入2020年4月—2021年4月在青岛市第八人民医院行结肠镜检查的便秘患者180例,随机分成A、B、C组,每组60例。A组：于检查前1日晚上8:00服用1 L PEG,当日早上7:00再服用2 L PEG,即3(1+2) L方案;B组：于检查前1日晚上8:00服用2 L PEG,当日早上7:00再服用2 L PEG,即4(2+2) L方案;C组：分别于检查前2日、检查前1日晚上8:00各服用1 L PEG,当日早上7:00再服用2 L PEG,即4(1+1+2) L方案。采用波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评估肠道清洁度,比较各组患者的结肠息肉及小息肉检出率。对每位患者进行问卷调查,记录各组患者的不良反应及耐受情况。结果:A组有3例、B组有2例、C组有2例患者因发现结肠占位,C组有1例患者因无法耐受肠镜而被剔除,最终纳入A组57例、B组58例、C组57例。3组患者在年龄、性别、身体质量指数方面的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组患者右...     

二甲硅油散在小肠胶囊内镜肠道准备中的服用时间及剂量研究

目的 探索二甲硅油散在小肠胶囊内镜肠道准备中的服用时间及剂量,选择更优方案.方法 选取2018年1月至2021年7月在深圳市龙岗中心医院行小肠胶囊内镜检查的134例患者作为研究对象,按照随机数字表法分为A组(37例)、B组(35例)、C组(32例)与D组(30例).检查前均采用聚乙二醇电解质散3L分次服用方案行肠道准备...     

聚卡波非钙联合西甲硅油与聚乙二醇电解质散在慢性便秘患者肠镜检查肠道准备中的应用

目的:探讨聚卡波非钙联合西甲硅油与聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG)在慢性便秘患者肠镜检查前肠道准备中的有效性和安全性.方法:采用随机、单盲、前瞻性的研究方法,将2020年3月-12月于徐州医科大学附属医院接受肠镜检查的慢性便秘患者共252例随机均分为A、B、C3个组,分别采用聚卡波非钙+西甲硅油+PEG(A组)、聚卡波非钙+...     

低剂量硫酸镁联合聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜肠道准备中的应用研究

目的 探究20 g硫酸镁联合低剂量聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG)在结肠镜检查前的肠道清洁效果。方法 选取2023年2-6月临沂市人民医院行结肠镜检查患者400例,采用随机数字法将患者分成A、B、C、D四组。A组：2 L PEG+30mL西甲硅油;B组：50 g硫酸镁+30 mL西甲硅油;C组：标准大剂量4 L PEG+30 mL西甲硅油;D组：20 g硫酸镁+2 L PEG+30 mL西甲硅油。观察记录患者波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评估的肠道清洁质量。次要结果是评估息肉检出率及不良反应发生率。结果 D组肠道准备充分率与C组相当(95.7%vs 97.7%),B组肠道准备充分率最低(78.8%)。全结肠及各肠段BBPS评分数据分析显示,D组和C组均有较好的肠道清洁效果,A组最差。四组息肉检出率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。四组不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),D组未明显增加不良反应发生率。结论 20 g硫酸镁联合低剂量(2 L)聚乙二醇电解质散具有较好的肠道准备效果,且具有一定的安全性,可作为未来肠道准备的推荐方案。     

二甲硅油散在胶囊内镜检查术前准备中的作用研究

目的观察二甲硅油散在胶囊内镜检查前对肠腔清洁度的影响及不良反应。方法60例例接受胶囊内镜检查患者随机分为二甲硅油散组（常规服用聚乙二醇电解质散剂的基础上，检查前30min口服二甲硅油散）和对照组（仅服用聚乙二醇电解质散剂），将每例胶囊所获得的小肠图像资料按照小肠通过时间平均分成A、B、C三段，由2位读片者分别根据肠腔内的气泡进行分级。并观察有无不良反应。结果2位读片者间一致性较佳（P〈0．05）。在小肠的A段及C段中，二甲硅油散组较对照组有明显祛泡作用，大大提高的肠黏膜观察清晰度，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。而在B段中，二甲硅油散组与对照组相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论胶囊内镜检查前服用二甲硅油散能提高小肠肠黏膜观察清晰度，无不良反应发生。     

莫沙比利和聚乙二醇在肠镜检查前肠道准备中的联合应用价值研究

目的 探讨联用莫沙比利与聚乙二醇对功能性疾病导致便秘倾向患者进行结肠镜检查的肠道准备是否比单用聚乙二醇能取得更好的清肠效果.方法 将212例拟行结肠镜检查的患者随机纳入治疗组与对照组,治疗组在服用莫沙比利10 mg半小时后,服用聚乙二醇3L,对照组直接服用聚乙二醇3L清肠.调查患者是否具有便秘倾向,分别记录两组患者及两组中具有便秘倾向者首次大便时间、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 治疗组患者首次大便时间、大便清澈时间短于对照组(P＜0.05),但两组患者清肠效果、排便次数及不良反应差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).对照组与治疗组中有便秘倾向患者分别占26.61％和26.67％,治疗组便秘倾向患者首次大便时间、大便清澈时间短于对照组便秘倾向患者(P＜0.05),清肠效果亦优于对照组便秘倾向患者(P＜0.05),而在排便次数及不良反应上二者差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 对功能性疾病导致便秘倾向患者进行结肠镜检查肠道准备,联用莫沙比利和聚乙二醇相比单用聚乙二醇,可以缩短患者首次大便时间及大便清澈时间,并能提高患者肠道准备效果.     

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.     

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.     

Low-volume plus ascorbic acid vs high-volume plus simethicone bowel preparation before colonoscopy

AIM:To investigate the effectiveness of low-volumeplus ascorbic acid [polyethylene glycol plus ascorbicacid(PEG + Asc) ] and high-volume plus simethicone[polyethylene glycol plus simethicone(PEG + Sim) ]bowel preparations.METHODS:A total of one hundred and forty-fourout patients(76 males) ,aged from 20 to 84 years(me-dian age 59.5 years) ,who attended our Department,were divided into two groups,age and sex matched,and underwent colonoscopy. Two questionnaires,onefor patients reporting acceptability and the ...     

Evidence-based considerations on bowel preparation for colonoscopy

We recently read with interest the article, “Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy”. This is a practical narrative review, which could be of particular importance to clinicians in order to improve their current practice. Although we appreciate the venture of our colleagues, based on our in-depth analysis, we came across several minor issues in the article; hence, we present our comments in this letter. If the authors consider these comments further in their relevant research, we believe that their contribution would be of considerable importance for future studies.     

Effectiveness of polyethylene glycol antegrade gut lavage bowel preparation for colonoscopy—timing is the key!

PURPOSE: Polyethylene glycol gut lavage is an effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The quality of the preparation is not uniform however, and most studies report a rate of suboptimal cleansing of 10 percent or more. One of the possible reasons for a poor preparation is the length of time between the lavage and the examination. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of timing of polyethylene glycol gut lavage on the quality of the preparation achieved. METHODS: Patients referred for elective outpatient colonoscopy with afternoon appointments were randomized to take polyethylene glycol gut lavage either the same morning as their examination (Group 1) or the afternoon of the day before (Group 2). The colonoscopist was unaware of the preparation timing until after the examination was over. During the examination the endoscopist scored the quality of bowel preparation in the cecum, ascending colon, and transverse and left colon. Patient demographics and clinical data were recorded. RESULTS: There were 157 patients in Group 1 (colonoscopy complete in 152 patients) and 160 in Group 2 (colonoscopy complete in 159 patients). The groups were similar in age and gender, indication for colonoscopy, and previous colonic surgery. Patients who drank gut lavage on the morning of their colonoscopy had a greatly better preparation in all areas of the colon than the patients who took their preparation the night before. In the cecum, 97 Group 1 patients had an excellent preparation (vs. 14 Group 2 patients), 45 had a good preparation (vs. 103 Group 2 patients), and 10 had a fair preparation (vs. 33 Group 2 patients). In the ascending colon, numbers of patients with excellent, good, fair, and poor results were 103, 45, 5, and 0 for Group 1 and 12, 107, 32, and 7 for Group 2. Results in the transverse and left colons were 102, 50, 5, 0 and 93, 55, 7, 2 for Group 1 and 15, 116, 27, 5 and 18, 114, 24, 3 for Group 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: The timing of administration of polyethylene glycol-based gut lavage is a major determinant of the quality of the bowel preparation achieved.Presented at the Tripartite Meeting of Colorectal Surgical Societies in Sydney, Australia, October 17 to 20, 1993.     

硫酸镁溶液联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散在胶囊内镜检查前肠道准备中的价值

目的 探讨硫酸镁联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散在胶囊内镜检查术前肠道准备中的应用价值.方法 81例患者分成单纯口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散组(A组,n =41)和硫酸镁联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散口服组(B组,n =40),比较两组病变检出情况、肠道准备评分结果、胶囊滞留发生情况及电解质、肝肾功能检测结果.结果 A组病变检出率为65.9％( 27/41),B组为62.5％(25/40),差异无统计学意义(x2=0.099,P＞0.05);A组肠道准备评分≤4分19例、≥6分22例,B组≤4分28例、≥6分12例,差异有统计学意义(x2=4.653,P＜0.05);A组胶囊滞留发生率为2.4％(1/41),B组为5.0％ (2/40),差异无统计学意义(x2=0.372,P＞0.05).两组患者服用肠道准备药物过程中均无明显腹痛、恶心、呕吐、心慌等不适,服药后两组电解质水平及肝肾功能指标值比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 硫酸镁联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散应用于胶囊内镜检查术前肠道准备具有较好的应用价值.     

The optimal bowel preparation intervals before colonoscopy: A randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions

Background & aimsThe optimal duration of bowel preparation has only been assessed for polyethylene glycol (PEG). The aim of the study was to determine the intervals for achieving a satisfactory quality/tolerability of the preparation using PEG/ascorbic acid (PEGA) and sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (SPMC), and to compare them with 4L of PEG.MethodsA randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. The 612 outpatients referred to a colonoscopy, were prepared using PEG, SPMC, PEGA. The quality, tolerability, duration of the preparation, and the interval from the end of the preparation to the colonoscopy was assessed.ResultsOptimum duration of the preparation was similar for both PEG and SPMC (≥7.3 vs. ≥8.8 h, overall ≥8.4 h). Optimum interval to the colonoscopy was ≤11.8 h and did not differ between preparations (PEG, PEGA ≤ 11.8, SPMC ≤ 13.3 h). These times were the only predictors for a satisfactory preparation. The tolerability depends on the product type (SPMC) only. Timing of the preparation or the other factors had no impact on tolerability.ConclusionThe optimum intervals for bowel preparation are identical for all preparations. Satisfactory preparation is achived at the preparation length ≥8.4 h and the time to colonoscopy ≤11.8 h.