利那洛肽联合2L聚乙二醇电解质散在肠道准备中的应用价值

目的 探讨利那洛肽联合分次小剂量聚乙二醇电解质散(polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder, PEG)在结肠镜检查肠道准备中的应用价值。方法 采用前瞻性随机对照研究,纳入2023年2月至2023年7月于襄阳市中心医院消化内科住院行结肠镜检查的221名患者,随机分为3组,A组采用2L PEG,B组采用580μg利那洛肽+2L PEG,C组为对照组采用3L PEG,PEG均是分次剂量服用方案。比较三组的肠道清洁度(BBPS评分)、病变检出率、首次排便间隔时间及总排便次数、不良反应发生率、患者服药完成度等指标。结果 B组在回肠末端、右半结肠、全结肠总评分上肠道清洁效果均优于A组[(1.90±0.46)分VS (1.64±0.42)分、(1.84±0.35)分VS(1.58±0.46)分、(6.70±0.92)分VS (6.24±0.98)分],差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);B组与C组,在不同肠段以及全结肠总评分上差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05) B组、C组BBPS评分高于A组[总评分(6.70±0.92)、(6.75±0.86)VS(...     

复方聚乙二醇电解质散联合利那洛肽在肠道准备中的效果：一项临床随机对照研究

背景：传统的肠道准备方案复方聚乙二醇电解质散（PEG）由于需要大量饮水而导致部分患者耐受性差,清洁效果有限,且影响观察视野,因此找到一种清洁力强、安全性高、大部分患者可接受的肠道清洁方法具有重要的临床意义。目的：探讨PEG联合利那洛肽在肠道准备中的效果和安全性。方法：将414例患者随机分为对照组（3 L PEG）、观察A组（3 L PEG+290μg利那洛肽）、观察B组（2 L PEG+290μg利那洛肽）。主要观察指标为根据波士顿肠道准备量表（BBPS）评分评估肠道准备的效果,次要观察指标为退镜时间、完成准备到结肠镜检查的时间间隔、患者并发症发生率、盲肠插管率以及息肉、腺瘤、痔疮、其他疾病检出率。同时对便秘亚组的BBPS评分进行分析。结果：观察A组恰当的肠道准备率、BBPS评分、息肉检出率、痔疮检出率等均显著高于对照组和观察B组（P<0.05）,而观察B组与对照组相比无明显差异（P>0.05）。三组间盲肠插管率、结肠镜未完成率、其他疾病检出率、腺瘤检出率、退镜时间、完成准备到结肠镜检查的时间间隔、不良反应发生率均无明显差异（P>0.05）。观察A组便秘患者的BBPS...     

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。     

利那洛肽联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜肠道准备的临床研究

目的探讨利那洛肽联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散(polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder, PEG)作为结肠镜肠道准备方案的价值。方法采用随机、单盲的前瞻性临床研究, 纳入2021年6—8月于南方医科大学深圳医院消化内科门诊行结肠镜检查的患者。将行结肠镜肠道准备的患者分成2组, 试验组152例患者采用580 μg利那洛肽+2 L PEG方案, 对照组152例患者采用3 L PEG方案。比较两组患者肠道准备效果(波士顿肠道准备量表评分、气泡评分和病变检出率)及安全性(不良事件)。结果试验组与对照组相比, 波士顿肠道准备量表评分[总评分9(8, 9)分比9(9, 9)分, Z=0.141, P=0.888], 气泡评分[1(1, 2)分比1(1, 1)分, Z=1.788, P=0.074]及总体病变检出率[37.50%(57/152)比33.55%(51/152), χ2=0.517, P=0.472]差异均无统计学意义。在安全性方面, 试验组与对照组相比, 恶心[7.24%(11/152)比13.16%(20/152), χ2=2.910, P=0.08...     

利那洛肽胶囊联合低剂量聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜肠道准备的可行性与安全性

目的探讨利那洛肽胶囊联合低剂量复方聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG)作为肠镜检查前肠道清洁剂的可行性与安全性。 方法选取2022年3月至2022年5月经保定市第一中心医院门诊拟行肠镜检查的300例受试者作为研究对象。采用随机数字表,将受试者随机分为三组,每组各100例患者。A组作为对照组单用3盒PEG、B组利那洛肽胶囊2粒(290 μg/每粒)联合2盒PEG清肠、C组3粒利那洛肽胶囊联合2盒PEG清肠,比较三组患者肠道清洁程度及不良事件的发生率。 结果B组左半结肠、横结肠、右半结肠及总Boston肠道准备量表(BBPS)均与A组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);C组左半结肠、横结肠、右半结肠及总BBPS均高于A组,具有统计学意义(P<0.05),B组的左半结肠、横结肠、右半结肠及总BBSP评分均低于A组,具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。不良事件发生率方面,B、C组均低于A组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。B、C组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论利那洛肽胶囊2粒联合2盒PEG肠道清洁度与单用3盒PEG相似,利那洛肽胶囊3粒联合2盒PEG清肠效果优于单用3盒PEG。2种联合用药方式不良事件发生率均低于单用3盒PEG。     

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.     

国产与进口复方聚乙二醇在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的效果比较

[目的]评价国产与进口复方聚乙二醇在结肠镜检查前肠道清洁准备中的效果。[方法]选取门诊以及住院需作结肠镜的患者90例并随机分为A组和B组。A组、B组分别以国产聚乙二醇电解质散、进口聚乙二醇电解质散作肠道清洁准备,以波斯顿评分法对2组行肠道准备评分。[结果]A组、B组总评分分别为(5.38±1.83)分、(6.33±2.08)分,B组优于A组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]进口聚乙二醇电解质散进行肠道准备更能有效清洁肠道,提高肠镜检查的质量。     

乳果糖和聚乙二醇电解质散联合应用在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的价值

[目的]对比分析乳果糖口服液联合聚乙二醇电解质散Ⅰ或Ⅳ与单用聚乙二醇电解质散Ⅰ或Ⅳ进行肠道准备的效果差异。[方法]采用随机对照方式,将300例拟行结肠镜检查者分为以下4组,试验①组74例(服用乳果糖口服液和聚乙二醇电解质散Ⅰ)和对照①组75例(单纯服用聚乙二醇电解质散Ⅰ),以及试验②组75例(服用乳果糖口服液和聚乙二醇电解质散Ⅳ)和对照②组76例(单纯服用聚乙二醇电解质散Ⅳ)。[结果]经波士顿肠道准备评分量表评分,试验①组、对照①组分别为(7.14±0.68)分、(6.21±1.13)分,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.000);试验②组、对照②组分别为(7.05±0.78)分、(6.13±1.06)分,2组比较差异亦有统计学意义(P=0.000)。到达回盲部所用时间,试验①组为(8.50±1.74)min,对照①组为(9.42±1.90)min,2组间差异无统计学意义(P=0.223);试验②组为(8.70±1.63)min,对照②组为(9.31±1.58)min,2组间差异亦无统计学意义(P=0.241)。大肠息肉检出率:试验①组22.97%,对照①组18.67%,2组比较差异无统计学意义P=0.255);但试验①组息肉直径≤0.5 cm者检出率显著高于对照①组(P=0.032);大肠息肉检出率:试验②组25.33%,对照②组19.74%,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.286);但试验②组息肉直径≤0.5 cm者检出率显著高于对照②组(P=0.037)。试验组与对照组的不良反应比较差异亦无统计学意义。[结论]在结肠镜检查前的肠道准备中,联用乳果糖口服液和聚乙二醇电解质散比单用聚乙二醇电解质,可以明显改善患者的肠道准备效果,提高小息肉的检出率,且安全性好、经济实用。     

乳果糖在结肠镜检查前肠道准备的应用及研究进展

乳果糖在国内外常用作肠道准备药物,但目前尚缺乏关于此方面的系统综述。本文将就乳果糖在结肠镜检查前肠道准备的应用情况与研究现状作一综述,以期为临床工作提供一定参考。     

伊托必利在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的 观察伊托必利在结肠镜检查前肠道清洁准备中的应用效果.方法 选取门诊和住院的患者198例,随机分为复方聚乙二醇电解质散组和复方聚乙二醇电解质散联合伊托必利组,观察结肠镜检查前肠道准备的情况.结果 两组患者肠道准备总有效率复方聚乙二醇电解质散组85.0%、伊托必利组93.9%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);伊托必利组服用药物后不良反应低于复方聚乙二醇电解质散组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 复方聚乙二醇电解质散联合伊托必利肠道准备疗效优于单用复方聚乙二醇电解质散者.     

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.     

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.     

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy-assisted bowel preparation for colonoscopy

AIM: To compare the quality and tolerance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-assisted and conventional split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for inpatient colonoscopy.METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial in hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy the day following EGD for evaluation of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or other symptoms. Patients randomized to either EGD-assisted bowel prep [2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) administered endoscopically into distal duodenum at time of EGD, plus 1 L PEG orally the following day] or conventional-PEG (2 L PEG orally the evening prior and 1 L PEG orally the following day). The main outcome measurements are bowel preparation quality and patient tolerance of bowel prep.RESULTS: Forty-two patients randomized to EGD-assisted bowel prep and 40 patients to conventional-PEG. Overall mean ± SD preparation quality was superior for EGD-PEG (4.1 ± 2.8) vs conventional-PEG (6.5 ± 3.1; P = 0.0005). Seventy-four percent of patients rated EGD-PEG as easy or slightly difficult to tolerate compared to 46% for standard-PEG (P = 0.0133). Mean EGD-procedural time was greater for EGD-assisted subject (24 ± 10 min) compared to conventional-PEG prep subjects (15 ± 7 min; P < 0.0001). Conscious sedation requirements did not differ between groups. There were no significant prep-related adverse events in either group.CONCLUSION: In selected hospitalized patients, compared to a conventional split-dose regimen, use of EGD to administer the majority of PEG solution improves patient tolerance and quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.     

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.     

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.     

Efficacy of prepackaged, low residual test meals with 4L polyethylene glycol versus a clear liquid diet with 4L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation: A randomized trial

Background and study aims:  A prepackaged low residue one-day diet (breakfast, lunch and dinner) has been recently developed to improve patient tolerance for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation protocols based on a low residue diet and 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution, and to compare these new options with the traditional liquid diet and the PEG 4L lavage.
Methods:  A total of 214 patients (mean age: 54.1 years; 120 male, 94 female) from four university hospitals were included in the analysis. Patients were randomized to receive a clear liquid diet and the PEG 4L regimen (106 patients) or the low residue test meals and the PEG 4L regimen (TM-PEG 4L, 108 patients). The colon cleansing efficacy of the different preparations was rated using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale.
Results:  No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups according to the Ottawa cleansing scale findings (PEG 4L: 2.97 vs TM-PEG 4L: 2.46, P  = 0.063). The overall tolerability was higher in the TM-PEG 4L group than in the PEG 4L group ( P  = 0.036). No difference was found when the two groups were compared with regard to adverse events ( P  = 0.599).
Conclusions:  A prepackaged low residue one-day diet provided cleansing efficacy similar to that of a clear liquid diet and offered the benefit of improved tolerability compared to the conventional PEG 4L regimen.     

The impact of patient education on the quality of inpatient bowel preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND:

For patients requiring colonoscopy while admitted to hospital, achieving adequate cleansing of the colon is often difficult.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the impact of patient education, in the form of both counselling and written instructions, on bowel cleanliness at colonoscopy.

METHODS:

A total of 38 inpatients at a tertiary care hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, who were referred to the gastroenterology service for colonoscopy were enrolled in the present study. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group, while 22 patients comprised the control group. Both groups received a clear liquid diet and 4 L of a commercially available bowel preparation. The intervention group also received a brief counselling session and written instructions outlining the methods and rationale for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Bowel cleanliness was assessed by the endoscopist using a five-point rating scale.

RESULTS:

The two groups were similar with respect to demographics, the indication for colonoscopy and findings at colonoscopy. The median bowel cleanliness scores in the control group and the enhanced-instruction group were 3.0 and 2.0, respectively (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Patient counselling and written instructions are inexpensive, safe and simple interventions. Such interventions are an effective means of optimizing colonoscopy preparation in the inpatient setting.     

Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets vs polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing

AIM: To compare efficacy, patient compliance, acceptability, satisfaction, safety, and adenoma detection rate of sodium phosphate tablets (NaP, CLICOLON^TM) to a standard 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution for bowel cleansing for adults undergoing colonoscopy.METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, prospective, investigator-blind study, the relatively young (19-60 years) healthy outpatients without comorbidity were randomly assigned to one of two arms. All colonoscopy were scheduled in the morning. The NaP group was asked to take 4 tablets, 5 times the evening before and 4 tablets, 3 times early on the morning of the colonoscopy. The PEG group was asked to ingest 2 L of solution the evening before and 2 L early in the morning of the procedure. Adequacy of bowel preparation was scored using the Boston bowel preparation scale.RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the NaP group (n = 158) and PEG group (n = 162) in bowel cleansing quality (adequate preparation 93.0% vs 92.6%, P = 0.877), patient compliance (P = 0.228), overall adverse events (63.3% vs 69.1%, P = 0.269), or adenoma detection rate (34.8% vs 35.2%, P = 0.944). Patient acceptability, satisfaction, and patient rating of taste were higher in the NaP group than in the PEG group (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: NaP tablets, compared with PEG solution, produced equivalent colon cleansing, did not cause more side effects, and had better patient acceptability and satisfaction in the relatively young (age < 60 years) healthy individuals without comorbidity. An oral tablet formulation could make bowel preparation less burdensome, resulting in greater patient participation in screening programs.