聚乙二醇电解质溶液在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用与护理

目的研究口服聚乙二醇电解质溶液2 000 ml在肠镜检查前肠道准备中的效果和安全性。方法将100例行结肠镜检查的病人随机分为实验组和对照组,实验组口服聚乙二醇电解质溶液清肠,对照组口服电解质溶液加蓖麻油清肠。观察服药后的排便次数和性状,肠道清洁程度,病人服药后的反应,肠腔内气泡情况。服药前、结肠镜检查结束时分别测心率、血压,进行血、尿常规检查和电解质测定。结果实验组肠道准备时间较对照组明显缩短,两组差异有显著意义;两组清洁肠道有效率均达100%,无明显差异;不良反应实验组明显少于对照组;在耐受性方面,实验组优于对照组。结论口服聚乙二醇电解质溶液清洁肠道效果佳,安全性好,可替代我科传统的电解质溶液加蓖麻油清肠方法。     

聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的：观察聚乙二醇电解质散清洁肠管的效果和安全性。方法：应用聚乙二醇电解质散进行结肠镜检查前肠道准备，144例病人随机分为A组和B组，A组口服聚乙二醇电解质散，B组口服Niflec。观察服药过程中排便情况，肠腔清洗效果和气泡存在情况，比较服药前后3d大便性状及次数，记录不良反应。结果：143例病人完成研究，其中A组71例，B组72例。两组病人在服药后约1～1.5h开始排便，排便4～8次后即可接受肠镜检查，两组清洁肠道的有效率均为100％。A组2例、B组1例出现轻度恶心、头昏和头痛。两组在排便时间、肠腔清洗效果、服药前后大便性状和次数及不良反应间比较无显著差异。结论：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，不需要饮食限制，值得临床推广应用。     

聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的探讨聚乙二醇电解质散在肠镜检查前肠道准备中的效果和护理方法。方法将200例行结肠镜检查的病人随机分为实验组和对照组，实验组口服聚乙二醇电解质溶液清肠，对照组口服20％甘露醇溶液清肠。对比2组服药后的排便次数和性状，肠道清洁程度，病人服药后的反应。结果实验组肠道准备时间较对照组明显缩短（P〈0．05），2组差异有显著意义；2组清洁肠道有效率均达100％，无明显差异（P〉0．05）；实验组不良反应明显少于对照组（P〈0．05），差异有显著性。结论口服聚乙二醇电解质溶液清洁肠道效果佳，安全性好，可替代本科传统的口服20％甘露醇溶液清肠方法。     

聚乙二醇电解质溶液在儿童结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

[目的]评价聚乙二醇电解质溶液用于儿童结肠镜检查前肠道准备的有效性和安全性.[方法]将326例结肠镜检查患儿分为试验组(n=156)和对照组(n=170),各组进一步根据患儿年龄再分层为A、B二个亚组(≤5岁者为A组,＞5岁者为B组).试验组采用聚乙二醇电解质溶液口服清洁肠道,对照组采用乳果糖口服溶液,比较两组肠道清洁效果、不良反应和并发症、患儿耐受程度.[结果]试验组和对照组肠道清洁满意率均较高,分别为91.7％和87.1％,两组之间满意率无统计学差异(x2 =0.37,P=0.848);试验组不良反应及并发症为5.1％显著低于对照组15.3％(x2 =9.000,P=0.003),试验组患儿耐受程度为96.8％,明显优于对照组87.6％(x2 =9.275,P=0.002).[结论]聚乙二醇电解质溶液清洁肠道效果佳,安全性好,耐受性高,适用于儿童肠道准备.     

聚乙二醇电解质散联合莫沙必利在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的 探讨聚乙二醇电解质散联合莫沙必利口服在结肠镜检查前清洁肠道的临床效果。方法将440例行结肠镜检查前肠道准备的患者随机分为四组：A组（120例）于首次口服聚乙二醇电解质散前半小时口服莫沙必利10mg。B组（122例）于首次口服聚乙二醇电解质散同时口服莫沙必利10mg,C组（90例）于首次口服聚乙二醇电解质散后1h口服莫沙必利10mg,D组（108例）仅口服聚乙二醇电解质散。比较四组肠道清洁效果和不良反应情况。结果A组、B组和C组、D组比较,服药至首次排便时间和大便清澈时间较短、总排便次数增加和Boston肠道准备量表（BBPS）评分较高,有显著性差异（P＜0．05）;A组和B组不良反应评分明显少于D组,有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。结论聚乙二醇电解质散剂较早联合莫沙必利口服,可以缩短患者首次排便时间及大便清澈时间,增加排便次数,并能提高患者肠道准备效果,减少不良反应。     

复方聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备清洁效果的临床研究

结肠镜检查是目前诊断和治疗大肠疾病最有效的方法之一。不仅可以观察结肠黏膜的细微变化,而且可以澄清钡剂灌肠X线有疑问的病变,对发现的病变作及时治疗并能取得病理资料,亦可对某些大肠疾病进行微创镜下治疗。肠道准备的清洁程度是影响结肠镜检查和治疗的关键因素之一。近年来肠道准备的方法多种多样,已有从传统的机械性灌肠向口服灌肠转变的趋势。     

聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的 :探讨聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的效果和安全性。方法 :4 4例接受结肠镜检查的病人随机分为A组和B组 ,A组口服聚乙二醇电解质散 ,B组口服Niflec。观察服药过程中排便情况 ,肠腔清洗效果和气泡存在情况。服药前和结肠镜检查结束后分别进行血尿常规、肝肾功能检查和电解质测定。结果 :两组病人在服药后约 1～ 1.5h开始排便 ,排便 3～ 5次后即可接受肠镜检查 ,清洁肠道的有效率均为10 0 % ,无 1例出现恶心、呕吐、腹痛和头痛等不良反应。两组在排便时间 ,肠腔清洗效果和实验室指标变化间比较均无显著差异。结论 :聚乙二醇电解质散应用于结肠镜检查前的肠道准备安全有效 ,准备时间短 ,不需要饮食限制 ,值得临床推广应用     

复方聚乙二醇电解质散与硫酸镁在结肠镜检查病人肠道准备中的应用效果

[目的]探讨硫酸镁与复方聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG)两种泻药在结肠镜检查肠道准备中应用的效果。[方法]选择2015年1月—2015年6月住院行结肠镜检查的407例病人,将2015年1月—2015年3月住院行结肠镜检查的196例病人作为对照组,将2015年4月—2015年6月住院行结肠镜检查的211例病人作为观察组,对照组肠道准备采用硫酸镁口服,观察组肠道准备采用复方聚乙二醇电解质散口服,比较两组病人的肠道准备清洁度、不良反应发生率、服药依从性及病人满意度。[结果]观察组肠道准备清洁合格率、病人依从性及满意度高于对照组,肠道准备不良反应发生率低于对照组,经比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]复方聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜检查病人行肠道准备,肠道清洁度好,不良反应发生率低,病人依从性及满意度高,效果明显优于口服硫酸镁。     

复方聚乙二醇电解质散与硫酸镁在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的效果比较

目的:比较口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散与口服25%硫酸镁在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的清肠效果及安全性.方法:把524例结肠镜检查患者分成两组.研究组264例,检查前口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散;对照组260例,检查前口服25%硫酸镁进行肠道准备.观察两组肠道清洁度及不良反应情况.结果:研究组的肠道清洁有效率为97.7%,对照组为84.6%,研究组高于对照组(P=0.043).研究组不良反应发生率为25.8%,对照组为43.8%,研究组低于对照组(P=0.016).结论:与口服25%硫酸镁相比,口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散清洁肠道有较好的效果和较高的安全性.     

复方聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备效果观察

目的:探讨复方聚乙二醇电解质散用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备的效果和安全性.方法:将拟行结肠镜检查的128例患者随机分为研究组与对照组各64例,研究组采用口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散溶液进行肠道准备,对照组采用番泻叶加甘露醇溶液进行肠道准备.比较两组肠道清洁效果,服药后排便时间和恶心呕吐、腹胀腹痛、乏力、饥饿感等不良反应的发生情况.结果:两组不良反应发生情况比较有极显著性差异﹙P﹤0.01﹚.结论:复方聚乙二醇电解质散是一种有效、快速、安全、副反应小、易被患者接受的肠道准备药.     

Ascorbic acid and low-volume polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the benefits of low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid compared to full-dose PEG for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PubMed, and recent abstracts from major conferences were searched (January 2012). Only randomized-controlled trials on adult subjects comparing low-volume PEG (2 L) with ascorbic acid vs full-dose PEG (3 or 4 L) were included. Meta-analysis for the efficacy of low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid and full-dose PEG were analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of number of satisfactory bowel preparations as well as adverse patient events (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting). Separate analyses were performed for each main outcome by using OR with fixed and random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating the I² measure of inconsistency. RevMan 5.1 was utilized for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The initial search identified 242 articles and trials. Nine studies (n = 2911) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed for this meta-analysis with mean age range from 53.0 to 59.6 years. All studies were randomized controlled trials on adult patients comparing large-volume PEG solutions (3 or 4 L) with low-volume PEG solutions and ascorbic acid. No statistically significant difference was noted between low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid and full-dose PEG for number of satisfactory bowel preparations (OR 1.07, 95%CI: 0.86-1.33, P = 0.56). No statistically significant difference was noted between low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid and full-dose PEG for abdominal pain (OR 1.09, 95%CI: 0.81-1.48, P = 0.56), nausea (OR 0.70, 95%CI: 0.49-1.00, P = 0.05), or vomiting (OR 0.99, 95%CI: 0.78-1.26, P = 0.95). No publication bias was noted. CONCLUSION: Low-volume PEG with the addition of ascorbic acid demonstrates no statistically significant difference to full-dose PEG for satisfactory bowel preparation and side-effects.     

Efficacy of 0.5-L vs 1-L polyethylene glycol containing ascorbic acid as additional colon cleansing methods for inadequate bowel preparation as expected by last stool examination before colonoscopy

BACKGROUND No consensus has been reached in patients suspected of having inadequate bowel preparation regarding optimal salvage methods, which negatively affects the efficacy and quality of colonoscopy. The most ideal and reasonable rescue option involves early suspicion and identification of patients with inadequate preparation before sedation, additional oral ingestion of a suitable preparation formulation, and same-day colonoscopy.AIM To compare 0.5-L and 1-L polyethylene glycol containing ascorbic acid(PEG +Asc) as additional bowel cleansing methods after a 2-L split-dose PEG + Asc regimen in patients with expected inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy.METHODS Individuals with expected inadequate bowel preparation based on last stool form, such as turbid liquid, particulate liquid, or liquid with small amounts of feces, were randomized to either a 0.5-L PEG + Asc group or a 1-L PEG + Asc group. The primary endpoint was bowel preparation as assessed using the Aronchick bowel preparation scale(ABPS) and Boston bowel preparation scale(BBPS) scores. The secondary endpoints were cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate(PDR), adenoma detection rate(ADR), individual compliance with additional PEG + Asc, and patient satisfaction.RESULTS Initially, 98 patients were included, but 8 were later excluded due to withdrawal of consent to participate in the study. Adequate bowel preparation(as assessed by ABPS) was observed in 80.9%(38/47) of subjects in the 0.5-L group and in88.4%(38/43) of subjects in the 1-L group(P = 0.617). Mean total BBPS was 6.7 points in the 0.5-L group and 7.0 points in the 1-L group(P = 0.458). ADRs and PDRs were similar in the two groups, and cecal intubation and withdrawal times were not significantly different. However, mean patient satisfaction score was significantly higher in the 0.5-L group(P = 0.041).CONCLUSION The bowel cleaning efficacy of additional 0.5-L PEG + Asc was not inferior to that of 1-L PEG + Asc. Additional 0.5-L PEG + Asc is worthwhile when inadequate bowel preparation is expected before colonoscopy.     

无痛结肠镜前聚乙二醇口服时间对肠道准备效果的影响

目的观察无痛肠镜术前不同时间口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散剂进行肠道准备的清肠效果和舒适性。方法收集消化内科住院期间173例行无痛结肠镜检查患者的资料,根据口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散剂的时间不同分为3组,A组检查前1天22:00服用4盒,检查时间为当天8∶30~10∶30。B组检查前1天20∶00服用1盒,检查当天5∶00服用3盒,检查时间为当天10∶30~12∶30。C组检查前1天20∶00服用1盒,检查当天7∶00服用3盒,检查时间为当天13∶30~15∶30。比较3组患者结肠准备质量,并评估患者舒适度。结果 A、B和C组结肠准备清洁充分率分别为61.4%、78.7%和72.7%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.111),3组患者主观舒适度比较,B、C组患者肠道准备中舒适度优于A组,不良反应发生率偏低,差异有统计学意义(P=0.036),但B组与C组患者在肠道准备中舒适度差异无统计学意义(P=0.921)。结论无痛肠镜术前3种不同时间口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散剂对肠道清洁度无影响,但分次口服聚乙二醇电解质散剂比单次服用不良反应小,患者容易接受,是比较理想、安全的无痛结肠镜前肠道准备方法。     

减量复方聚乙二醇与传统肥皂水灌肠用于CT 仿真结肠镜准备的对照研究

目的：探讨减少剂量的复方聚乙二醇在CT仿真结肠镜检查前肠道清洁准备的效果,并与传统清洁灌肠效果进行比较。方法将80例行C T仿真结肠镜检查患者随机分成两组,观察组于检查前口服2 L复方聚乙二醇行肠道准备,对照组采用传统肥皂水清洁灌肠进行肠道准备,通过分析CT图像评估两种方法肠道准备效果。结果观察组升结肠与盲肠内粪便量明显少于对照组（P＜0．05）;观察组直肠、升结肠与盲肠内液体残留量明显少于对照组（均 P＜0．015）;两组间各肠段扩张度差异无显著学意义（均 P＞0．05）;比较两种方法的不良反应发生率,差异无显著意义（ P＝0．284）。结论减量复方聚乙二醇能达到理想的肠清效果,且液体残留较少,其不良反应发生率与传统灌肠方法相仿。     

分次与单次口服PEG-EP进行肠道准备的效果观察

目的探讨分次与单次口服聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG-EP)进行结肠镜检查前肠道准备的清洁效果和耐受性。方法将432例进行结肠镜检查的无症状个体,随机分为A组(分次口服)和B组(单次口服)。A组于检查前夜8时和检查当日5时分别口服半包PEG-EP,B组于检查当日5时一次性口服1包PEG-EP(65.56g/袋),比较两组肠道准备的清洁效果和不良反应的发生情况。结果 A组肠道准备的清洁效果优于B组(P0.05),A组患者的耐受性优于B组(P0.05)。结论与单次口服相比,分次口服PEG-EP,既可以保证更好的肠道清洁效果,又减少不良反应,患者耐受性好,容易接受,值得临床推广应用。     

拉克替醇联合复方聚乙二醇在住院患者结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的观察拉克替醇联合复方聚乙二醇用于住院患者结肠镜检查前肠道准备的临床效果。方法选择205名拟行结肠镜检查的住院患者,随机分为实验组(拉克替醇联合复方聚乙二醇)102例和对照组(复方聚乙二醇)103例。观察两组肠道清洁效果及不良反应发生率。结果实验组肠道清洁效果与对照组无明显差异,但实验组肠道清洁度为1级者明显高于对照组;实验组不良反应发生率更低,对夜间睡眠几无影响,明显提高了住院患者的依从性及耐受性。结论拉克替醇联合复方聚乙二醇用于住院患者肠道准备安全、有效,不良反应少。     

乳果糖口服液联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜检查肠道准备中的应用

目的探讨乳果糖口服溶液和复方聚乙二醇电解质散联合应用在提高肠道清洁度中的作用效果。方法将120例接受电子结肠镜检查患者分为实验组和对照组,每组各60例,实验组检查前1d口服乳果糖溶液及聚乙二醇电解质散,对照组检查前1d口服聚乙二醇电解质散。比较两组患者肠道清洁度和不良反应发生情况。结果实验组患者肠道清洁度优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组患者不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论乳果糖口服液联合复方聚乙二醇电解质散可以提高患者肠道清洁度,保证结肠镜检查的准确性。     

Same-day single-dose vs large-volume split-dose regimens of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDSplit-dose regimens (SpDs) of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) have been established as the “gold standard” for bowel preparation; however, its use is limited by the large volumes of fluids required and sleep disturbance associated with night doses. Meanwhile, the same-day single-dose regimens (SSDs) of PEG has been recommended as an alternative; however, its superiority compared to other regimens is a matter of debate.AIMTo compare the efficacy and tolerability between SSDs and large-volume SpDs PEG for bowel preparation.METHODSWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, RCA, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomized trials comparing (2 L/4 L) SSDs to large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs PEG-based regimens, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis of relative risk ratio and mean difference was calculated for bowel cleanliness, sleep disturbance, willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation and adverse effects. A random effects model or fixed-effects model was chosen based on heterogeneity analysis among studies.RESULTSA total of 18 studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference of adequate bowel preparation (relative risk = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.92-1.02) (14 trials), right colon Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.04, 0.03) (9 trials) and right colon Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.04; 95%CI: -0.27, 0.34) (5 trials) between (2 L/4 L) SSDs and large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis favored the use of SSDs with less sleep disturbance (relative risk = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.68) and lower incidence of abdominal pain (relative risk = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.62, 0.90). During subgroup analysis, patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation than SpDs (P < 0.05). No significant difference in adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting and bloating, was found between the two arms (P > 0.05).CONCLUSIONRegardless of adjuvant laxative use, the (2 L/4 L) SSD PEG-based arm was considered equal or better than the large-volume (≥ 3 L) SpDs PEG regimen in terms of bowel cleanliness and tolerability. Patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation due to the low-volume fluid requirement and less sleep disturbance.     

复方聚乙二醇电解质散联合开塞露给药方法对结肠镜检查肠道准备的影响

目的探讨复方聚乙二醇电解质散(PGEP)联合开塞露给药方法对结肠镜检查肠道准备的影响。方法选择行结肠镜检查的患者600例,随机分为A、B、C 3组,各200例,A组于结肠镜检查前4 h口服2盒PGEP(139.12 g)清洁肠道,B、C组同法服药,B组检查前1 h开塞露40 ml 1次入肛;C组检查前1 h开塞露40 ml间隔30 min分2次入肛;3组患者检查前晚均进食流质、易消化饮食,检查当日禁食直至检查完毕。应用Boston肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分,并对肠腔内气泡进行评分,比较3组患者肠道准备的有效性、耐受性及安全性。结果 C组结肠镜检查时间(7.13±0.88)min,明显短于A组和B组(9.65±0.85)和(8.20±0.76)min;C组BBPS总分(8.55±0.75)分,明显高于A组和B组(6.46±0.47)和(7.34±0.48)分;C组肠腔内气泡评分(0.23±0.10)分,明显低于A组和B组(0.85±0.34)和(0.55±0.42)分;C组再次肠道准备接受率(93.00%)明显高于A组和B组(78.00%,88.00%),差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。3组患者肠道准备接受率和总体不良反应评分无明显差异(P0.05)。结论口服PGEP联合结肠镜检查前1 h分次应用开塞露进行肠道准备,能显著提高肠道的清洁效果,且安全、简便。