西甲硅油乳剂在结肠镜检查中的应用与研究

目的 研究西甲硅油乳剂在结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中的应用价值.方法 将200例接受结肠镜检查的患者随机分为两组,实验组100例,对照组100例.实验组给予聚乙二醇电解质散+西甲硅油乳剂,对照组给予口服聚乙二醇电解质散.观察二组的效果.结果 实验组肠腔内气泡存在量明显少于对照组,术后腹胀程度明显轻于对照组,内镜医师操作满意度优于对照组(P＜0.05),而两组肠道清洁程度无差异(P＞0.05).结论 在结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中应用西甲硅油乳剂能够消除泡沫,提高视野清晰度,减少术后腹胀等不良反应,提高术者操作舒适度,缩短操作时间.     

不同剂量西甲硅油对结肠镜检查肠道准备效果的影响

目的 探讨不同剂量西甲硅油对结肠镜检查肠道准备效果的影响.方法 将320例行普通结肠镜检查的门诊患者随机分为A、B、C、D4组,每组各80例.A组单纯服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散进行肠道准备,B、C、D组患者在A组的基础上再分别服用10 ml、15 ml、30 ml西甲硅油进行肠道准备.比较4组患者的一般资料、肠道清洁满意...     

单瓶磷酸钠盐口服溶液肠道准备效果分析

良好的肠道准备是顺利进行结肠镜检查和治疗的前提,目前临床常用的肠道准备用药主要为甘露醇和聚乙二醇电解质,前者有可能在肠道中产生爆炸气体而影响肠镜下电凝手术,后者要求饮水量大,患者耐受性较差。国外多项临床试验显示了磷酸钠溶液2瓶剂量（45ml×2）的肠道准备效果良好,不亚于甚至优于甘露醇和聚乙二醇,但价格较高。     

不同时间点服用西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的作用

【】目的 探讨不同时间点服用西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的作用。方法 将270例拟行结肠镜检查的患者随机分为3组,所有患者均在结肠镜检查前4小时服用聚乙二醇电解质清洁肠道。A组：结肠镜检查前2小时口服西甲硅油30ml;B组：结肠镜检查前1小时服用西甲硅油30ml。C组：结肠镜检查前0.5小时服用西甲硅油30ml。观察3组患者的肠道清洁程度、肠腔内气泡情况、息肉检出率及操作时间。结果 三组患者之间的肠道清洁程度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与A组和C组相比,B组的肠腔内气泡明显减少(P<0.05),息肉检出率明显升高(P<0.05),操作时间明显降低(P<0.05)。A组和C组相比,肠腔内气泡情况、息肉检出率及操作时间无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论 结肠镜检查前1小时口服西甲硅油30ml可减少肠腔内气泡、提高息肉检出率,并缩短操作时间。     

西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的: 探讨西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用.方法: 选择我院门诊和住院疑有大肠病变接受肠镜检查的患者100例, 随机分为对照组和研究组. 对照组应用导泻剂硫酸镁, 研究组在应用硫酸镁的基础上加用西甲硅油. 观察患者肠道清洁程度以及肠道内泡沫存在情况.结果: 研究组患者中肠道清洁效果AB级的百分比是86%, 而对照组AB级的百分比是88%,两组间比较差异无统计学意义. 研究组患者中祛泡效果Ⅰ、Ⅱ级的百分比是86%, 而对照组Ⅰ、Ⅱ级的百分比是68%, 两组间比较差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 4.574, P<0.05). 患者检查时间两组比较差异有统计学意义( t = 5.125,P<0.01).结论: 导泻剂配合西甲硅油可明显祛除肠腔内的泡沫, 提高结肠镜视野清晰度, 有利于内窥镜医生的操作和发现病灶.     

磷酸钠盐溶液在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

结肠镜检查前的肠道准备方法较多，各有优缺点。本文通过对比，总结日服磷酸钠盐溶液进行结肠镜检查前肠道准备的安全性和可行性。     

磷酸钠盐用于超声肠镜检查前肠道准备的观察

目的 探讨超声肠镜检查前用磷酸钠盐清洁肠道的可行性和安全性.方法 132例常规超声肠镜检查者随机分为两组:观察组67例用磷酸钠盐口服液,对照组65例用聚乙二醇电解质散.服药完成后观察肠道清洁效果及不良反应.结果 观察组肠道清洁程度和清洁范围与对照组相比无显著性差异.P均＞0.05.观察组的不良反应明显低于对照组(P=0.000).结论 用磷酸钠盐口服液做肠道准备,其清洁程度和范围均能满足超声肠镜检查的要求.且不良反应较少,值得在临床推广.     

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。     

不同剂量西甲硅油行结肠镜检查术前肠道准备的效果分析

目的探讨结肠镜检查术前使用不同剂量西甲硅油的肠道准备效果。方法150例结肠镜检查患者随机分成3组,各组50例,A．组使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散＋西甲硅油5ml进行肠道准备,A：组使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散＋西甲硅油10ml进行肠道准备,B组（对照组）单纯使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散进行肠道准备,比较各组在肠道清洁程度、祛泡效果、结肠镜检查操作时间、操作者对结肠镜检查的满意度以及患者对结肠镜检查的耐受程度方面存在的差异。结果A,组、A：组和B组祛泡满意率分别为98．0％（49／50）、100．0％（50／50）和80．0％（40／50）,各组比较差异有统计学意义（x^2=17．855,P=0．000）。而各组在肠道清洁满意率（x^2=1．500,P=0．472）、结肠镜检查平均操作时间（Z=-0．333,P=0．765）、操作者对结肠镜检查的满意度（x^2=6．303,P=0．178）以及患者对结肠镜检查的耐受程度（x^2=8．238,P=0．083）方面差异无统计学意义。结论结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中常规使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散的同时联合使用西甲硅油,在不明显影响肠道清洁程度和患者术中耐受程度的前提下,可显著提高祛泡效果,5ml西甲硅油的剂量基本可以满足临床祛泡需要,而10ml剂量的祛泡效果更好。     

Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Very Old Patients

Background: Colonoscopic preparations are defectively tolerated among many very old patients and the quality of preparation is often inadequate. Methods: Seventy-two patients aged 80 years or more were randomized to receive either NaP (37) or PEG (35) preparation. Patients' and endoscopists' opinions of the preparation and colonoscopy were ascertained, the adverse effects were recorded, clinical indicators of dehydration such as tongue dryness, upper body muscle weakness and confusion were assessed and laboratory tests were taken before and after the preparation. Results: Patients' evaluations showed no significant difference regarding the tolerance of preparations. Only the frequency of nausea was higher in the NaP group (16%/9%, P?=?0.01). Assessment of the indicators of dehydration showed a difference only in tongue dryness in the NaP group (P?=?0.02). The quality of preparation was evaluated by endoscopists as good or excellent in 81% of cases in the NaP group and in 77% of cases in the PEG group. The median values of potassium decreased from 4.0?mmol/L to 3.7?mmol/L (P?P?Conclusion: Sodium phosphate and PEG preparations are almost equally tolerated and effective in very old inpatients. NaP preparations cause more changes in the levels of potassium and sodium. For those elderly patients who are vulnerable to complications caused by electrolyte disturbances we recommend PEG preparation.     

Adverse Renal and Metabolic Effects Associated with Oral Sodium Phosphate Bowel Preparation

Colorectal cancer can be prevented by the removal of adenomatous polyps during screening colonoscopy, but adequate bowel preparation is required. Oral sodium phosphate (OSP), an effective bowel purgative, is available over the counter and requires a substantially lower volume than polyethylene glycol-based preparative agents. Accumulating reports implicate OSP in electrolyte disturbances as well as acute kidney injury (AKI) in a syndrome termed phosphate nephropathy (a form of nephrocalcinosis). Despite published case reports and case series, the actual incidence, risk factors, and natural history of phosphate nephropathy remain largely undefined. Several recent observational studies have provided new information on these important issues while supporting a link between OSP and acute phosphate nephropathy as well as the development of chronic kidney disease in elderly patients, many of whom had a normal serum creatinine at the time of OSP ingestion. This review summarizes current knowledge about the renal complications of OSP, risk factors for its development, and the pathophysiology of acute and chronic kidney damage in nephrocalcinosis.Approximately 14 million colonoscopies are performed in the United States yearly for colon cancer screening, and efforts to increase screening rates have included endorsements by celebrities (1,2). The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy are closely related to the quality of the colon preparation, and yet methods to safely, effectively, quickly, comfortably, and affordably prepare the colon remain elusive (3). In clinical trials, nearly 75% of subjects undergoing bowel preparation report adverse events, most commonly abdominal distention, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and dizziness (4).Methods of bowel preparation have evolved from the traditional approach of dietary restriction and enemas, which although effective, are time-consuming and uncomfortable (5). An early preparative agent was mannitol, but it results in the production of methane, hydrogen, and other flammable gases and has been associated with fatal colonic explosions during polypectomy and electrocautery (6,7). Large volumes of saline or balanced electrolyte lavage solutions are also effective, but their use results in significant net fluid and electrolyte absorption. A significant advance occurred when Davis et al. at Baylor University substituted nonabsorbable sodium sulfate in place of sodium chloride and added polyethylene glycol for osmotic effect (8). They called this iso-osmolar, nonabsorbable solution “GoLytely,” although it is more generally known as polyethylene-glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) (8). A version known as Nu-Lytely, formulated without the unpalatable ingredient sodium sulfate, became available in 1990 (9). Recent formulations have combined half-dose Nu-Lytely (2 L rather than 4 L) with Bisacodyl tablets (called Half-Lytely).Despite the effectiveness and relative safety of PEG-ELS, many patients complain about the taste and the large volume they must drink. The search for alternatives to standard PEG-ELS preps led back to oral sodium phosphate (OSP) preparations, which have existed for many years. In early studies comparing the two approaches, patients and colonoscopists preferred OSP (10–12). A recent meta-analysis concluded that OSP preps result in better bowel cleansing, perhaps because patients are more likely to complete them (13). An industry-sponsored study that compared OSP tablets with PEG-ELS + bisacodyl concluded that OSP is more efficacious and better tolerated (4).Like lactulose and milk of magnesia (magnesium hydroxide), OSP preparations are osmotic purgatives that obligate water excretion into the intestinal lumen to maintain its isotonicity with plasma (in contrast to the kidney, the proximal small intestine does not create or maintain an osmotic gradient between the luminal and blood side) (14). The retention of water in the bowel lumen results in peristalsis and colonic evacuation (15). It is the high sodium and phosphate content of OSP preps, which render them hyperosmolar. Each 45-ml dose of Fleet''s Phospho-soda contains 5 g of sodium and 17.8 g of phosphate, yielding a solution with an osmolarity of 16,622 mOsm/L (748 mOsm/45 ml) (14). The amount of elemental phosphorus in two 45-ml doses is approximately 11.5 g, a substantial load compared with the typical daily dietary intake of 1 to 1.5 g (16). Two OSP tablet preparations are also approved for use: Visicol, which is similar in content to Fleet''s Phospho-soda, and Osmo-Prep, which contains approximately 20% less phosphate than Visicol (15). All OSP preparations lead to both sodium and phosphate absorption. If phosphate absorption did not occur, a 100-ml dose would obligate 4.1 L of stool (17).     

聚乙二醇与磷酸钠在结肠镜检查前肠道准备的比较

目的 对比聚乙二醇与磷酸钠在结肠镜检查前肠道准备的效果、依从性以及对血生化指标的影响.方法 78例结肠镜检查者随机给予聚乙二醇电解质溶液或磷酸钠进行肠道准备,单盲法评价肠道清洁效果,问卷调查患者排便性状和次数以及对于药物的口感.另外,肠道准备前后检测各种血生化指标和体重,对比两种药物的差异.结果 所有入选者都能饮完聚乙二醇电解质液或磷酸钠溶液,入选者似乎更容易接受磷酸钠.口感计分磷酸钠组为3.11±0.60,聚乙二醇组为2.85±0.74,两组无统计学显著性差异(P=0.09).磷酸钠组肠道准备满意度计分2.32±0.66,聚乙二醇组为2.00±0.64(P=0.035),磷酸钠组肠道准备后血磷水平升高(由1.05±0.17升高至1.52±0.58,P＜0.001),而血钙(P＜0.001)降低,血钠(P=0.022)降低,但无明显临床症状.与聚乙二醇组相比,磷酸钠组有引起低血钾的趋势(P＜0.096),而磷酸钠组肠道准备后与准备前相比,血钾下降有统计学差异(P=0.003).结论 从肠道准备效果上来看,磷酸钠优于聚乙二醇.在口感上二者相比虽无统计学差异,但入选者更倾向于接受磷酸钠.虽然没有临床症状,应警惕磷酸钠肠道准备后低钙、低钠、高磷血症,且血磷升高幅度非常明显,对于肾功能不全的患者,尤需谨慎.     

Measurement of Serum Electrolytes and Phosphate After Sodium Phosphate Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: An Evaluation

Our purpose was to observe the effects of sodium phosphate (NaP) colonoscopy preparation on serum electrolytes, phosphate, and calcium and to identify factors associated with any adverse effects. In an unselected group of 100 consecutive patients attending for out patient colonoscopy, 45% of patients had raised serum phosphate, which was positively correlated with creatinine and age. There was a negative association of phosphate with calcium; 16% of patients had hypocalcemia and 26% had hypokalemia. Patients taking ACE inhibitors, AT2 antagonists, or diuretics were associated with hyperphosphatemia. Significant electrolyte and metabolic disturbance from colonoscopy preparation has been shown with NaP preparation, without overt clinical effects. We recommend that elderly patients and those with significant comorbidity have their electrolytes and calcium measured, and diuretics and ACE inhibitors stopped, before NaP administration. Endoscopy units should be alert for patients who might be suffering from electrolyte disturbance postpreparation and be prepared to measure their electrolytes.     

Patient Preference and Acceptance with Sodium Phosphate Tablet Preparation for Colonoscopy

Background Colonoscopy is considered the primary procedure for colorectal cancer screening and prevention. However patient acceptance of this procedure has been poor. A major deterrent for patients is the need for a large-volume (4-l) preprocedure colonic preparation (polyethylene glycol [PEG] solution) that can be associated with a bad taste. Aim To determine patient preference and acceptance of the NaP tablet preparation in patients who have previously used PEG solutions for their prior colonoscopy exams. Methods Patients who had used a standard 4-l PEG solution preparation for a colonoscopy within the past 12 months and who were scheduled for a repeat colonoscopy were invited to participate in this study. A preprocedural questionnaire was administered to the patients. The primary outcome measure was whether the patient indicated a preference for the NaP tablet preparation over the previous PEG solution. Results Thirty-five of 53 participants (66%) who completed the study preferred the NaP tablet preparation over 4-l PEG. A majority of patients also indicated that they would use the NaP tablet preparation again and would like to have a choice of preparation for their next colonoscopy. Conclusions Among patients who previously used a 4-l PEG preparation for colon cleansing and participated in this study, 66% of patients preferred the NaP tablet preparation over the PEG preparation for their colonoscopy.