Comparison of standard polyethylene glycol and two doses of oral sodium phosphate solution in precolonoscopy bowel preparation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy, side effects and patient acceptance of standard 4-liters polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 2 doses of sodium phosphate (NaP) solution for precolonoscopy colon cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 182 patients were randomized to receive either standard 4-L PEG (88 patients) or 80 mL of NaP (94 patients) in a split regimen of two 40 mL doses separated by 24 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the segmental assessment of colonic wall visualization. Secondary outcomes included percent of assumed preparation, and the patient tolerance and acceptability. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.3% vs 62.9%; difference, 21.40%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.29% to 34.51%; p = 0.001). PEG solution caused more nausea than NaP solution (p = 0.024). Patient acceptance for bowel preparation with NaP was greater (p = 0.019). Adequate colon wall visualization was achieved in similar proportion of patients in both groups with exception of the descending colon, where NaP regimen was superior (72.0% vs 52.9%; difference, 19.10%; 95% CI, 5.20% to 33.00% ; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of NaP solution, taken 24 h and 12 h before colonoscopy, tend to guarantee superior results in colonic cleansing with respect to standard 4-liters PEG solution. Taking the second dose of NaP 24 h after the first dose reduces side effects and allows achieving a more satisfactory compliance of the patient.     

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.     

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy in very old patients: a randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution

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 < 0.05) and of sodium increased from 142 mmol/L to 145 mmol/L (P < 0.05) after NaP preparation. 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.     

Urinary excretion of polyethylene glycol 3350 and sulfate after gut lavage with a polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution

Ingestion of an electrolyte lavage solution containing polyethylene glycol 3350 and sulfate is an effective method of cleansing the colon for diagnostic studies. Polyethylene glycol and sulfate are considered poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. Because of the quantities administered, concern exists about potential toxicity of absorption of even a small percentage, particularly for polyethylene glycol. We measured the urinary excretion of both polyethylene glycol and sulfate in normal subjects and inflammatory bowel patients. Absorption of polyethylene glycol can be assessed by measuring recovery in urine, as 85%-96% of an intravenous load is excreted in urine. Similarly, appreciable sulfate absorption would exceed renal tubular reabsorption and result in increased urinary excretion. Mean percent polyethylene glycol load recovered in urine was minimal and similar for normal (0.06%) and inflammatory bowel (0.09%) subjects. Urinary sulfate excretion after lavage was also similar for both groups and was not different from baseline. These results do not suggest the likelihood of toxicity due to polyethylene glycol 3350 or sulfate absorption during gut lavage with this solution.     

Efficacy and safety of oral sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol solution for bowel preparation for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability, safety and effectiveness of an oral sodium phosphate solution (Exelyte) for colon preparation prior to colonoscopy, compared with a polyethylene glycol solution (Peglec). METHOD: A colonoscopist-blinded, prospective, randomized, observational clinical study. PATIENTS: One hundred patients undergoing colonoscopy for various indications were randomized (n = 50 each) to receive either 90 mL of oral sodium phosphate mixed with 300 mL clear liquid and then consume about 4-5 glasses of water, or 2 liters of polyethylene glycol solution. RESULT: Sodium phosphate showed a safety profile similar to that of polyethylene glycol. However, patients tolerated it better. The colonoscopist reported similar cleansing of bowel in both groups. CONCLUSION: Oral sodium phosphate is well tolerated, is safe and provides bowel cleansing similar to that with a polyethylene glycol solution.     

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.     

Prospective randomized single-blind trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation

AIM AND METHODS: The aim of this prospective, randomized, study performed in 60 outpatients was to compare 2 precolonoscopy bowel preparations: oral sodium phosphate (NaP) versus standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (PEG). None of the patients met any of NaP exclusion criteria. All patients were prepared on the day prior to colonoscopy. A patient-questionnaire and measure of serum electrolytes (calcium, phosphate, sodium, potassium), pulse and blood pressure were used to assess tolerance and acceptability of the preparation. The quality of colon cleansing was judged by blinded endoscopists. RESULTS: Patient's tolerance to NaP was superior to PEG: NaP preparation was easier to drink and feelings of abdominal plenitude occurred in a smaller proportion of patients. A potassium decrease, a sodium increase and hyperphosphatemia were observed in the NaP group but without clinical events. PEG preparation seemed to allow a better cleansing ability compared with NaP but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: NaP solution was better tolerated and accepted by patients. Colonic preparation quality compared to PEG is still to be discussed depending on the intake schedule. A biochemical data check seems necessary on account of significant serum electrolytes changes induced by NaP preparation.     

Oral sodium phosphate solution is a superior colonoscopy preparation to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of two bowel preparations for colonoscopy. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-three consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either oral sodium phosphate, or 2 liters of polyethylene glycol solution preceded by the stimulant laxative bisacodyl. Patients were asked to record the effects of the preparation, noting any vomiting, nausea, or abdominal pain, and to determine a discomfort rating on a scale of 1 to 5. One hundred sixty-nine patients were assigned to the oral sodium phosphate solution, and 154 to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl. Surgeons were blinded to the preparation used and rated the quality of the bowel preparation on a scale of 1 to 5. RESULTS: Ninety-nine percent of patients in the sodium phosphate group drank all of the solution as opposed to 91 percent of patients in the polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl group. Patients in the sodium phosphate group reported significantly less discomfort (P=0.002). No significant difference was reported for vomiting, nausea, or abdominal pain associated with the preparations. The quality of bowel cleansing was considered by the colonoscopists significantly better for the sodium phosphate group than the polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl group (P<0.000001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy preparation with sodium phosphate solution is better tolerated and more effective than polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl.     

Risk of impaired renal function after colonoscopy: a cohort study in patients receiving either oral sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate frequency, predictors, and monitoring of renal dysfunction related to the use of oral sodium phosphates for colonoscopy in clinical practice. METHODS: Cohort study using clinical records and electronic patient information from the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI. We identified patients undergoing colonoscopy using sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG), and estimated the risk of renal impairment associated with bowel preparation and other risk factors. RESULTS: Out of 7,897 patients, 6,833 had used sodium phosphate; 1,617 patients had renal dysfunction within 12 months prior to colonoscopy and 3,928 patients had no creatinine measurement within 12 months prior to or 6 months postcolonoscopy. Among the remaining 2,352 patients, 88 had incident renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate [GFR]<60 mL/min) after colonoscopy. The relative risk (RR) estimate for renal dysfunction comparing sodium phosphate with PEG was 1.13 (95% CI 0.58-2.23) without adjustment, and 1.14 (95% CI 0.55-2.39) after multivariate adjustment. Significant univariate risk factors were age>or=65 yr, African-American race, low baseline GFR, hypertension, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin-renin blockers, or thiazide diuretics. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without preexisting renal disease, the risk of renal impairment after colonoscopy appears to be similar between sodium phosphate and PEG users. Sodium phosphate use in patients with preexisting renal disease is not recommended, but common in clinical practice. Sodium phosphate should not be used in patients with preexisting serious renal disease, adequate hydration should be assured in all patients, and renal function should be monitored before and after colonoscopy in those at risk of renal dysfunction.     

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.     

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。     

Comparison of two bowel preparations for colonoscopy: sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate versus sulphate-free polyethylene glycol lavage solution

Objectives: Adequate preparation of the bowel is essential for accurate colonoscopic examination. We compared colonic preparation with sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate (SPS-Mg) with sulphate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage (PEG-EL) solution before colonoscopy, for quality of bowel cleansing, patient discomfort, and side effects.
Methods: Sixty-eight consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3 sachets of SPS-Mg (16.5 g each) ( n = 39 ) or 3 L of PEG-EL ( n = 29 ) on the day before colonoscopy. Shortly before the procedure each patient was interviewed to determine the degree of discomfort (1 = none or mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) and side effects. The quality of bowel cleansing was graded by a gastroenterologist who was unaware of the method of preparation (from 1 = poor to 4 = excellent).
Results: Of the 29 PEG-EL patients, four (14%) did not complete the preparation because of side effects. The degree of discomfort was significantly greater with PEG-EL (mean score, 2.3 ± 0.7) than with SPS-Mg (mean score, 1.4 ± 0.5; p < 0.01 ). Nausea and vomiting were significantly more common in the PEG-EL group (38% vs 13%; p < 0.05 ). Using intention-to-treat analysis, bowel cleansing proved to be significantly better with SPS-Mg than with PEG-EL (mean score ± SD, 3.05 ± 0.9 and 2.57 ± 1.0, respectively; p = 0.036 ).
Conclusions: Colonic preparation with SPS-Mg is better tolerated, associated with significantly fewer side effects, and results in higher quality bowel cleansing than preparation with PEG-EL.     

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.