Comparison of the efficacy and safety between oral sulfate tablet and polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy according to age

Background:Recently, a novel oral sulfate tablet (OST) has been introduced for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, whether elderly patients can take OST is not yet clear, as OST consists of 28 tablets. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of OST and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation for colonoscopy according to age.Methods:We randomly divided subjects into an OST group and a PEG group and compared Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), bubble score, patient compliance and satisfaction, and safety between the 2 groups according to age (under 65 years of age vs 65 years of age and older).Results:Among the 179 participants, 61 were 65 years of age and older. The BBPS and bubble score of the OST group were better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The satisfaction of the OST group was better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The compliance was not different between the 2 groups; however, the OST group under 65 years of age had a higher rate of completing the dose within 2 hours compared with the PEG group under 65 years of age. Adverse events including abdominal distension, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting were not different between the 2 groups.Conclusion:The use of OST for bowel preparation before colonoscopy is as effective and safe as PEG, and these results were consistent in elderly people 65 years of age and older.     

The use of low-volume polyethylene glycol containing ascorbic acid versus 2 L of polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl as bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Abstract

Objective. Low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations have been developed to improve compliance for colonoscopy. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid for colonoscopy against 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl. Methods. We prospectively enrolled consecutive inpatients who had not undergone polypectomy at the index colonoscopy and were subsequently referred for polypectomy at our hospital. A total of 62 patients were randomized to receive either low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid (n = 31) or 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl (n = 31) as a split-dose regimen in inpatients. The efficacy of preparation was determined using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score (OBPS) and a 4-point scale. Adverse events, tolerability, and willingness were evaluated using a questionnaire. Results. Based on the OBPS and 4-point scale, we determined that the efficacy of low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid was comparable to that of the 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl (p = 0.071 for OBPS, p = 0.056 for the 4-point scale). Adverse events were comparable between the two groups (p = 1.000). A greater proportion of patients in the low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid (90.6%) and the 2L of PEG plus bisacodyl (96.9%) were willing to repeat the same preparation for subsequent colonoscopy.Conclusion. Low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid had comparable efficacy and tolerability to 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl, when given as a split dose, for colonoscopy in inpatients. Split-dose low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid is a good alternative for bowel preparation for colonoscopy in inpatients.     

A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of 1-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid plus prucalopride versus 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation

Abstract

Objectives: Bowel cleansing is a major patient complaint during colonoscopy. Adding laxatives to the bowel preparation is effective in replacing a portion of bowel preparation solution and reducing its volume. Prucalopride is a serotonin receptor agonist that stimulates gastrointestinal motility and provides propulsive force for defecation. This study aimed to compare 1?L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (Asc) plus 2?mg prucalopride (1LP/AP) and 2?L PEG with Asc (2LP/A) for colonoscopy preparation with respect to bowel-cleansing quality and side effects.

Methods: A single-center, randomized, prospective study was conducted with 260 outpatients administered either 1LP/AP or 2LP/A. The primary endpoint was bowel preparation quality, which was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale, and the secondary endpoints were patient tolerability and acceptability, assessed by a questionnaire-based survey.

Results: The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5% and 83.1% in the 2LP/A and 1LP/AP groups, respectively, and the efficacy of 1LP/AP was equivalent to the control regimen (p=.216). Other colonoscopic variables including adenoma detection rate were similar in both groups. Patient tolerability and acceptability were not significantly different, but patients in the 1LP/AP group were more willing to repeat the same regimen (p=.039).

Conclusions: Bowel preparation quality with 1LP/AP was equivalent to that with 2LP/A, which did not increase the occurrence of side effects, but it reduced the volume of the solution ingested, and increased patient satisfaction.     

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized prospective trial comparing sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol in a predominantly elderly population

Many patients find polyethylene glycol-based preparations (PEG) difficult to take because of the large volume of fluid they are required to consume. One hundred and sixteen predominantly elderly patients were randomized to receive either sodium phosphate (n= 61) or PEG (n= 55) bowel preparations before colonoscopy. Patients with a history of symptomatic ischaemic heart disease or cerebrovascular disease in the preceding 6 months, severe liver disease or heart failure, or serum creatinine above 200 μg/L were excluded from the study. Each patient filled in a questionnaire about the bowel preparation prior to the procedure. The colonoscopists, who were not aware which preparation had been used, were asked to complete a questionnaire about the quality of the bowel preparation after the procedure. The patients found the sodium phosphate preparation slightly more tolerable than PEG. Side effects were slightly more common with sodium phosphate. Neither difference was statistically significant. However, 91% of patients who had previously had PEG found sodium phosphate easier to take. Approximately 25% of patients in each group experienced at least one episode of incontinence. The colonoscopists found no difference in the overall quality of the bowel preparation. The amount of fluid in the colon was greater in patients prepared with PEG. As expected, patients taking sodium phosphate developed hyperphosphataemia (mean phosphate level before colonoscopy 1.56 mmol/L, normal 0.8–1.3). They also had a lower mean serum potassium level (3.8 mmol/L) than the PEG group (4.2 mmol/L). However, there were no clinically significant consequences. Sodium phosphate was a safe and effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy in this carefully selected group of patients. It was preferred by patients who had previously had PEG. Many elderly patients were found to develop faecal incontinence, irrespective of the type of bowel preparation used.     

A low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: The NORMO randomised clinical trial

Background

Patient acceptability of the preparation is a key factor in the success of colonoscopy, yet standard polyethylene glycol solutions are poorly tolerated owing to their high volume (4 L) and low palatability. This study compared the efficacy, safety and acceptability of a 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate solution with a standard 4-L polyethylene glycol solution.

Methods

Adults referred for colonoscopy were randomised to 2-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate (n = 202) or 4-L polyethylene glycol solution (n = 198). Colon cleansing success was assessed using the Harefield Cleansing Scale^© and the Aronchick scale. Safety and acceptability were also assessed.

Results

Successful cleansing was achieved in 94.1% and 90.9% of subjects with the 2-L and 4-L solutions respectively using the Harefield Cleansing Scale^© and 94.6% and 90.0% using the Aronchick scale (non significant). Despite better acceptability and tolerability, no superiority over the standard 4-L preparation was demonstrated. Fewer treatment-related adverse events were reported with the 2-L solution (80.2% versus 89.9%, p = 0.011). More subjects were willing to take the 2 L PEG + ascorbate solution again (87% versus 51%, p < 0.001), found it easier to drink (80% versus 70%, p = 0.025), with a better taste (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Two-litre polyethylene glycol + ascorbate solution, with a similar high degree of cleansing and superior acceptability and tolerability, presents an alternative to 4-L polyethylene glycol when compliance is an issue.