Surgical endoscopy · 2016
Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chaussade Stanislas, Schmöcker Christoph, Toulemonde Pierre, Muñoz-Navas Miguel, O'Mahony Valérie, Henri Franck
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial step in colonoscopy procedure and has been identified as the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel cleansing still had up to 10 % unprepared colon.
AIM: We herein compare efficacy, acceptability, tolerance and safety of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and split-dose PEG for bowel cleansing.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective non-inferiority randomized trial was performed and registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01840553). Patients were randomized to either 32 NaP tablets or 4 L of PEG. Blind readers assessed the efficacy of colon cleansing using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).
RESULTS: A total of 461 patients were randomized in groups (NaP group: n = 231; PEG group: n = 230). Median age was 54 and 52 in NaP group and PEG group, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients experienced an overall compliance to the treatment in 99.6 and 94.1 % in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean time of withdrawal was 15.1 ± 8.9 and 15.4 ± 9.5 min in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.95). The good quality of bowel preparation, defined as BBPS score ≥7, was obtained in 86.4 and 89.0 % of cases in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.42). In all segment (right colon, transverse colon and left colon and rectum), the NaP group was non-inferior to the PEG group. Bowel prep regimen was more frequently considered as "easy" by patients from the NaP group (54.8 % of patients) than patients from the PEG group (29.0 % of patients; p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported. No statistical differences were found between the NaP group and the PEG group concerning the incidence of an adverse event (338 vs. 322, respectively).
CONCLUSION: While NaP tablets appeared as efficient as PEG in terms of colon cleansing prior to a colonoscopy, they significantly improved the overall compliance and eased product administration. At an era where bowel cleansing appears to be the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy, NaP tablets in patients without contraindication might be considered as an option.
AIM: We herein compare efficacy, acceptability, tolerance and safety of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and split-dose PEG for bowel cleansing.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective non-inferiority randomized trial was performed and registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01840553). Patients were randomized to either 32 NaP tablets or 4 L of PEG. Blind readers assessed the efficacy of colon cleansing using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).
RESULTS: A total of 461 patients were randomized in groups (NaP group: n = 231; PEG group: n = 230). Median age was 54 and 52 in NaP group and PEG group, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients experienced an overall compliance to the treatment in 99.6 and 94.1 % in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean time of withdrawal was 15.1 ± 8.9 and 15.4 ± 9.5 min in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.95). The good quality of bowel preparation, defined as BBPS score ≥7, was obtained in 86.4 and 89.0 % of cases in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.42). In all segment (right colon, transverse colon and left colon and rectum), the NaP group was non-inferior to the PEG group. Bowel prep regimen was more frequently considered as "easy" by patients from the NaP group (54.8 % of patients) than patients from the PEG group (29.0 % of patients; p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported. No statistical differences were found between the NaP group and the PEG group concerning the incidence of an adverse event (338 vs. 322, respectively).
CONCLUSION: While NaP tablets appeared as efficient as PEG in terms of colon cleansing prior to a colonoscopy, they significantly improved the overall compliance and eased product administration. At an era where bowel cleansing appears to be the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy, NaP tablets in patients without contraindication might be considered as an option.