Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023
Comparison of the Efficacy of Diluted Polyethylene Glycol and Low-Density (0.1% w/v) Barium Sulfate Suspension for CT Enterography.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kim Yeon Jung, Kim Seung Ho, Baek Tae Wook, Park Hyungin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare small bowel distension and side effects between a diluted polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and a low-density (0.1% w/v) barium sulfate suspension (LDBSS) for CT enterography (CTE) preparation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media.
RESULTS: For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, p = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, p = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media.
CONCLUSION: The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media.
RESULTS: For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, p = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, p = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media.
CONCLUSION: The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.