首页> 外文期刊>World Journal of Gastroenterology >Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation.
【24h】

Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation.

机译:口服磷酸钠和聚乙二醇灌洗液用于结肠镜检查的前瞻性随机比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

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 suctioned 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.
机译:目的:比较台湾人群在结肠镜检查之前使用两种灌洗液的有效性,患者可接受性和身体耐受性。方法:在结肠镜检查之前,将80例连续患者随机分为两组,分别接受4 L聚乙二醇(PEG)或90 mL磷酸钠(NaP),分两次服用,每次45 mL,间隔12 h。主要终点是完成准备工作的受试者所占的百分比。次要终点包括通过整体评估和分段评估评估的结肠清洗,通过自我管理的结构化问卷评估的耐受性和可接受性以及安全性,例如任何意外不良事件,电解质测试,身体检查,生命体征和体重。结果:NaP组的完成率明显高于PEG组(84.2%比27.5%,P <0.001)。即使在控制了口服溶液的使用量之后,服用NaP的患者相对于PEG的患者抽吸的液体量也明显更少(50.13 +/- 54.8 cc和121.13 +/- 115.4 cc,P <0.001)(P = 0.031)。两组显示可比的肠道准备总体评估,NaP组的78.9%和PEG组的82.5%的患者的“好”或“优秀”比率(P = 0.778)。相对于降结肠(94.7%vs 70%,P = 0.007)和横结肠(94.6%vs 74.4%,P = 0.025)中观察到的粪便量,服用NaP的患者往往具有明显更好的结肠节段清洁效果。与PEG患者相比,有更多的患者将NaP的味道评定为“好”或“非常好”(32.5%对12.5%; P = 0.059)。 NaP患者将来接受相同制剂的意愿为68.4%,而PEG组为75%(P = 0.617)。在没有任何临床后遗症的结肠镜检查后的第二天,NaP组的血清钠显着增加,磷酸盐和氯化物水平显着下降。两组的20-35%受试者均观察到长时间(> 24小时)的血液动力学变化。结论:两种肠道清洁剂的安全性和有效性均相似,而NaP似乎更具成本效益。在确定并排除有潜在危险因素的患者后,磷酸钠应成为台湾人群进行择期结肠镜检查的患者的替代制剂。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号