Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Josué Aliaga Ramos, Danilo Carvalho, Vitor N Arantes
{"title":"Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.","authors":"Josué Aliaga Ramos, Danilo Carvalho, Vitor N Arantes","doi":"10.5946/ce.2024.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the gold standard regimen for bowel preparation; however, due to the necessity of a large volume, patient tolerance is impaired. Therefore, lactulose is a novel alternative for colonoscopy preparation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lactulose-based bowel preparations in comparison with PEG for colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a prospective, non-blinded, comparative study. Outpatients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (111 patients), PEG; and group 2 (111 patients), lactulose. The following clinical outcomes were assessed in each group: degree of bowel clearance using the Boston bowel preparation score, colorectal polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and side effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 8.1% and 1.8% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p=0.030). The Boston bowel preparation score for the entire colon was 7.34±1.17 and 8.36±1.09 for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001). The satisfactory overall experience rates were 27.9% and 62.2% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The novel bowel preparation with oral lactulose was superior to that with PEG in terms of colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerance, and patient experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aims: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the gold standard regimen for bowel preparation; however, due to the necessity of a large volume, patient tolerance is impaired. Therefore, lactulose is a novel alternative for colonoscopy preparation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lactulose-based bowel preparations in comparison with PEG for colonoscopy.

Methods: This is a prospective, non-blinded, comparative study. Outpatients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (111 patients), PEG; and group 2 (111 patients), lactulose. The following clinical outcomes were assessed in each group: degree of bowel clearance using the Boston bowel preparation score, colorectal polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and side effects.

Results: The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 8.1% and 1.8% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p=0.030). The Boston bowel preparation score for the entire colon was 7.34±1.17 and 8.36±1.09 for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001). The satisfactory overall experience rates were 27.9% and 62.2% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001).

Conclusions: The novel bowel preparation with oral lactulose was superior to that with PEG in terms of colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerance, and patient experience.

使用口服乳果糖进行结肠镜检查肠道准备的新方案:一项前瞻性比较研究。
背景/目的:聚乙二醇(PEG)被认为是肠道准备的黄金标准方案;然而,由于必须使用大量的聚乙二醇,患者的耐受性会受到影响。因此,乳果糖是结肠镜检查准备的一种新型替代方案。本研究旨在探讨乳果糖肠道准备液与 PEG 结肠镜检查相比的有效性和安全性:这是一项前瞻性、非盲法比较研究。门诊患者被随机分为两组:第一组(111 名患者)使用 PEG;第二组(111 名患者)使用乳果糖。每组均评估了以下临床结果:使用波士顿肠道准备评分法进行的肠道清理程度、结直肠息肉检出率、腺瘤检出率、耐受性和副作用:PEG组和乳果糖组的肠道准备不足率分别为8.1%和1.8%(P=0.030)。PEG 组和乳果糖组的全结肠波士顿肠道准备评分分别为 7.34±1.17 和 8.36±1.09 (pConclusions:在结肠清洁、腺瘤检出率、耐受性和患者体验方面,口服乳果糖的新型肠道准备方法优于 PEG。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信