Tolerancia y efectividad de picosulfato de sodio/magnesio/citrato comparado con polietilenglicol para limpieza intestinal

Ana Merced Ruiz Zavala, Víctor Antonio García Guerrero, Ángel Mario Zárate Guzmán, Adalberto Corral Medina, Rosario Valdés Lías
{"title":"Tolerancia y efectividad de picosulfato de sodio/magnesio/citrato comparado con polietilenglicol para limpieza intestinal","authors":"Ana Merced Ruiz Zavala,&nbsp;Víctor Antonio García Guerrero,&nbsp;Ángel Mario Zárate Guzmán,&nbsp;Adalberto Corral Medina,&nbsp;Rosario Valdés Lías","doi":"10.1016/j.endomx.2016.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Colonoscopy is the preferred procedure in disease of the large bowel, and is considered the reference standard in colorectal cancer detection. Adequate visualisation requires a simple, acceptable, effective, well tolerated bowel preparation, and with minimal adverse effects. The most common method for bowel cleansing is by using polyethylene glycol (PEG). The combination of sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate (PMC) is gaining popularity as a new agent, but has not been studied extensively. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of bowel cleansing and as well as the tolerance between both preparations using a previous day regimen.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>A prospective and randomised trial was conducted with patients being assigned to receive PEG (4 l) or PMC (2 l) the day prior to colonoscopy. Each patient was interviewed to determine their tolerance. The quality of cleaning was evaluated using Boston scale by several endoscopists.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 124 patients were enrolled in the study and 105 were included in the analysis. The mean age was 54.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->14.4 years, and there were 48 (45.7%) male patients and 57 (54.3%) female patients. Nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, thirst, dizziness, and headache were evaluated. Nausea was reported more often as a collateral effect in the PEG group (51%, <em>P</em>=.013). The mean score on the Boston scale for PEG group was 7.14<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->1.31, and for PMC group it was 6.94<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->1.62. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups (<em>P</em>=.32). Tolerance evaluated using a Likert scale was 4.05 for PEG and 4.47 for PMC, with this difference being significant (<em>P</em>=.014).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study shows that bowel cleansing with PMC is comparable with PEG in a previous day regimen, and PMC is also better tolerated than PEG.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100465,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopia","volume":"28 4","pages":"Pages 148-153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.endomx.2016.10.002","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188989316300902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction

Colonoscopy is the preferred procedure in disease of the large bowel, and is considered the reference standard in colorectal cancer detection. Adequate visualisation requires a simple, acceptable, effective, well tolerated bowel preparation, and with minimal adverse effects. The most common method for bowel cleansing is by using polyethylene glycol (PEG). The combination of sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate (PMC) is gaining popularity as a new agent, but has not been studied extensively. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of bowel cleansing and as well as the tolerance between both preparations using a previous day regimen.

Material and methods

A prospective and randomised trial was conducted with patients being assigned to receive PEG (4 l) or PMC (2 l) the day prior to colonoscopy. Each patient was interviewed to determine their tolerance. The quality of cleaning was evaluated using Boston scale by several endoscopists.

Results

A total of 124 patients were enrolled in the study and 105 were included in the analysis. The mean age was 54.2 ± 14.4 years, and there were 48 (45.7%) male patients and 57 (54.3%) female patients. Nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, thirst, dizziness, and headache were evaluated. Nausea was reported more often as a collateral effect in the PEG group (51%, P=.013). The mean score on the Boston scale for PEG group was 7.14 ± 1.31, and for PMC group it was 6.94 ± 1.62. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups (P=.32). Tolerance evaluated using a Likert scale was 4.05 for PEG and 4.47 for PMC, with this difference being significant (P=.014).

Conclusion

This study shows that bowel cleansing with PMC is comparable with PEG in a previous day regimen, and PMC is also better tolerated than PEG.

与聚乙二醇相比,微微硫酸钠/镁/柠檬酸盐用于肠道清洁的耐受性和有效性
结肠镜检查是诊断大肠疾病的首选方法,也是结直肠癌癌症检测的参考标准。充分的可视化需要简单、可接受、有效、耐受性良好的肠道准备,并且不良反应最小。最常见的肠道清洁方法是使用聚乙二醇(PEG)。微微硫酸钠和柠檬酸镁(PMC)的组合作为一种新的制剂越来越受欢迎,但尚未得到广泛的研究。本研究的目的是比较使用前一天方案的两种制剂的肠道清洁质量和耐受性。材料和方法进行了一项前瞻性随机试验,患者在结肠镜检查前一天接受PEG(4 l)或PMC(2 l)治疗。每个患者都接受了访谈,以确定他们的耐受性。几位内镜医生使用波士顿量表对清洁质量进行了评估。结果本研究共纳入124例患者,105例纳入分析。平均年龄54.2±14.4岁,男性48例(45.7%),女性57例(54.3%)。评估恶心、呕吐、腹痛、腹胀、口渴、头晕和头痛。据报道,在PEG组中,恶心更常见为副作用(51%,P=0.013)。PEG组的波士顿量表平均得分为7.14±1.31,PMC组为6.94±1.62。两组之间没有统计学上的显著差异(P=.32)。使用Likert量表评估的PEG耐受性为4.05,PMC耐受性为4.47,这一差异是显著的(P=.014)。结论本研究表明,PMC肠道清洁与前一天方案中的PEG相当,PMC的耐受性也比PEG更好。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信