Wan-qi Liu, Lei Shu, Xiaoli Zhou, Xiao-feng Wang, Song Liu, Zhao-hong Shi
{"title":"聚乙二醇与不同剂量的利那洛肽联合用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备的疗效评估:一项前瞻性随机对照研究","authors":"Wan-qi Liu, Lei Shu, Xiaoli Zhou, Xiao-feng Wang, Song Liu, Zhao-hong Shi","doi":"10.1007/s00384-024-04718-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background and aim</h3><p>The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; <i>P</i> = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, <i>P</i> > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.</p>","PeriodicalId":13789,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Colorectal Disease","volume":"263 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study\",\"authors\":\"Wan-qi Liu, Lei Shu, Xiaoli Zhou, Xiao-feng Wang, Song Liu, Zhao-hong Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00384-024-04718-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background and aim</h3><p>The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; <i>P</i> = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, <i>P</i> > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13789,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Colorectal Disease\",\"volume\":\"263 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Colorectal Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04718-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Colorectal Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04718-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的理想的肠道清洁方案仍有待探索。方法将受试者随机分配到 3LPEG 组、2LPEG + 2L 组或 2LPEG + L 组。主要结果是使用渥太华肠道准备量表(OBPS)评估肠道清洁的效果,次要结果是腺瘤和息肉的检出率、不良反应、耐受性和排便动态;还分析了慢性便秘和肠易激综合征患者的子集。在 ITT 分析中,2LPEG + 2L 组的准备成功率高于 2LPEG + L 组或 3LPEG 组(92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%;P = 0.002)。与 3LPEG 组相比,2LPEG + L 组显示出相似但非劣势的结果(82.3% vs. 82.1%,P > 0.05)。在不良反应、耐受性、重用意愿和睡眠质量方面,2LPEG + 2L 组与 2LPEG + L 组相似,但都优于 3LPEG 组。在慢性便秘的亚组分析中,2LPEG + 2L 组对右侧结肠和中结肠的清洁效果最好,而在肠易激综合征的亚组分析中,2LPEG + 2L 组和 2LPEG + L 组的耐受性优于 3LPEG 组。
Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study
Background and aim
The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation.
Methods
The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed.
Results
A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group.
Conclusions
2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Colorectal Disease, Clinical and Molecular Gastroenterology and Surgery aims to publish novel and state-of-the-art papers which deal with the physiology and pathophysiology of diseases involving the entire gastrointestinal tract. In addition to original research articles, the following categories will be included: reviews (usually commissioned but may also be submitted), case reports, letters to the editor, and protocols on clinical studies.
The journal offers its readers an interdisciplinary forum for clinical science and molecular research related to gastrointestinal disease.