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。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Josué Aliaga Ramos, Danilo Carvalho, Vitor N Arantes
{"title":"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。","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":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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