小肠胶囊内窥镜的肠道准备:2l聚乙二醇与1l聚乙二醇加抗坏血酸的标准方案。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Riccardo Caccia, Alessandro Rimondi, Luca Elli, Matilde Topa, Flaminia Cavallaro, Carmine Gentile, Lucia Scaramella, Nicoletta Nandi, Reena Sidhu, Pinhas Eidler, Maurizio Vecchi, Gian Eugenio Tontini
{"title":"小肠胶囊内窥镜的肠道准备:2l聚乙二醇与1l聚乙二醇加抗坏血酸的标准方案。","authors":"Riccardo Caccia, Alessandro Rimondi, Luca Elli, Matilde Topa, Flaminia Cavallaro, Carmine Gentile, Lucia Scaramella, Nicoletta Nandi, Reena Sidhu, Pinhas Eidler, Maurizio Vecchi, Gian Eugenio Tontini","doi":"10.5946/ce.2024.097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Optimization of bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is debated. Guidelines recommend 2 L of iso-osmolar polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve SBCE visibility. We compared the efficacy of the standard 2 L PEG solution with a 1 L PEG plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation, which has already been established for large-bowel preparation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between October 2020 and February 2022, patients undergoing SBCE were assigned to receive 2 L PEG or 1 L PEG-ASC bowel preparation on an even- or odd-day basis. Bowel cleanliness was evaluated using the small bowel mucosal visibility scoring system (SBMVSS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following propensity score matching using a random forest method, two comparable populations of patients treated with 2 L PEG (n=74, male 41%, 53±17 years) and 1 L PEG-ASC (n=74, male 42%, 55±21 years) were obtained from the original cohort of 221 consecutive SBCE patients. Our results showed a trend towards more frequent adequate mucosal visibility with 1 L PEG-ASC compared to 2 L PEG (small bowel mucosal visibility ≥2 in all three small bowel tertiles, p=0.07), as per the SBMVSS score. No significant differences were observed in the diagnostic yield (p=1.00), visibility score=9 (p=0.85), SBCE completeness (p=0.33), or adequate mucosal visibility in each tertile (p=0.61, p=0.74, and p=0.70 for the first, second, and third tertiles, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study suggests the non-inferiority of the 1 L PEG-ASC solution over the standard 2 L PEG for SBCE preparation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy: standard regimen with 2 L polyethylene glycol versus 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate.\",\"authors\":\"Riccardo Caccia, Alessandro Rimondi, Luca Elli, Matilde Topa, Flaminia Cavallaro, Carmine Gentile, Lucia Scaramella, Nicoletta Nandi, Reena Sidhu, Pinhas Eidler, Maurizio Vecchi, Gian Eugenio Tontini\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2024.097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Optimization of bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is debated. Guidelines recommend 2 L of iso-osmolar polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve SBCE visibility. We compared the efficacy of the standard 2 L PEG solution with a 1 L PEG plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation, which has already been established for large-bowel preparation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between October 2020 and February 2022, patients undergoing SBCE were assigned to receive 2 L PEG or 1 L PEG-ASC bowel preparation on an even- or odd-day basis. Bowel cleanliness was evaluated using the small bowel mucosal visibility scoring system (SBMVSS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following propensity score matching using a random forest method, two comparable populations of patients treated with 2 L PEG (n=74, male 41%, 53±17 years) and 1 L PEG-ASC (n=74, male 42%, 55±21 years) were obtained from the original cohort of 221 consecutive SBCE patients. Our results showed a trend towards more frequent adequate mucosal visibility with 1 L PEG-ASC compared to 2 L PEG (small bowel mucosal visibility ≥2 in all three small bowel tertiles, p=0.07), as per the SBMVSS score. No significant differences were observed in the diagnostic yield (p=1.00), visibility score=9 (p=0.85), SBCE completeness (p=0.33), or adequate mucosal visibility in each tertile (p=0.61, p=0.74, and p=0.70 for the first, second, and third tertiles, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study suggests the non-inferiority of the 1 L PEG-ASC solution over the standard 2 L PEG for SBCE preparation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-02\",\"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.2024.097\",\"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.2024.097","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:小肠胶囊内镜(SBCE)的肠准备优化存在争议。指南推荐2l的异渗聚乙二醇(PEG)来提高SBCE的可见度。我们比较了标准的2l PEG溶液和1l PEG加抗坏血酸(PEG- asc)制剂的疗效,该制剂已被用于大肠准备。方法:在2020年10月至2022年2月期间,接受SBCE的患者被分配在偶数天或奇数天接受2l PEG或1l PEG- asc肠道准备。使用小肠黏膜可见性评分系统(SBMVSS)评估肠道清洁度。结果:采用随机森林方法进行倾向评分匹配,从221例连续的SBCE患者的原始队列中获得了2 L PEG (n=74,男性41%,53±17岁)和1 L PEG- asc (n=74,男性42%,55±21岁)治疗的两个可比较人群。根据SBMVSS评分,我们的结果显示,与2 L PEG相比,1 L PEG- asc患者有更频繁的粘膜可见性(小肠黏膜可见性在所有三种小肠中均≥2,p=0.07)。在诊断诊断率(p=1.00)、可视性评分=9 (p=0.85)、SBCE完整性(p=0.33)或每一分位数的黏膜可视性(第一、第二和第三分位数分别为p=0.61、p=0.74和p=0.70)方面均无显著差异。结论:我们的研究表明,用于SBCE制备的1l PEG- asc溶液与标准的2l PEG溶液相比具有非劣效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy: standard regimen with 2 L polyethylene glycol versus 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate.

Background/aims: Optimization of bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is debated. Guidelines recommend 2 L of iso-osmolar polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve SBCE visibility. We compared the efficacy of the standard 2 L PEG solution with a 1 L PEG plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation, which has already been established for large-bowel preparation.

Methods: Between October 2020 and February 2022, patients undergoing SBCE were assigned to receive 2 L PEG or 1 L PEG-ASC bowel preparation on an even- or odd-day basis. Bowel cleanliness was evaluated using the small bowel mucosal visibility scoring system (SBMVSS).

Results: Following propensity score matching using a random forest method, two comparable populations of patients treated with 2 L PEG (n=74, male 41%, 53±17 years) and 1 L PEG-ASC (n=74, male 42%, 55±21 years) were obtained from the original cohort of 221 consecutive SBCE patients. Our results showed a trend towards more frequent adequate mucosal visibility with 1 L PEG-ASC compared to 2 L PEG (small bowel mucosal visibility ≥2 in all three small bowel tertiles, p=0.07), as per the SBMVSS score. No significant differences were observed in the diagnostic yield (p=1.00), visibility score=9 (p=0.85), SBCE completeness (p=0.33), or adequate mucosal visibility in each tertile (p=0.61, p=0.74, and p=0.70 for the first, second, and third tertiles, respectively).

Conclusions: Our study suggests the non-inferiority of the 1 L PEG-ASC solution over the standard 2 L PEG for SBCE preparation.

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