Jing Shan, Yang Su, Dan Luo, Lin Jiang, Chen Zhang, Yifeng Liu, Xiaobin Sun
{"title":"结肠镜检查用picosulfate钠与2L聚乙二醇电解质灌洗液的肠道清洁效果比较：一项前瞻性观察研究。","authors":"Jing Shan, Yang Su, Dan Luo, Lin Jiang, Chen Zhang, Yifeng Liu, Xiaobin Sun","doi":"10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, adverse reactions, and patient compliance of two low-volume bowel preparation regimens, sodium picosulfate (PICO) and 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (2 L PEG-ELS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, prospective observational trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu between May and October 2023. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled, with the primary outcome being the rate of adequate bowel cleansing, as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) with three segments scoring ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, patient compliance, and the BBPS total and segment scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5423 patients were included, divided into the PICO group (n = 739) and the 2 L PEG-ELS group (n = 4684) based on the bowel preparation regimen they chose. There were no statistically significant differences between the PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS groups in adequate bowel cleansing rate (92.2% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.437) and polyp detection rate (42.2% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.096). However, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total [(6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P = 0.016] and the right colon [(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P = 0.005] compared to the 2 L PEG-ELS group. In terms of adverse reactions, the 2 L PEG-ELS group reported more nausea (11.7% vs. 5.7%, P < 0.001) and the PICO group reported more sleep disturbances (24.5% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), but the willingness to repeat the procedure with the same regimen was similar high in the 2 L PEG-ELS and PICO groups (99% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.588).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this prospective observational study, both PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS are safe and effective options for bowel cleansing in the Chinese population.</p>","PeriodicalId":9129,"journal":{"name":"BMC Gastroenterology","volume":"25 1","pages":"164"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11899895/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Jing Shan, Yang Su, Dan Luo, Lin Jiang, Chen Zhang, Yifeng Liu, Xiaobin Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, adverse reactions, and patient compliance of two low-volume bowel preparation regimens, sodium picosulfate (PICO) and 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (2 L PEG-ELS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, prospective observational trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu between May and October 2023. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled, with the primary outcome being the rate of adequate bowel cleansing, as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) with three segments scoring ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, patient compliance, and the BBPS total and segment scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5423 patients were included, divided into the PICO group (n = 739) and the 2 L PEG-ELS group (n = 4684) based on the bowel preparation regimen they chose. There were no statistically significant differences between the PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS groups in adequate bowel cleansing rate (92.2% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.437) and polyp detection rate (42.2% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.096). However, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total [(6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P = 0.016] and the right colon [(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P = 0.005] compared to the 2 L PEG-ELS group. In terms of adverse reactions, the 2 L PEG-ELS group reported more nausea (11.7% vs. 5.7%, P < 0.001) and the PICO group reported more sleep disturbances (24.5% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), but the willingness to repeat the procedure with the same regimen was similar high in the 2 L PEG-ELS and PICO groups (99% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.588).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this prospective observational study, both PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS are safe and effective options for bowel cleansing in the Chinese population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11899895/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3\",\"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":"BMC Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3","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：本研究旨在比较两种小容量肠道准备方案，PICO （PICO）和2l聚乙二醇电解质灌洗液（2l PEG-ELS）的肠道清洁效果、不良反应和患者依从性。方法：这项单中心、前瞻性观察性试验于2023年5 - 10月在成都市第三人民医院胃肠内镜中心进行。接受结肠镜检查的患者被纳入研究，主要结局是充分的肠道清洁率，由波士顿肠道准备量表（BBPS）评估，其中三个部分评分≥2。次要结局包括息肉检出率、不良反应、患者依从性、BBPS总评分和节段评分。结果：共纳入5423例患者，根据患者选择的肠道准备方案分为PICO组（n = 739）和2 L PEG-ELS组（n = 4684）。PICO组与2 L PEG-ELS组在肠道充分清洁率（92.2% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.437）和息肉检出率（42.2% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.096）方面差异无统计学意义。但PICO组在总BBPS评分[（6.90±1.19）比（6.81±1.14），P = 0.016]和右结肠BBPS评分[（2.15±0.53）比（2.11±0.51），P = 0.005]上均优于2 L PEG-ELS组。在不良反应方面，2升PEG-ELS组报告了更多的恶心（11.7%比5.7%）。结论：在这项前瞻性观察研究中，PICO和2升PEG-ELS都是安全有效的选择，用于中国人群的肠道清洁。
Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.
Background: This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, adverse reactions, and patient compliance of two low-volume bowel preparation regimens, sodium picosulfate (PICO) and 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (2 L PEG-ELS).
Methods: This single-center, prospective observational trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu between May and October 2023. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled, with the primary outcome being the rate of adequate bowel cleansing, as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) with three segments scoring ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, patient compliance, and the BBPS total and segment scores.
Results: A total of 5423 patients were included, divided into the PICO group (n = 739) and the 2 L PEG-ELS group (n = 4684) based on the bowel preparation regimen they chose. There were no statistically significant differences between the PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS groups in adequate bowel cleansing rate (92.2% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.437) and polyp detection rate (42.2% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.096). However, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total [(6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P = 0.016] and the right colon [(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P = 0.005] compared to the 2 L PEG-ELS group. In terms of adverse reactions, the 2 L PEG-ELS group reported more nausea (11.7% vs. 5.7%, P < 0.001) and the PICO group reported more sleep disturbances (24.5% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), but the willingness to repeat the procedure with the same regimen was similar high in the 2 L PEG-ELS and PICO groups (99% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.588).
Conclusion: In this prospective observational study, both PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS are safe and effective options for bowel cleansing in the Chinese population.
期刊介绍：
BMC Gastroenterology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
