利那洛肽胶囊联合复合聚乙二醇在结肠镜肠道准备中的应用效果。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Li-Wei Xue, Yi-Qian Zhang, Wei-Lai Yu, Zai-Bo Wen
{"title":"利那洛肽胶囊联合复合聚乙二醇在结肠镜肠道准备中的应用效果。","authors":"Li-Wei Xue, Yi-Qian Zhang, Wei-Lai Yu, Zai-Bo Wen","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.105983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the field of clinical intestinal preparation, compound polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (SF-PEG) is a commonly used intestinal cleaner. However, practice has shown that using only a single polyethylene glycol formulation often fails to achieve the desired intestinal preparation effect. Linalotide has a unique mechanism of action, which can effectively enhance the secretion of small intestinal fluid and promote intestinal peristalsis. The combination of linaclotide and SF-PEG may provide a better solution for intestinal preparation and improve the quality of intestinal cleaning. Therefore, exploring the application value and clinical efficacy of linaclotide capsules combined with SF-PEG in intestinal preparation is of great clinical significance.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the effects of the combination of linaclotide capsules and SF-PEG, including its efficacy in intestinal preparation and patient tolerance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To investigate the differences in the effectiveness of different bowel preparation plans in colonoscopy, this article conducted a comprehensive and detailed retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy from January 2023 to December 2023. In this study, 116 patients were accurately divided into three groups based on the different intestinal preparation drugs used before colonoscopy. Among them, group A consisted of 29 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using 3 liters of SF-PEG combined with linaclotide; group B consists of 50 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using 3 liters of SF-PEG; group C consisted of 37 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using a combination of 2-liter SF-PEC and linaclotide. Subsequently, this article evaluated the quality of intestinal preparation in these three groups of patients, using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) as a quantitative indicator, while comparing multiple indicators such as intestinal preparation completion rate and detection of positive lesions, providing a strong basis for optimizing clinical intestinal preparation plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant differences were found in BBPS scores (7.75 ± 1.23, 7.69 ± 1.14, and 7.66 ± 1.31; <i>P</i> = 0.240), bowel preparation completion rates (96.55%, 90.00%, and 97.30%; <i>P</i> = 0.293), adenoma detection rates (20.69%, 38.00%, and 32.43%; <i>P</i> = 0.281), polyp detection rates (34.48%, 50.00%, 37.84%; <i>P</i> = 0.326), insertion time (6.03 ± 4.34, 6.12 ± 3.60, and 5.33 ± 2.42; <i>P</i> = 0.584), and patient satisfaction rates (89.66%, 84.00%, and 97.30%; <i>P</i> = 0.398) among the three groups. However, statistically significant differences were observed in withdrawal time (7.45 ± 2.91, 9.02 ± 3.54, and 6.86 ± 2.66; <i>P</i> = 0.027) and adverse reaction rates (6.90%, 20.00%, and 2.70%; <i>P</i> = 0.029) among the three groups. Multiple comparisons showed that group C had significantly lower withdrawal time and adverse reaction rates than group B (<i>P</i> = 0.013, <i>P</i> = 0.016).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Linaclotide capsules show a trend in improving bowel preparation quality and reducing the dosage of SF-PEG.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"17 9","pages":"105983"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12476759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application effect of linaclotide capsules combined with compound polyethylene glycol in colonoscopy bowel preparation.\",\"authors\":\"Li-Wei Xue, Yi-Qian Zhang, Wei-Lai Yu, Zai-Bo Wen\",\"doi\":\"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.105983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the field of clinical intestinal preparation, compound polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (SF-PEG) is a commonly used intestinal cleaner. However, practice has shown that using only a single polyethylene glycol formulation often fails to achieve the desired intestinal preparation effect. Linalotide has a unique mechanism of action, which can effectively enhance the secretion of small intestinal fluid and promote intestinal peristalsis. The combination of linaclotide and SF-PEG may provide a better solution for intestinal preparation and improve the quality of intestinal cleaning. Therefore, exploring the application value and clinical efficacy of linaclotide capsules combined with SF-PEG in intestinal preparation is of great clinical significance.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the effects of the combination of linaclotide capsules and SF-PEG, including its efficacy in intestinal preparation and patient tolerance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To investigate the differences in the effectiveness of different bowel preparation plans in colonoscopy, this article conducted a comprehensive and detailed retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy from January 2023 to December 2023. In this study, 116 patients were accurately divided into three groups based on the different intestinal preparation drugs used before colonoscopy. Among them, group A consisted of 29 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using 3 liters of SF-PEG combined with linaclotide; group B consists of 50 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using 3 liters of SF-PEG; group C consisted of 37 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using a combination of 2-liter SF-PEC and linaclotide. Subsequently, this article evaluated the quality of intestinal preparation in these three groups of patients, using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) as a quantitative indicator, while comparing multiple indicators such as intestinal preparation completion rate and detection of positive lesions, providing a strong basis for optimizing clinical intestinal preparation plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant differences were found in BBPS scores (7.75 ± 1.23, 7.69 ± 1.14, and 7.66 ± 1.31; <i>P</i> = 0.240), bowel preparation completion rates (96.55%, 90.00%, and 97.30%; <i>P</i> = 0.293), adenoma detection rates (20.69%, 38.00%, and 32.43%; <i>P</i> = 0.281), polyp detection rates (34.48%, 50.00%, 37.84%; <i>P</i> = 0.326), insertion time (6.03 ± 4.34, 6.12 ± 3.60, and 5.33 ± 2.42; <i>P</i> = 0.584), and patient satisfaction rates (89.66%, 84.00%, and 97.30%; <i>P</i> = 0.398) among the three groups. However, statistically significant differences were observed in withdrawal time (7.45 ± 2.91, 9.02 ± 3.54, and 6.86 ± 2.66; <i>P</i> = 0.027) and adverse reaction rates (6.90%, 20.00%, and 2.70%; <i>P</i> = 0.029) among the three groups. Multiple comparisons showed that group C had significantly lower withdrawal time and adverse reaction rates than group B (<i>P</i> = 0.013, <i>P</i> = 0.016).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Linaclotide capsules show a trend in improving bowel preparation quality and reducing the dosage of SF-PEG.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery\",\"volume\":\"17 9\",\"pages\":\"105983\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12476759/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.105983\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.105983","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","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:在临床肠道制剂领域,复合聚乙二醇电解质溶液(SF-PEG)是一种常用的肠道清洁剂。然而,实践表明,仅使用单一聚乙二醇制剂往往不能达到预期的肠道准备效果。利那洛肽具有独特的作用机制,可有效增强小肠液分泌,促进肠道蠕动。利那洛肽与SF-PEG联用可为肠道准备提供更好的解决方案,提高肠道清洁质量。因此,探讨利那洛肽胶囊联合SF-PEG在肠道制剂中的应用价值和临床疗效,具有重要的临床意义。目的:探讨利那洛肽胶囊与SF-PEG合用的效果,包括肠道准备效果和患者耐受性。方法:为了探讨不同肠道准备方案在结肠镜检查中的效果差异,本文对2023年1月至2023年12月结肠镜检查患者的病历进行了全面详细的回顾性分析。本研究根据结肠镜检查前使用的肠道准备药物的不同,将116例患者准确分为三组。其中,A组29例患者采用3升SF-PEG联合利那克洛肽进行肠道准备;B组50例患者接受3升SF-PEG肠道准备;C组包括37例患者,他们使用2升SF-PEC和利那克洛肽联合进行肠道准备。随后,本文以波士顿肠道准备量表(Boston bowel preparation scale, BBPS)为定量指标,对三组患者的肠道准备质量进行评价,同时对肠道准备完成率、阳性病变检出率等多项指标进行比较,为优化临床肠道准备方案提供有力依据。结果:未发现显著差异在bbp得分(7.75±1.23,7.69±1.14,7.66±1.31;P = 0.240),肠道准备毕业率(96.55%、90.00%和97.30%;P = 0.293),腺瘤检出率(20.69%、38.00%和32.43%;P = 0.281),息肉检出率(34.48%、50.00%、37.84%;P = 0.326),插入时间(6.03±4.34,6.12±3.60,5.33±2.42;P = 0.584),和病人满意度率(89.66%、84.00%和97.30%;P = 0.398)中三组。但三组患者停药时间(7.45±2.91,9.02±3.54,6.86±2.66,P = 0.027)和不良反应发生率(6.90%,20.00%,2.70%,P = 0.029)差异有统计学意义。多重比较显示,C组停药时间和不良反应发生率显著低于B组(P = 0.013, P = 0.016)。结论:利那洛肽胶囊有改善肠准备质量和减少SF-PEG用量的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Application effect of linaclotide capsules combined with compound polyethylene glycol in colonoscopy bowel preparation.

Background: In the field of clinical intestinal preparation, compound polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (SF-PEG) is a commonly used intestinal cleaner. However, practice has shown that using only a single polyethylene glycol formulation often fails to achieve the desired intestinal preparation effect. Linalotide has a unique mechanism of action, which can effectively enhance the secretion of small intestinal fluid and promote intestinal peristalsis. The combination of linaclotide and SF-PEG may provide a better solution for intestinal preparation and improve the quality of intestinal cleaning. Therefore, exploring the application value and clinical efficacy of linaclotide capsules combined with SF-PEG in intestinal preparation is of great clinical significance.

Aim: To explore the effects of the combination of linaclotide capsules and SF-PEG, including its efficacy in intestinal preparation and patient tolerance.

Methods: To investigate the differences in the effectiveness of different bowel preparation plans in colonoscopy, this article conducted a comprehensive and detailed retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy from January 2023 to December 2023. In this study, 116 patients were accurately divided into three groups based on the different intestinal preparation drugs used before colonoscopy. Among them, group A consisted of 29 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using 3 liters of SF-PEG combined with linaclotide; group B consists of 50 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using 3 liters of SF-PEG; group C consisted of 37 patients who underwent intestinal preparation using a combination of 2-liter SF-PEC and linaclotide. Subsequently, this article evaluated the quality of intestinal preparation in these three groups of patients, using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) as a quantitative indicator, while comparing multiple indicators such as intestinal preparation completion rate and detection of positive lesions, providing a strong basis for optimizing clinical intestinal preparation plans.

Results: No statistically significant differences were found in BBPS scores (7.75 ± 1.23, 7.69 ± 1.14, and 7.66 ± 1.31; P = 0.240), bowel preparation completion rates (96.55%, 90.00%, and 97.30%; P = 0.293), adenoma detection rates (20.69%, 38.00%, and 32.43%; P = 0.281), polyp detection rates (34.48%, 50.00%, 37.84%; P = 0.326), insertion time (6.03 ± 4.34, 6.12 ± 3.60, and 5.33 ± 2.42; P = 0.584), and patient satisfaction rates (89.66%, 84.00%, and 97.30%; P = 0.398) among the three groups. However, statistically significant differences were observed in withdrawal time (7.45 ± 2.91, 9.02 ± 3.54, and 6.86 ± 2.66; P = 0.027) and adverse reaction rates (6.90%, 20.00%, and 2.70%; P = 0.029) among the three groups. Multiple comparisons showed that group C had significantly lower withdrawal time and adverse reaction rates than group B (P = 0.013, P = 0.016).

Conclusion: Linaclotide capsules show a trend in improving bowel preparation quality and reducing the dosage of SF-PEG.

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
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
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