大肠癌筛查结肠镜检查肠道准备中口服西甲硅油的效果:随机对照试验。

IF 1.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 WATER RESOURCES
Water Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-15 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1159/000530866
Mafalda João, Miguel Areia, Susana Alves, Luís Elvas, Daniel Brito, Sandra Saraiva, Ana Teresa Cadime
{"title":"大肠癌筛查结肠镜检查肠道准备中口服西甲硅油的效果:随机对照试验。","authors":"Mafalda João, Miguel Areia, Susana Alves, Luís Elvas, Daniel Brito, Sandra Saraiva, Ana Teresa Cadime","doi":"10.1159/000530866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; <i>p</i> = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], <i>p</i> < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; <i>p</i> < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; <i>p</i> = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, <i>p</i> = 0.14) did not differ between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.</p>","PeriodicalId":49370,"journal":{"name":"Water Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"116-123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10987070/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mafalda João, Miguel Areia, Susana Alves, Luís Elvas, Daniel Brito, Sandra Saraiva, Ana Teresa Cadime\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000530866\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; <i>p</i> = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], <i>p</i> < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; <i>p</i> < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; <i>p</i> = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, <i>p</i> = 0.14) did not differ between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water Policy\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"116-123\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10987070/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000530866\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"WATER RESOURCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000530866","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:现行指南建议在结肠镜检查前的肠道准备中加入口服西甲硅油。然而,其对筛查结肠镜检查关键质量指标的影响仍不明确。研究的主要目的是评估在分剂量大容量聚乙二醇(PEG)中加入或不加入西甲硅油的充分肠道准备率:这是一项内镜医师盲法随机对照试验,包括粪便免疫化学检验呈阳性后计划进行结肠镜检查的患者。患者被随机分配到 4 升 PEG 分剂量(PEG)或 4 升 PEG 分剂量加 500 毫克口服西甲硅油(PEG + 西甲硅油)。记录波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分、结肠内镜气泡量表(CEBuS)显示的气泡准备质量、ADR、CIR以及术中使用西甲硅油的情况:我们将 191 名和 197 名患者分别纳入 PEG + 西甲硅酮组和 PEG 组。将 PEG + 西甲硅油组与 PEG 组进行比较后发现,充分肠道准备率没有显著差异(97% 对 93%;P = 0.11)。不过,PEG + 西甲硅油组的气泡量表评分(0 [0] 对 2 [5],P < 0.01)以及术中使用西甲硅油的比例(7% 对 37%;P < 0.01)明显较低。ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86)和CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14)在两组之间没有差异:结论:在分肠制剂中加入口服西甲硅油可降低气泡的发生率,减少术中西甲硅油的用量,但制剂质量或ADR没有进一步改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone.

Methods: This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded.

Results: We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups.

Conclusion: Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

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
Water Policy
Water Policy 环境科学-水资源
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Water Policy will publish reviews, research papers and progress reports in, among others, the following areas: financial, diplomatic, organizational, legal, administrative and research; organized by country, region or river basin. Water Policy also publishes reviews of books and grey literature.
×
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