Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745065
THE EFFECTIVENESS AND TOLERABILITY OF VERY LOW VOLUME PREPARATION FOR COLONOSCOPY COMPARED TO STANDARD 2 L AND 4 L PEG-SOLUTIONS IN A REAL-LIFE SETTING
Aims Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for a high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a new 1 litre (1L) polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbate solution (ASC) has been introduced. Our aims were to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of this product compared to standard 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG solutions, in a real-life setting.
Methods In six different endoscopy units in Sweden, all outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were either prescribed 2L PEG-ASC or 4L PEG-solutions according to local routines, or the 1L PEG-ASC, all in split dose regimen. Bowel cleansing effectiveness and patient experience was assessed using the Boston Bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and a patient questionnaire.
Results A total of 1098 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 58 years, 48% men and 52% women. Cecal intubation rate was 96% for the 4L solutions, 90% for 2L PEG-ASC and 94% for 1L PEG-ASC. Nausea and vomiting were more common with 1L PEG-ASC compared to 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG (43%, 22%, 37% and 12%, 4% and 7% respectively). Smell, taste and total experience was graded as better for 1L PEG-ASC compared to the 4L PEG solutions (p<0.001), and similar compared to the 2L PEG-ASC solution.
BBPS scores are presented in the table:
BBPS |
4L PEG (n 371) |
2L PEG-ASC (n 204) |
1L PEG-ASC (n 523) |
p-value (ANOVA, Tukey HSD) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Right Colon(mean, SD) |
2.55 (0.55) |
2.39 (0.71) |
2.73 (0.54) |
<0.001 (1l vs 4L) |
Transverse colon(mean, SD) |
2.69 (0.49) |
2.47 (0.65) |
2.79 (0.50) |
<0.05 (1L vs 4L) |
Left colon(mean, SD) |
2.64 (0.51) |
2.48 (0.65) |
2.75 (0.54) |
<0.05 (1L vs 4L) |
Total score(mean, SD) |
7.86 (1.43) |
7.28 (1.97) |
8.25 (1.53) |
<0.001 (1L vs 4L) |
Conclusions 1L PEG-ASC leads to better total BBPS scores and subsegment scores compared to 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG products. Nausea and vomiting were more common, but patient satisfaction was as good as or better than the other products.
Publication History
Article published online:
14 April 2022
© 2022. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany