Evaluation of the efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and an oral sodium sulfate solution: A multi-center, prospective randomized controlled trial

7Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Introduction: Low-volume bowel preparation has been developed to increase patient compliance. We compared 1 L of polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEG/Asc) and oral sodium sulfate (OSS) with respect to bowel preparation efficacy, compliance, and safety. Methods: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blinded, non-inferiority trial was conducted in 3 hospitals. Patients were randomized to receive a bowel-cleansing agent. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Satisfaction, feeling, taste of the bowel cleanser, and adverse events after taking the bowel cleanser were investigated through a questionnaire. Additionally, blood samples were analyzed before and after bowel cleansing. Results: In total, 172 patients were analyzed (85 with 1 L PEG/Asc and 87 with OSS), and the mean BBPS scores were comparable between agents. The 1L PEG/Asc group tended to have a higher BBPS score in the right colon (2.22 vs 2.02; P=.08). The compliance of 1 L of PEG/Asc was comparable to that of OSS. Patients taking 1 L PEG/Asc reported greater thirst and dizziness (P=.04 and P=.047, respectively) than the OSS cohort. On the other hand, gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting and abdominal distension were more common in the OSS group, without statistical significance. In terms of laboratory adverse events, elevation of serum creatinine was found in both groups after taking the bowel cleansing agent (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Woo, J. H., Koo, H. S., Kim, D. S., Shin, J. E., Jung, Y., & Huh, K. C. (2022). Evaluation of the efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and an oral sodium sulfate solution: A multi-center, prospective randomized controlled trial. Medicine (United States), 101(35), E30355. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000030355

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free