Clinical trial: 2-L polyethylene glycol-based lavage solutions for colonoscopy preparation - A randomized, single-blind study of two formulations

45Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background The 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) lavage solutions provide efficacy similar to that of standard 4-L PEG formulations in spite of the reduced volume. The comparative efficacy and tolerability of two formulations of 2-L PEG solution remain unknown. Aims To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of PEG + Bis compared with PEG + Asc, and to study the effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rates. Methods Patients were randomized to receive either 2-L PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc) or 2-L PEG plus bisacodyl 10 mg (PEG + Bis). The primary endpoint was overall colon cleansing score, assessed by blinded investigators using a validated four-point scale. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate, patient tolerability and compliance and adverse events. Results Fifty-two patients received PEG + Asc and 55 patients received PEG + Bis. Overall colon cleansing scores (±s.d.) were 1.40 ± 0.69 and 1.75 ± 0.70 (P < 0.003) in the PEG + Asc and PEG + Bis groups, respectively. Excellent and good ratings were recorded in 69% and 23% receiving PEG + Asc compared to 38% and 51% (P = 0.01) of patients receiving PEG + Bis. More adenomas were detected in colonoscopies performed with PEG + Asc (39%) than in those performed with PEG + Bis (20%) (P = 0.04). Patient tolerability and safety were similar with both preparations. Conclusion The use of PEG + Asc resulted in better colon cleansing and higher adenoma detection rates compared with PEG + Bis. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cohen, L. B., Sanyal, S. M., Von Althann, C., Bodian, C., Whitson, M., Bamji, N., … Aisenberg, J. (2010). Clinical trial: 2-L polyethylene glycol-based lavage solutions for colonoscopy preparation - A randomized, single-blind study of two formulations. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 32(5), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04390.x

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