The safety and effects of high- and low-volume polyethylene glycol bowel preparation methods before colonoscopy on bowel cleanliness: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10502556 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been regarded as the primary recommendation for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, a conclusive conclusion has not yet been generated. Aim: We performed this updated meta-analysis to further investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of low volume preparation based on PEG plus ascorbic acid related to 4L PEG. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to April 2018. Two independent searchers critically searched all potential citations, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias accordingly. Moreover, we used the STATA 12.0 and trial sequential analysis (TSA) 0.9 to complete all analyses. Results: A total of 13 RCTs enrolling 3,910 patients met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis based on PP analysis indicated that compared to standard volume PEG regime, low volume regime improved patient compliance RR = 1.01; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.03; P = 0.143 (≥75% intake); RR = 1.07; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.14; P = 0.046 (100% intake), the willingness to repeat the same regime (RR = 1.30; 95% CIs = 1.07, 157; P = 0.007), and patient acceptability (RR = 1.18; 95% CIs = 1.07, 1.29; P = 0.001), and decreased the overall adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CIs = 0.77, 0.96; P = 0.009). However, no difference was observed between these two different solutions for bowel preparation efficacy (RR = 0.98; 95% CIs = 0.95, 1.02; P = 0.340). These all results were further confirmed by TSA. Conclusions: The effect of low volume regime was not inferior to the standard volume PEG regime, and low volume regime was associated with better compliance when subjects ingested all the solution, willingness to repeat the same regime, higher acceptability, and lower nausea in non-selected population.
| S-EPMC6512395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Methods A total of 120 patients were randomized to receive either the control group (n = 64) or the experimental group (n = 65). Patients in the control group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen one, and patients in the experimental group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen two. Those randomized to regimen one were instructed to take 0.75 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. Patients assigned to regimen two were invited to consume 1.5 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 0.75 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation, rated according to a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), represented the primary outcome measure. Tolerability, satisfaction, and lesions detection rated were secondary outcomes. Results There was no significant difference between the transverse colon and right colon scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). The low-volume split-dose regimen two showed a higher success rate for cleansing of the right colon and overall colon (P < 0.05). For the comparison of the patients' bowel tolerance, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding thirst, abdominal pain or abdominal discomfort, abdominal distension, dizziness or headache, anal discomfort, and sleep disturbance (P > 0.05). However, regimen two had significantly less nausea, vomiting, and fatigue than regimen one (24.62% vs. 42.19%, P=0.034; 10.77% vs. 25.00%, P=0.035; 6.15% vs. 21.88%, P=0.010, respectively). Patient-reported satisfaction and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation were significantly higher for low-volume split-dose regimen two than for low-volume split-dose regimen one (P=0.011; P=0.015). Conclusions In early morning colonoscopies, the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of low-volume split-dose regimen two were superior to low-volume split-dose regimen one.
| S-EPMC9453094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPolyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution plus ascorbic acid (PEG-ELS-Asc) has been recommended for colonoscopy, but little is known about the safety of PEG-ELS-Asc in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The aim of this study was to determine its safety and efficacy in CKD patients.MethodsBlood and urine samples prospectively collected before and after same-day bowel preparation for colonoscopy with the conventional volume of PEG-ELS-Asc, vital signs before and after colonoscopy, and adverse events within 30 days postcolonoscopy were analyzed in consenting patients with CKD. The cleansing level was evaluated with the Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) from colonoscopic findings.ResultsOf 57 patients enrolled, 1 was excluded for refusal. Serum bicarbonate significantly dropped, and blood hemoglobin, serum total protein, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, total bilirubin, and uric acid significantly rose after bowel preparation, although these changes were not clinically important. Only in nondialysis patients did the platelet count and potassium significantly rise, although these changes were not clinically important either. Renal function, such as the urea, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, was not significantly altered. An adequate bowel cleansing score, BBPS ≥ 6, was achieved in 94% of patients. The blood pressure and heart rate were not significantly different between before and after colonoscopy in either nondialysis (n = 32) or dialysis (n = 19) patients. There were no adverse events associated with bowel preparation and colonoscopy within 30 days postcolonoscopy.ConclusionsThe conventional volume of same-day bowel preparation with PEG-ELS-Asc may be safe and effective in CKD patients.
| S-EPMC7987408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStandard-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) gut lavage solutions are safe and effective, but they require the consumption of large volumes of fluid. A new lower-volume solution of PEG plus ascorbic acid has been used recently as a preparation for colonoscopy.AimA meta-analysis was performed to compare the performance of low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid with standard-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.StudyElectronic and manual searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the performance of low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid with standard-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. After a methodological quality assessment and data extraction, the pooled estimates of bowel preparation efficacy during bowel cleansing, compliance with preparation, willingness to repeat the same preparation, and the side effects were calculated. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios (OR) by fixed- and/or random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and the publication bias.ResultsEleven RCTs were identified for analysis. The pooled OR for preparation efficacy during bowel cleansing and for compliance with preparation for low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid were 1.08 (95% CI = 0.98-1.28, P = 0.34) and 2.23 (95% CI = 1.67-2.98, P<0.00001), respectively, compared with those for standard-volume PEG. The side effects of vomiting and nausea for low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid were reduced relative to standard-volume PEG. There was no significant publication bias, according to a funnel plot.ConclusionsLow-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid gut lavage achieved non-inferior efficacy for bowel cleansing, is more acceptable to patients, and has fewer side effects than standard-volume PEG as a bowel preparation method for colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC4047058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify the most effective laxative for bowel preparation in unsedated colonoscopy.MethodsBetween April 2019 and April 2020, a total of 586 outpatients scheduled for unsedated colonoscopy at the First Hospital of Jilin University (Changchun, China) were randomized into one of two groups, namely, the polyethylene glycol (PEG) group or the oral sodium phosphate solution (OSP) group. The cleaning efficiency and other relevant clinical parameters were compared between the two groups.ResultsEach group consisted of 293 patients. There were no significant differences in gender, body mass index, and history of abdominal surgery between the two groups. There were more cases of laxative intolerance in the PEG group than in the OSP group (7.5% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.05). After tube insertion, we found that the cleaning efficiency of OSP was better than that of PEG (P < 0.05). After cleaning, there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness between the two groups (P > 0.05). The colonoscopic insertion time of the PEG group was significantly shorter than that of the OSP group (10.0 vs. 12.0 min, P = 0.002), and colonoscopic insertion was more difficult in the OSP group than in the PEG group (P = 0.036). The VAS score of the PEG group patients was significantly lower than that of OSP group patients (4.0 ± 1.3 vs. 5.2 ± 1.7, P ≤ 0.001). There were no significant differences in the cecal intubation rate and the detection rate of polyps and ulcers/erosion between the two groups.ConclusionThe cleaning efficiency and tolerability of OSP were preferable to those of PEG, but there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness after washing the colon and suctioning the fluid. Compared with patients of the OSP group, those of the PEG group required a shorter colonoscopic insertion time and reported a more comfortable experience. Therefore, for cases that are tolerant of PEG, PEG is a better choice for unsedated colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC7463375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionColonoscopy has been regarded as a standard method of detecting and removing gastrointestinal lesions early, while adequate bowel preparation is the prerequisite of determining the diagnostic accuracy and treatment safety of this process. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) based bowel preparation regimens remain the first recommendation, but the optimal option is still uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to determine the optimal PEG based bowel preparation regimen before colonoscopy.Methods and analysisWe will assign two investigators to independently search all potential citations, screen records, abstract essential information and appraise the risk of bias accordingly. Then, random effects pairwise and network meta-analyses of RCTs comparing PEG 2 L alone or with ascorbic acid with PEG 4 L alone will be performed using RevMan 5.3 (Copenhagen, Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2013), Stata 14 (StataCorp, Texas, USA) and WinBUGS 1.4 (Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary's, London, UK) from January 2000 to April 2017. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve will also be calculated in order to rank the regimens.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and patient written informed consent will not be required because all of the analyses in the present study will be performed based on data from published studies. We will submit our systematic review and network meta-analysis to a peer reviewed scientific journal for publication.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42017068957.
| S-EPMC5652536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aimsPolyethylene glycol-based electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS) and the combination of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) are commonly used bowel preparation agents. The aim of the present study was to compare the two agents with regard to cleansing efficacy and tolerance among individuals scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy.Materials and methodsThe 368 colonoscopy outpatients at three Norwegian hospitals were randomized to bowel lavage with either PEG-ELS or SPMC. Compliance and patient tolerance were evaluated using a patient questionnaire. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPS), a validated scoring system with scores between 0 (best) and 14.ResultsThere was no difference in the cleansing quality between the PEG-ELS and SPMC groups (median OBPS 5.0 in both groups). The group that received SPMC reported better overall patient tolerance than the PEG-ELS group (72.6 % vs 59.0 % reporting no or slight discomfort, P < 0.01). Compliance with the recommended total fluid intake (4 L) was better in the SPMC group than in the PEG-ELS group (94.2 % vs 81.2 % respectively, P < 0.01); moreover, the polyp detection rate was superior (34.3 % vs 23.3 %, P = 0.02).ConclusionPEG-ELS and SPMC are equally effective in cleansing efficacy, but SPMC was better tolerated by patients and resulted in superior patient compliance and polyp detection rate.Clinical trial registrationNCT01624454.
| S-EPMC4423298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a new very low-volume 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 low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG solutions, in a real-life setting. In six endoscopy units in Sweden, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were either prescribed solutions according to local routines, or the very low-volume solution in split dose regimen. Bowel cleansing effectiveness and patient experience was assessed using the Boston Bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and a patient questionnaire. A total of 1098 patients (mean age 58 years, 52% women) were included. All subsegment and the total BBPS scores were significantly greater for 1L PEG-ASC in comparison to other solutions (p < 0.05 for 1L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG for transverse and left colon, otherwise p < 0.001). Nausea was more frequent with 1L PEG-ASC compared to 2L PEG-ASC (p < 0.001) and vomiting were more often reported compared to both other solutions (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 for 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG, respectively). Smell, taste, and total experience was better for 1L PEG-ASC compared to 4L PEG (p < 0.001), and similar compared to the 2L PEG-ASC. In conclusion, 1L PEG-ASC leads to better bowel cleansing compared to 2L PEG-ASC or 4L PEG products, with similar or greater patient satisfaction.
| S-EPMC9140572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPolyethylene Glycol 3350 (Miralax®) without electrolytes is commonly used for 3-4 days as bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children. One-day preparation has been anecdotally reported to be effective but there are few published prospective studies comparing the safety and efficacy of one-day preparation with that of three-day preparation. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-day bowel preparation with Miralax® with that of a three-day preparation for colonoscopy in children.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial with children age 2-21 yrs. undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive Miralax® for either one or three days. Children with known electrolyte disturbances, dehydration, fecal impaction, metabolic or renal disease were excluded. A metabolic panel was monitored before and after bowel preparation. Subjects reported the tolerability and side effects of Miralax® via a survey. Effectiveness of the bowel preparation was assessed using a stool diary and a bowel cleansing scale during colonoscopy.Results32 subjects were enrolled; 18 received one-day bowel preparation and 14 received 3-day preparation. There were no differences between the groups in efficacy of bowel preparation based on colonoscopic grading or the safety of the preparation. One-day preparation was as well tolerated as three-day preparation.ConclusionMiralax® used one day as bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy in children is safe, effective and well tolerated. Physicians should consider offering a one-day option for bowel preparation, which would allow children to miss fewer days of school prior to colonoscopy.Trial registrationTrial registration numberNCT02174497. Date of Registration: 02 May, 2014 URL of register: clinicaltrials.gov.
| S-EPMC4177437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy.ObjectivesInvestigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.Materials and methodsIn this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power.ResultsOverall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group.ConclusionSPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation.Clinical trial registration[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011-000587-10].
| S-EPMC9773881 | biostudies-literature