Efficacy of rapid bowel preparation with new 1 L polyethylene glycol ascorbate solution in severe acute lower GI bleeding.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Soriani P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7058643 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy requires colon cleansing. For this, many polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations still require a high preparation-volume intake. Using an increased osmotic load with ascorbate (Asc), five new low-volume PEG-based bowel preparations (LVPEG) were tested for clinical proof of concept.MethodsThis two-part, open-label study examined preparation-volumes of 1-1.25 L and total required fluid volumes of 2-3 L. Part 1, in healthy volunteers, used mean cumulative 24-h stool weight (target > 2750 g) to identify a lead candidate. Part 2 was endoscopist-blinded: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized before treatment with the selected lead, one of two variants of it, or the control 2 L PEG + Asc. Two primary endpoints were used for proof of concept demonstration: mean 24-h stool weight and bowel cleansing success (Harefield Cleansing Scale).ResultsA total of 120 subjects (30 per group) were enrolled/randomized 1:1:1:1 (max 40:60 gender ratio) per completed Part. In Part 1, LVPEG-3 achieved the largest mean stool weight (3399 g: P < 0.0001 vs target) and was selected for Part 2. In Part 2, stool weights exceeded the target, notably for LVPEG-4 (3215 g: P < 0.001), which achieved 100% cleansing success after a total required fluid intake of 2 L. The control achieved 90% cleansing success. Adverse events were few, gastrointestinal in nature and similar between groups.ConclusionsLVPEG-4 achieved a clinically useful combination of cleansing, safety/tolerability and low consumption volume: 1 L preparation + 1 L required additional fluid. Named NER1006, LVPEG-4 demonstrated clinical proof of concept and warrants further investigation.Trial registrationOctober 2012. Identifier: NCT01714466 . EudraCT: 2012-003052-37 The trial was prospectively registered.
| S-EPMC6543558 | 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:MethodsA 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.ResultsThere 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).ConclusionsIn 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:Background and study aims Men have more colon cleansing failures, colorectal adenomas, and colorectal cancers than women. We analyzed whether 1-liter (1 L) polyethylene glycol (PEG) NER1006 improves high-quality (HQ) colon cleansing and adenoma detection in males versus two mid-volume alternatives. Patients and methods The analysis of 1028 adult patients in two randomized clinical trials was performed. Adenoma detection and HQ cleansing were compared for overnight split dosing regimens with NER1006 (n = 513) versus combined oral sulfate solution or 2 L PEG + ascorbate (OSS/2 L PEG) (n = 515). Analyses included males versus females, overweight or obese (OO) males versus lean males, and NER1006 versus OSS/2 L PEG. In male patients, the adenoma detection rate of at least 3 (ADR3 +) was predicted with multiple logistic regression and statistical comparisons used the two-sided t-test. Results ADR3 + was greater in males versus females (10.7 % [56/524] versus 5.8 % [29/504]; P = 0.004) despite comparable adequate cleansing success rates (93.2 % [479/514] versus 93.0 % [466/501]; P = 0.912) and more HQ-scores in females (41.6 % [1069/2570] versus 45.3 % [1134/2505]; P = 0.008). ADR was almost twice as high in OO versus lean males (43.4 % [184/424] versus 23.1 % [21/91]; P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression predicted ADR3 + detection to be twice as likely in OO males using NER1006 versus OSS/2 L PEG (odds ratio (95 % confidence interval [CI]) = 2.049 (1.082-3.973); P = 0.030) and 90 % more likely in all males (1.902 (1.045-3.526); P = 0.037). In males, including OO males, NER1006 attained more HQ-scores per trial than OSS or 2 L PEG (P ≤ 0.017 for all comparisons). Conclusions NER1006 predicted the detection of more males for frequent surveillance than OSS/2 L PEG.
| S-EPMC8367431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy is a standard procedure for evaluating colon diseases and screening for colorectal cancer, and bowel cleanliness prior to colonoscopy is key. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of low-volume (2 L) split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus single-dose (24 µg) lubiprostone (LB) and high-volume (4 L) split-dose PEG.MethodsPatients scheduled to undergo outpatient colonoscopy between December 2019 and June 2021 at Rajavithi Hospital were enrolled and randomized into two groups: 2 L PEG + LB or 4 L PEG. Colon cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by reviewing images of the colon after completion of colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes comprised cecal intubation rate, procedure time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, patient satisfaction, compliance (based on complete ingestion of bowel preparation regimen), willingness to repeat the preparation regimen, and associated adverse events.ResultsOne hundred and forty patients were included, with 70 in each group. The mean total and segment-specific BBPS scores were not significantly different between groups. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the 2 L PEG + LB group than the 4 L PEG group (100% [95% CI 94.6-100] versus 88.4% [95% CI 78.4-94.9], p = 0.004) in the per-protocol analysis. Colonic polyps were the most common finding. The polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and all secondary outcomes were statistically similar in the two groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionsThe combination of 2 L split-dose PEG plus LB improves bowel cleanliness (based on BBPS scores) to a comparable degree to the standard 4 L split-dose PEG, without additional adverse events and with a lower PEG volume.
| S-EPMC9482745 | 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: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:Poor preparation for elective colonoscopy is common in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). This unsatisfactory outcome is likely due to long-standing difficulty with evacuation and decreased colonic motility. Our objective was to determine the most effective preparation for elective colonoscopy applying a novel and traditional approach to bowel cleansing.Twenty-four subjects with SCI were consented and scheduled to receive one of the two possible arms: pulsed irrigation enhanced evacuation (PIEE) or polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (PEG; CoLyte(®)). The quality of the preparation was scored during the colonoscopy by applying the Ottawa scoring system.Patients with SCI who received PIEE tended to have lower Ottawa scores and a higher percentage of acceptable preparations than did those who received PEG; however, the results were not statistically different.In this preliminary study in subjects with SCI, neither PIEE nor PEG produced acceptable bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy. Future studies should confirm our findings and consider studying alternative, more efficacious approaches to bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopic procedures in patients with SCI, which should provide better outcomes. Registration number for clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00745095.
| S-EPMC4725814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo prospectively compare adequacy of colonic cleansing, adequacy of solid stool and fluid tagging, and patient acceptance by using reduced-volume, 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus magnesium citrate bowel preparations for CT colonography.Materials and methodsThis study was approved by the institutional Committee on Human Research and was compliant with HIPAA; all patients provided written consent. In this randomized, investigator-blinded study, 50 patients underwent oral preparation with either a 2-L PEG or a magnesium citrate solution, tagging with oral contrast agents, and subsequent CT colonography and segmentally unblinded colonoscopy. The residual stool (score 0 [best] to 3 [worst]) and fluid (score 0 [best] to 4 [worst]) burden and tagging adequacy were qualitatively assessed. Residual fluid attenuation was recorded as a quantitative measure of tagging adequacy. Patients completed a tolerance questionnaire within 2 weeks of scanning. Preparations were compared for residual stool and fluid by using generalized estimating equations; the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the qualitative tagging score, mean residual fluid attenuation, and adverse effects assessed on the patient experience questionnaire.ResultsThe mean residual stool (0.90 of three) and fluid burden (1.05 of four) scores for PEG were similar to those for magnesium citrate (0.96 [P = .58] and 0.98 [P = .48], respectively). However, the mean fecal and fluid tagging scores were significantly better for PEG (0.48 and 0.28, respectively) than for magnesium citrate (1.52 [P < .01] and 1.28 [P < .01], respectively). Mean residual fluid attenuation was higher for PEG (765 HU) than for magnesium citrate (443 HU, P = .01), and mean interpretation time was shorter for PEG (14.8 minutes) than for magnesium citrate (18.0 minutes, P = .04). Tolerance ratings were not significantly different between preparations.ConclusionReduced-volume PEG and magnesium citrate bowel preparations demonstrated adequate cleansing effectiveness for CT colonography, with better tagging and shorter interpretation time observed in the PEG group. Adequate polyp detection was maintained but requires further validation because of the small number of clinically important polyps.
| S-EPMC3176421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBowel preparation in children can be challenging.AimTo describe the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC) bowel preparation in children.MethodsPhase 3, randomized, assessor-blinded, multicenter study of low-volume, divided dose SPMC enrolled children 9-16 years undergoing elective colonoscopy. Participants 9-12 years were randomized 1:1:1 to SPMC ½ dose × 2, SPMC 1 dose × 2, or polyethylene glycol (PEG). Participants 13-16 years were randomized 1:1 to SPMC 1 dose × 2 or PEG. PEG-based bowel preparations were administered per local protocol. Primary efficacy endpoint for quality of bowel preparation was responders (rating of 'excellent' or 'good') by modified Aronchick Scale. Secondary efficacy endpoint was participant's tolerability and satisfaction from a 7-item questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations.Results78 participants were randomized, 48 were 9-12 years, 30 were 13-16 years. For the primary efficacy endpoint in 9-12 years, 50.0%, 87.5%, and 81.3% were responders for SPMC ½ dose × 2, SPMC 1 dose × 2, and PEG groups, respectively. Responder rates for 13-16 years were 81.3% for SPMC 1 dose × 2 and 85.7% for PEG. Overall, 43.8% of participants receiving SPMC 1 dose × 2 reported it was 'very easy' or 'easy' to drink, compared with 20.0% receiving PEG. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 45.5% of participants receiving SPMC 1 dose × 2 and 63.0% receiving PEG.ConclusionSPMC was an efficacious and safe for bowel preparation in children 9-16 years, with comparable efficacy to PEG. Tolerability for SPMC was higher compared to PEG.
| S-EPMC7596638 | biostudies-literature