Schmidt Liu-Ming, Williams Pamela, King Denis, Perera Dayashan
St George Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2004 Feb;47(2):238-42. doi: 10.1007/s10350-003-0027-4.
Bowel preparations for colonoscopy have to balance the demand for adequate cleansing action of the bowel and patient acceptability. There has been no study comparing Picoprep-3 (sodium picosulfate), a relatively new product, to Fleet (sodium phosphate), a well-studied and widely used preparation. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of these two bowel preparations for colonoscopy.
A randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial was conducted. A total of 400 consecutive patients presenting for elective colonoscopy at St George Private Hospital during a 20-week period were randomly assigned to receive Picoprep-3 or Fleet. Patients were asked to record the effects of the preparation, noting tolerability, taste, and side effects. Two hundred patients were assigned to the Picoprep-3 group and 200 to the Fleet group. Surgeons were blinded to the preparation used and rated the quality of the bowel preparation on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the optimal score).
Picoprep-3 was found to be better tolerated (P < 0.0001) and better tasting (P < 0.0001) than Fleet. Patients in the Picoprep-3 group reported significantly less nausea (P < 0.001), vomiting (P < 0.004), dizziness (P < 0.01), abdominal pains (P = 0.0005), and thirst (P < 0.0001) associated with the preparation. There was no significant difference in visualization of the colon between the two groups as judged by the two colonoscopists (P = 0.06).
Colonoscopy preparation with Picoprep-3 has similar efficacy but superior taste and tolerability compared with Fleet. Picoprep-3 caused less adverse side effects in the study population.
结肠镜检查的肠道准备必须在肠道充分清洁效果的需求与患者可接受性之间取得平衡。尚无研究将相对较新的产品皮考普瑞-3（匹可硫酸钠）与已得到充分研究且广泛使用的福瑞特（磷酸钠）进行比较。本研究旨在比较这两种用于结肠镜检查的肠道准备方法的疗效及患者耐受性。
进行了一项随机、单盲、前瞻性试验。在20周期间，共有400例连续在圣乔治私立医院接受择期结肠镜检查的患者被随机分配接受皮考普瑞-3或福瑞特。要求患者记录准备过程的效果，注明耐受性、味道和副作用。200例患者被分配到皮考普瑞-3组，200例被分配到福瑞特组。外科医生对所使用的准备方法不知情，并根据1至5分的评分标准对肠道准备质量进行评分（1分为最佳分数）。
发现皮考普瑞-3比福瑞特耐受性更好（P < 0.0001）且味道更佳（P < 0.0001）。皮考普瑞-3组的患者报告与准备过程相关的恶心（P < 0.001）、呕吐（P < 0.004）、头晕（P < 0.01）、腹痛（P = 0.0005）和口渴（P < 0.0001）明显更少。两位结肠镜检查医生判断两组之间结肠可视化情况无显著差异（P = 0.06）。
与福瑞特相比，使用皮考普瑞-3进行结肠镜检查准备具有相似的疗效，但味道和耐受性更佳。在研究人群中，皮考普瑞-3引起的不良副作用更少。
