Renaut A J, Raniga S, Frizelle F A, Perry R E, Guilford L
The Oxford Clinic, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Jun;10(5):503-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01383.x. Epub 2007 Sep 13.
Small-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy has become increasingly popular due to improved tolerance by patients and equivalent efficacy compared with the larger volume preparations. Comparative studies, however, between small volume preparations are lacking. This randomized controlled trial aimed at comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phospo-soda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy.
A randomized prospective trial designed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of Fleet with Picoprep in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
Seventy-three patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either Fleet or Picoprep as bowel preparation. Patients were asked to score the acceptability and to comment specifically on adverse events, namely headache, nausea and vomiting. The efficacy of the preparation was also assessed. The results showed no difference in efficacy (P = 0.06, chi(2) test), but there was a significant difference in acceptability (P = 0.01, chi(2) test). and side effects of patients suffering nausea (P = 0.003, chi(2) test), in favour of Picoprep.
Whilst there was no difference in efficacy, there was a significant difference in acceptability and side effects in favour of Picoprep.
由于患者耐受性提高且与大容量肠道准备相比疗效相当，小容量结肠镜检查肠道准备越来越受欢迎。然而，小容量肠道准备之间的比较研究尚缺乏。本随机对照试验旨在比较磷酸钠缓冲盐水（Fleet）与匹可硫酸钠/枸橼酸镁（Picoprep）在结肠镜检查患者准备中的疗效和可接受性。
一项随机前瞻性试验，旨在比较Fleet与Picoprep在接受结肠镜检查患者中的疗效和可接受性。
73例接受结肠镜检查的患者被随机分配接受Fleet或Picoprep作为肠道准备。要求患者对可接受性进行评分，并具体评论不良事件，即头痛、恶心和呕吐。还评估了准备的疗效。结果显示疗效无差异（P = 0.06，卡方检验），但可接受性有显著差异（P = 0.01，卡方检验），恶心患者的副作用也有显著差异（P = 0.003，卡方检验），支持Picoprep。
虽然疗效无差异，但在可接受性和副作用方面有显著差异，支持Picoprep。
