Abut Evren, Guveli Hakan, Yasar Bulent, Bolukbas Cengiz, Bolukbas Filiz Fusun, Ince Ali Tuzun, Kendir Tulin, Dalay Ali Remzi, Kurdas Oya Ovunc
Department of Gastroenterology, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Sep;70(3):515-21. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.01.002. Epub 2009 Jun 24.
Proper bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is essential for satisfactory evaluation of the colon. The required consumption of a large volume of salty-tasting liquid, 4 L of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS), is the primary limitation to achieving this goal.
To achieve better patient satisfaction with efficient bowel cleansing, we compared the effects of the conventional volume (4 L) of PEG-ELS with those of a low volume (2 L) in combination with pretreatment using different laxatives, such as magnesium hydroxide (milk of magnesia) and olive oil.
Randomized, controlled study.
A single research hospital.
Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy.
A total of 120 patients were randomized to 1 of 3 different preparation regimens: 39 patients were prepared with a conventional volume (4 L) of PEG-ELS (Preparation [Prep] 1), and the remaining patients were prepared with a lower volume (2 L) of PEG-ELS and pretreatment with a laxative, either 15 g of magnesium hydroxide (40 patients, Prep 2) or 60 mL of olive oil (41 patients, Prep 3) 3 hours before PEG-ELS administration.
The primary outcome was the efficacy of colonic cleansing on the left and right sides. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and side effects.
The olive oil regimen (Prep 3) resulted in significantly more adequate bowel cleansing of the right colon than administration of the conventional volume of PEG-ELS (Prep 1) and the magnesium hydroxide (Prep 2) regimen (97.6% vs 74.5% and 72.5%, respectively, P = .007). However, this difference was not observed in the left colon (91.5%, 85.5%, and 91.8% for Preps 1, 2, and 3, respectively, P = .776). When asked, 38 patients (95%) taking Prep 2, 35 patients (85.3%) taking Prep 3, and only 11 patients (28.2%) taking Prep 1 preferred the same preparation regimen if they required a future colonoscopy (P =.006), based on ease of use and taste. The side effects were comparable in each group.
The limitations of this study include the relatively small sample size, the single-center study design, and the use of a nonvalidated symptom scoring system.
Pretreatment with olive oil before administration of a low volume of PEG-ELS enhances both patient satisfaction and the quality of right-side colonic cleansing over the administration of the conventional volume of PEG-ELS for colonoscopy preparation. Although the magnesium hydroxide regimen (Prep 2) was the preferred regimen in this study, its colonic cleansing effectiveness was not as great as those of the other regimens. Based on our results, the olive oil regimen is recommended, especially for patients who are not able to consume large volumes of liquids, such as the elderly, and those who are suspected of having subtle right-side colonic lesions.
结肠镜检查前进行适当的肠道清洁对于结肠的满意评估至关重要。需要大量饮用味道咸涩的液体,即4升聚乙二醇电解质灌洗液(PEG-ELS),这是实现这一目标的主要限制因素。
为了提高患者对高效肠道清洁的满意度,我们比较了常规剂量(4升)PEG-ELS与小剂量(2升)PEG-ELS联合使用不同泻药(如氢氧化镁(镁乳)和橄榄油)进行预处理的效果。
随机对照研究。
一家研究医院。
接受择期结肠镜检查的患者。
总共120名患者被随机分为3种不同的准备方案之一:39名患者采用常规剂量(4升)的PEG-ELS进行准备(准备方案[Prep]1),其余患者采用小剂量(2升)的PEG-ELS并在PEG-ELS给药前3小时用泻药进行预处理,其中40名患者使用15克氢氧化镁(准备方案2),41名患者使用60毫升橄榄油(准备方案3)。
主要结局是结肠左右两侧的清洁效果。次要结局是患者满意度和副作用。
橄榄油方案(准备方案3)导致右侧结肠的肠道清洁明显比常规剂量的PEG-ELS(准备方案1)和氢氧化镁(准备方案2)方案更充分(分别为97.6%对74.5%和72.5%,P = 0.007)。然而,在左侧结肠未观察到这种差异(准备方案1、2和3分别为91.5%、85.5%和91.8%,P = 0.776)。当被问及如果未来需要进行结肠镜检查,基于使用便利性和味道,服用准备方案2的38名患者(95%)、服用准备方案3的35名患者(85.3%)以及仅服用准备方案1的11名患者(28.2%)更倾向于相同的准备方案(P = 0.006)。每组的副作用相当。
本研究的局限性包括样本量相对较小、单中心研究设计以及使用未经验证的症状评分系统。
在小剂量PEG-ELS给药前用橄榄油进行预处理,与使用常规剂量PEG-ELS进行结肠镜检查准备相比,可提高患者满意度并改善右侧结肠的清洁质量。尽管氢氧化镁方案(准备方案2)在本研究中是首选方案,但其结肠清洁效果不如其他方案。基于我们的结果,推荐橄榄油方案,特别是对于不能大量饮用液体的患者,如老年人,以及怀疑有右侧结肠微小病变的患者。