Yoo In Kyung, Jeen Yoon Tae, Kang Seung Hun, Lee Jae Hyung, Kim Seung Han, Lee Jae Min, Choi Hyuk Soon, Kim Eun Sun, Keum Bora, Chun Hoon Jai, Lee Hong Sik, Kim Chang Duck
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Digestive Disease and Nutrition, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(28):e4163. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004163.
Low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) use is reported to be as safe and effective as traditional 4-L polyethylene glycol use. However, PEG-Asc produces bubbles, which cause problems during colonoscopy. Data on the effects of using antifoaming agents such as simethicone with PEG-Asc are lacking. The aim of this CONSORT-prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, controlled trial is to compare the quality of bowel preparation and compliance between PEG-Asc users and PEG-Asc plus simethicone users.
Adult outpatients aged 18 to 80 years undergoing colonoscopy were recruited to the study. Two hundred sixty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment arms, PEG-Asc or PEG-Asc plus simethicone. The primary outcome measure was the bowel cleansing quality using Boston bowel preparation scale and bubble scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient tolerability and doctor tolerability.
The simethicone group showed superior cleansing results (6-9 Boston scale scores: 99% vs. 84%, <5% bubble scores: 96% vs. 49%, P < 0.001) and fewer gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal fullness: 24% vs. 55%, colicky pain: 5% vs. 24%, P < 0.001) than the non-simethicone group. Moreover, endoscopist fatigue during colonoscopy was lower in the simethicone group than in the non-simethicone group (1.31 ± 0.75 vs. 2.97 ± 2.14, P < 0.001).
PEG-Asc plus simethicone use was more effective and associated with better patient and endoscopist tolerance than PEG-Asc use. Therefore, this combination is recommended as one of the promising methods for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.
据报道,小剂量聚乙二醇与抗坏血酸(PEG-Asc)联合使用与传统的4升聚乙二醇使用一样安全有效。然而,PEG-Asc会产生气泡,这在结肠镜检查过程中会引发问题。关于使用西甲硅油等消泡剂与PEG-Asc联合使用效果的数据尚缺。本CONSORT前瞻性、随机、观察者盲法、对照试验的目的是比较PEG-Asc使用者与PEG-Asc加西甲硅油使用者的肠道准备质量和依从性。
招募年龄在18至80岁之间接受结肠镜检查的成年门诊患者。260名患者被随机分配至两个治疗组之一,即PEG-Asc组或PEG-Asc加西甲硅油组。主要结局指标是使用波士顿肠道准备量表和气泡评分评估的肠道清洁质量。次要结局指标是患者耐受性和医生耐受性。
与未使用西甲硅油的组相比,西甲硅油组显示出更好的清洁效果(波士顿量表评分6 - 9分:99%对84%,气泡评分<5%:96%对49%,P<0.001)以及更少的胃肠道症状(腹胀:24%对55%,绞痛:5%对24%,P<0.001)。此外,结肠镜检查期间内镜医师的疲劳程度在西甲硅油组低于未使用西甲硅油的组(1.31±0.75对2.97±2.14,P<0.001)。
与使用PEG-Asc相比,PEG-Asc加西甲硅油联合使用更有效,且患者和内镜医师的耐受性更好。因此,推荐这种联合使用方法作为结肠镜检查前肠道准备的有前景的方法之一。