Suppr超能文献

结肠镜检查的分次剂量肠道准备:2升含抗坏血酸的聚乙二醇与比沙可啶钠及口服磷酸钠片的比较

Split-dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: 2 Liters Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid versus Sodium Picosulfate versus Oral Sodium Phosphate Tablets.

作者信息

Lee Seok Won, Bang Chang Seok, Park Tae Young, Suk Ki Tae, Baik Gwang Ho, Kim Dong Joon

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea.

出版信息

Korean J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 25;70(2):89-95. doi: 10.4166/kjg.2017.70.2.89.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation is an essential factor affecting the visibility of colonic mucosa and safety of related therapeutic interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of three bowel preparation agents -2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEGA), sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SPMC), and oral sodium phosphate tablet (NaP)- for morning colonoscopy.

METHODS

Here, we analyzed the medical records of patients who had taken bowel preparation agents using the split-dose method and undergone colonoscopy in a single hospital. The efficacy of bowel preparation agents was evaluated using the Ottawa bowel preparation assessment tool. The safety and tolerability of the agents were assessed by measuring the renal function and electrolytes prior to and after the procedure as well as by assessing the self-reported questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 365 patients (PEGA:163, SPMC: 93, NaP: 109), 98.6% ingested more than 90% of the agents. NaP showed an inferior cleansing efficacy, and serum phosphate elevation was significantly higher in the NaP group. However, the satisfaction score was lowest in the PEGA group. Age (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.99, p=0.04) and preparation agents (OR of PEGA versus NaP 5.0, 95% CI 2.28-10.97, p<0.001) (OR of SPMC versus NaP 2.73, 95% CI 1.22-6.08, p=0.01) were independently associated with bowel preparation success.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our analysis, NaP showed an inferior cleansing efficacy compared with PEGA and SPMC, which may be attributed to the complex administration method and lower water intake. However, large-volume ingestion remains unsatisfactory for patients. Detailed bowel preparation instructions could enhance bowel cleansing efficacy.

摘要

背景/目的:充分的肠道准备是影响结肠黏膜可视性及相关治疗干预安全性的重要因素。本研究旨在评估三种肠道准备剂——2L含抗坏血酸的聚乙二醇(PEGA)、匹可硫酸钠枸橼酸镁(SPMC)和口服磷酸钠片(NaP)用于上午结肠镜检查的有效性、耐受性和安全性。

方法

在此,我们分析了在一家医院采用分剂量法服用肠道准备剂并接受结肠镜检查的患者的病历。使用渥太华肠道准备评估工具评估肠道准备剂的有效性。通过在检查前后测量肾功能和电解质以及评估自我报告问卷来评估这些制剂的安全性和耐受性。

结果

在365例患者中(PEGA组163例、SPMC组93例、NaP组109例),98.6%的患者摄入了超过90%的制剂。NaP的清洁效果较差,且NaP组血清磷酸盐升高明显更高。然而,PEGA组的满意度得分最低。年龄(比值比[OR]0.96,95%置信区间[CI]0.92 - 0.99,p = 0.04)和准备剂(PEGA与NaP相比的OR为5.0,95%CI 2.28 - 10.97,p < 0.001)(SPMC与NaP相比的OR为2.73,95%CI 1.22 - 6.08,p = 0.01)与肠道准备成功独立相关。

结论

根据我们的分析,与PEGA和SPMC相比,NaP的清洁效果较差,这可能归因于给药方法复杂和饮水量较低。然而,大量摄入对患者来说仍不尽人意。详细的肠道准备说明可提高肠道清洁效果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验