Suppr超能文献

随机临床试验比较了口服匹可硫酸钠方案的固定时间分段给药和分段给药用于肠道准备。

Randomized clinical trial comparing fixed-time split dosing and split dosing of oral Picosulfate regimen for bowel preparation.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung 25440, South Korea.

Catholic Kwandong University, Gangneung 25440, South Korea.

出版信息

World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 28;23(32):5986-5993. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i32.5986.

Abstract

AIM

To compare the efficacy of fixed-time split dose and split dose of an oral sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation.

METHODS

This is study was prospective, randomized controlled study performed at a single Institution (2013-058). A total of 204 subjects were assigned to receive one of two sodium picosulfate regimens (., fixed-time split or split) prior to colonoscopy. Main outcome measurements were bowel preparation quality and subject tolerability.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the fixed-time split dose regimen group and the split dose regimen group (Ottawa score mean 2.57 ± 1.91 2.80 ± 2.51, = 0.457). Cecal intubation time and physician's satisfaction of inspection were not significantly different between the two groups ( = 0.428, = 0.489). On subgroup analysis, for afternoon procedures, the fixed-time split dose regimen was equally effective as compared with the split dose regimen (Ottawa score mean 2.56 ± 1.78 2.59 ± 2.27, = 0.932). There was no difference in tolerability or compliance between the two groups. Nausea was 21.2% in the fixed-time split dose group and 14.3% in the split dose group ( = 0.136). Vomiting was 7.1% and 2.9% ( = 0.164), abdominal discomfort 7.1% and 4.8% ( = 0.484), dizziness 1% and 4.8% ( = 0.113), cold sweating 1% and 0% ( = 0.302) and palpitation 0% and 1% ( = 0.330), respectively. Sleep disturbance was two (2%) patients in the fixed-time split dose group and zero (0%) patient in the split dose preparation ( = 0.143) group.

CONCLUSION

A fixed-time split dose regimen with sodium picosulfate is not inferior to a split dose regimen for bowel preparation and equally effective for afternoon colonoscopy.

摘要

目的

比较定时分片和口服聚乙二醇散剂分片两种不同的肠道准备方案的效果。

方法

这是一项单中心前瞻性随机对照研究(2013-058)。共有 204 名受试者被随机分为两组,分别接受定时分片或分片的聚乙二醇散剂肠道准备方案。主要观察指标为肠道准备质量和患者耐受性。

结果

定时分片组和分片组之间的肠道准备质量评分(Ottawa 评分)无统计学差异(平均 2.57 ± 1.91 与 2.80 ± 2.51,= 0.457)。两组的盲肠插管时间和医生对检查的满意度也无显著差异(= 0.428,= 0.489)。亚组分析显示,对于下午进行的结肠镜检查,定时分片组与分片组的效果相当(Ottawa 评分平均 2.56 ± 1.78 与 2.59 ± 2.27,= 0.932)。两组的耐受性和依从性也无差异。定时分片组的恶心发生率为 21.2%,分片组为 14.3%(= 0.136)。呕吐发生率分别为 7.1%和 2.9%(= 0.164),腹部不适发生率分别为 7.1%和 4.8%(= 0.484),头晕发生率分别为 1%和 4.8%(= 0.113),冷汗发生率分别为 1%和 0%(= 0.302),心悸发生率分别为 0%和 1%(= 0.330)。定时分片组有 2 例(2%)患者出现睡眠障碍,分片组则无(= 0.143)。

结论

定时分片的聚乙二醇散剂肠道准备方案不劣于分片方案,对于下午的结肠镜检查同样有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e6b6/5583584/f3ab8ff864e5/WJG-23-5986-g001.jpg

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