Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Division, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Dig Endosc. 2022 May;34(4):721-728. doi: 10.1111/den.14194. Epub 2021 Dec 13.
Oral sodium sulfate (OSS) solution and low-volume polyethylene glycol-based solutions are two of the more common low-volume purgatives used as colonoscopy preparations. Data on how these different low-volume solutions compare are mixed. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare OSS with low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc) solution with respect to (i) satisfactory bowel preparation, (ii) excellent bowel preparation, and (iii) tolerability.
Studies were identified by searching 10 medical databases for reports published from 1974 until 2019. Only fully published RCTs comparing OSS and low-volume PEG-based products with regard to overall satisfactory bowel preparation were included. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random effects models; results are presented from the random effects model when heterogeneity was significant.
Seven studies (involving 2049 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference between OSS and PEG + Asc with respect to adequate bowel preparation (risk ratio [RR] 1.02 [0.99-1.06]; P = 0.16). OSS did result in a higher chance of excellent bowel preparation (RR 1.18 [1.06-1.31]; P = 0.03). OSS was associated with a 30% increased risk of nausea (RR 1.35 [1.03-1.77]; P = 0.03) and more than double the risk of vomiting (RR 2.30 [1.63-2.23]; P < 0.05) compared with PEG + Asc. Begg's funnel plot indicated low probability of publication bias.
Individuals at low risk of inadequate bowel preparation who use OSS for bowel preparation are more likely to achieve excellent bowel preparation, but are more likely to experience nausea and vomiting than are individuals using low-volume PEG-based solutions.
口服硫酸钠(OSS)溶液和低容量聚乙二醇(PEG)溶液是两种常用的低容量清肠剂,用于结肠镜检查准备。关于这些不同的低容量溶液的比较数据是混杂的。我们的目的是对随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析,比较 OSS 与低容量 PEG 加抗坏血酸(PEG+Asc)溶液在以下方面的差异:(i)肠道准备满意度,(ii)肠道准备优效性,以及(iii)耐受性。
通过检索 1974 年至 2019 年期间发表的 10 个医学数据库来确定研究。仅纳入了比较 OSS 和低容量 PEG 产品在总体肠道准备满意度方面的完全发表的 RCT。采用固定效应和随机效应模型进行汇总;当异质性显著时,结果来自随机效应模型。
有 7 项研究(涉及 2049 名受试者)符合纳入标准。OSS 和 PEG+Asc 在充分肠道准备方面没有差异(风险比[RR]1.02[0.99-1.06];P=0.16)。OSS 确实增加了获得优秀肠道准备的机会(RR 1.18[1.06-1.31];P=0.03)。与 PEG+Asc 相比,OSS 与恶心的风险增加 30%(RR 1.35[1.03-1.77];P=0.03)和呕吐的风险增加一倍以上(RR 2.30[1.63-2.23];P<0.05)相关。贝叶斯漏斗图表明发表偏倚的可能性较低。
低容量 PEG 溶液相比,肠道准备风险较低的个体使用 OSS 进行肠道准备更有可能获得优秀的肠道准备,但与使用低容量 PEG 溶液的个体相比,更有可能出现恶心和呕吐。