Suppr超能文献

前瞻性、随机研究比较两种不同剂量分割聚乙二醇方案及其对内镜治疗效果的影响。

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes.

机构信息

School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Jounieh, P.O. Box 446, Lebanon.

Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, 11931, Amman, Jordan.

出版信息

BMC Gastroenterol. 2024 Apr 12;24(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12876-024-03212-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2).

METHODS

240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure.

RESULTS

A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62).

CONCLUSION

While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

摘要

背景

聚乙二醇的不同分剂量方案被常规使用,但没有指南可用于选择最佳的摄入方案。本研究旨在比较两种不同的聚乙二醇肠道准备溶液方案的疗效和副作用谱:PEG(3+1)与 PEG(2+2)。

方法

2023 年 6 月 1 日至 11 月 31 日期间,共纳入 240 名年龄在 18 岁以上的患者。患者被随机分配到 A 组(115 例)或 B 组(125 例)。A 组患者在前一天晚上服用 3L 的 PEG,检查当天早上再服用 1L;B 组患者前一天晚上服用 2L,检查当天早上再服用 2L。肠道清洁效果由主治内镜医生使用波士顿肠道准备量表进行评估,通过对结肠各段(0-3 分)进行评分来评估。副作用、耐受性和患者对同一方案的再接受意愿由一名独立调查员通过检查前的问卷列出。

结果

服用 3+1 方案的患者中,有更高比例的患者出现胃部饱胀感(58.3% vs. 31.2%;p<.001)。服用 2+2 方案的患者的波士顿肠道准备评分高于 3+1 方案(7.87 分 vs. 7.23 分)。与 3+1 方案相比,使用 2+2 方案与更高的波士顿肠道准备评分显著相关(OR=1.37,p<.001,95%CI 1.14,1.64)。在调整了其他变量(年龄、性别、合并症、既往腹部手术史、腺瘤存在情况以及末次剂量与结肠镜检查之间的时间)后,结果仍然相同(aOR=1.34,p<.003,95%CI 1.10,1.62)。

结论

虽然聚乙二醇的(2+2)和(3+1)方案都是成功进行结肠镜检查的良好选择,但我们建议使用(2+2)方案,因为它在肠道清洁方面更有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3100/11010337/8d8ea5d7a189/12876_2024_3212_Fig1_HTML.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