比较比沙可啶钠与2L聚乙二醇电解质灌洗液用于结肠镜检查的肠道清洁效果：一项前瞻性观察研究。
Comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy between sodium picosulfate vs. 2L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution for colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.
作者信息
Shan Jing, Su Yang, Luo Dan, Jiang Lin, Zhang Chen, Liu Yifeng, Sun Xiaobin
机构信息
Department of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu, No. 82 Qinglong Street, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610014, Sichuan, China.
College of Medicine, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, 610031, Sichuan, China.
出版信息
BMC Gastroenterol. 2025 Mar 12;25(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s12876-025-03707-3.
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, adverse reactions, and patient compliance of two low-volume bowel preparation regimens, sodium picosulfate (PICO) and 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (2 L PEG-ELS).
METHODS
This single-center, prospective observational trial was conducted at the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center of The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu between May and October 2023. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled, with the primary outcome being the rate of adequate bowel cleansing, as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) with three segments scoring ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, adverse reactions, patient compliance, and the BBPS total and segment scores.
RESULTS
A total of 5423 patients were included, divided into the PICO group (n = 739) and the 2 L PEG-ELS group (n = 4684) based on the bowel preparation regimen they chose. There were no statistically significant differences between the PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS groups in adequate bowel cleansing rate (92.2% vs. 91.3%, P = 0.437) and polyp detection rate (42.2% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.096). However, the PICO group achieved a better performance in the BBPS scores of the total [(6.90 ± 1.19) vs. (6.81 ± 1.14), P = 0.016] and the right colon [(2.15 ± 0.53) vs. (2.11 ± 0.51), P = 0.005] compared to the 2 L PEG-ELS group. In terms of adverse reactions, the 2 L PEG-ELS group reported more nausea (11.7% vs. 5.7%, P < 0.001) and the PICO group reported more sleep disturbances (24.5% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), but the willingness to repeat the procedure with the same regimen was similar high in the 2 L PEG-ELS and PICO groups (99% vs. 99.2%, P = 0.588).
CONCLUSION
In this prospective observational study, both PICO and 2 L PEG-ELS are safe and effective options for bowel cleansing in the Chinese population.
背景
本研究旨在比较两种低容量肠道准备方案——聚乙二醇硫酸钠（PICO）和2升聚乙二醇电解质灌洗液（2L PEG - ELS）的肠道清洁效果、不良反应及患者依从性。
方法
本单中心前瞻性观察性试验于2023年5月至10月在成都市第三人民医院胃肠内镜中心进行。纳入接受结肠镜检查的患者，主要结局为通过波士顿肠道准备量表（BBPS）评估的肠道清洁充分率，该量表三个节段评分均≥2分。次要结局包括息肉检出率、不良反应、患者依从性以及BBPS总分和节段评分。
结果
共纳入5423例患者，根据他们选择的肠道准备方案分为PICO组（n = 739）和2L PEG - ELS组（n = 4684）。PICO组和2L PEG - ELS组在肠道清洁充分率（92.2%对91.3%，P = 0.437）和息肉检出率（42.2%对45.5%，P = 0.096）方面无统计学显著差异。然而，与2L PEG - ELS组相比，PICO组在BBPS总分[（6.90±1.19）对（6.81±1.14），P = 0.016]和右半结肠[（2.15±0.53）对（2.11±0.51），P = 0.005]评分方面表现更好。在不良反应方面，2L PEG - ELS组报告恶心的更多（11.7%对5.7%，P < 0.001），PICO组报告睡眠障碍的更多（24.5%对14.6%，P < 0.001），但2L PEG - ELS组和PICO组使用相同方案重复该操作的意愿相似高（99%对99.2%，P = 0.588）。
结论
在这项前瞻性观察性研究中，PICO和2L PEG - ELS对中国人群肠道清洁而言都是安全有效的选择。
Zotero 插件