medigraphic.com

2015, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Hosp Jua Mex 2015; 82 (2)

Evaluación de la eficacia y tolerabilidad de tres esquemas de preparación de colon

Lezama-de-Luna JF, Manrique MA, Chávez-García MÁ, Pérez-Corona T, Gómez-Peña-Alfaro NS, Pérez-Valle E, Espino-Cortés H, Hernández-Velázquez NN

Language: Spanish
References: 40
Page: 96-104
PDF size: 192.47 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. Colonoscopy is the primary method for evaluating the colon, but its diagnostic and therapeutic effectiveness depends on the degree of quality of the data. The characteristics that define a high quality colonoscopy is the examination of the entire colon, and optimal cleaning of the endoscope withdrawal time of 6-10 minutes from the cecum to the rectum. Objective. Evaluate the effectiveness of the colonic preparation with three schemes for colon preparation used in the Hospital Juárez de México. Material and methods. Randomized comparative clinical study. Whereas a total number of 800 annual colonoscopies and estimating a margin of error of 5%, with a confidence level of 95% and a statistical power of 80% the number of patients in each group are 70 pati. Randomized Comparative Clinical Study. Whereas a total number of 800 annual colonoscopies and estimating a margin of error of 5%, with a confidence level of 95% and a statistical power of 80% the number of patients in each group are 70 patients. Results. In group A, the classification of quality of bowel cleansing was: Excellent 15%, good 50%, fair in 30%, poor 0%, 5% inadequate. Adequate bowel preparation in 68% of patients was obtained. In group B: excellent 4%, good in 64%, fair in 28% and poor in 4%. Adequate bowel preparation in 68% of patients was obtained. In group C, the classification of the quality of bowel cleansing was: Excellent in any patient, good in 44%, moderate in 24%, poor in 16% and inadequate in 16% of patients. Adequate bowel preparation in 44% of patients was obtained. Conclusion. Polyethylene scheme combined with similar percentages presented prokinetic colon cleansing properly regarding polietilenglicol conventional scheme, but with increased patient tolerability. We conclude that it may be an option for those patients who can not tolerate the intake of large volumes of bowel preparation.


REFERENCES

  1. Gonzalez-Huix Llado F, Figa Francesch M, Huertas Nadal C. Essential quality criteria in the indication and performance of colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 33: 33-42.

  2. Morán Sánchez S, Torrella E, Esteban Delgado P, Baños Madrid R, García A, Ono A, et al. Colonoscopy quality assessment. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2009; 101: 107-12, 112-6.

  3. Jover R, Herráiz M, Alarcón O, Brullet E, Bujanda L, Bustamante M, et al. Clinical practice Guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 444-51.

  4. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Vader JP. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: The European panel of appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-84.

  5. Kim HN, Raju GS. Bowel preparation and colonoscopy technique to detect non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2010; 20: 437-48.

  6. Atreja A, Nepal S, Lashner BA. Making the most of currently available bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Cleve Clin J Med 2010; 77: 317-26.

  7. Beck DE. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2010; 23: 10-3.

  8. Wu KL, Rayner CK, Chuah SK, Chiu KW, Lu CC, Chiu YC. Impact of low-residue diet on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2011; 54: 107-12.

  9. Landreneau SW, Di Palma JA. Update on preparation for colonoscopy. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2010; 12: 366-73.

  10. Ledo Barro L, Ulla Rocha JL. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2007; 99: 114.

  11. Nguyen DL, Wieland M. Risk factors predictive of poor quality preparation during average risk colonoscopy screening: The importance of health literacy. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2010; 19: 369-72.

  12. Lichtenstein G. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A review. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009; 66: 27-37.

  13. Occhipinti KE, Di Palma JA. How to choose the best preparation for colonoscopy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 6: 279-86.

  14. Adamiak T, Altaf M, Jensen MK, Sultan M, Ramprasad J, Ciecierega T, et al. One-day bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol 3350: An effective regimen for colonoscopy in children. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 573-7.

  15. Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology 1980; 78(5, Pt. 1): 991-5.

  16. Nyberg C, Hendel J, Nielsen OH. The safety of osmotically acting cathartics in colonic cleansing. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 7: 557-64.

  17. Juluri R, Eckert G, Imperiale TF. Meta-analysis: Randomized controlled trials of 4-L polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate solution as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 32: 171-81.

  18. Haapamaki MM, Lindstrom M, Sandzen B. Low-volume bowel preparation is inferior to standard 4 L polyethylene glycol. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 897-901.

  19. Corporaal S, Kleibeuker JH, Koornstra JJ. Low-volume PEG plus ascor - bic acid versus high-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 1380-6.

  20. Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch HJ, Dertinger S, Layer P, Rünzi M, et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 883-93.

  21. Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: Adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29: 15-28.

  22. Brunelli SM, Feldman HI, Latif SM, Gupta M, Weiner MG, Lewis JD. A comparison of sodium phosphosoda purgative to polyethylene glycol bowel preparations prior to colonoscopy. Fam Med 2009; 41: 39-45.

  23. Schanz S, Kruis W, Mickisch O, Kuppers B, Berg P, Frick B, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy with sodium phosphate solution versus polyethylene glycol-based lavage: A multicenter trial. Diagn Ther Endosc 2008; 2008: 713521.

  24. Shawki S, Wexner SD. How safe is bowel preparation with oral sodium phosphate solution? Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 5: 482-3.

  25. Yakut M, Cinar K, Seven G, Cetinkaya H, Bahar K. The efficacy and safety of colonoscopy preparation with oral sodium phosphate in elderly patients. Turk J Gastroenterol 2010; 21: 140-5.

  26. Renaut AJ, Raniga S, Frizelle FA, Perry RE, Guilford L. A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phosposoda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10: 503-5.

  27. Choi YS, Suh JP, Kim JK, Lee IT, Youk EG, Lee DS, et al. Magnesium citrate with a single dose of sodium phosphate for colonoscopy bowel preparation. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17: 242-8.

  28. Enestvedt BK, Fennerty MB, Eisen GM. Randomised clinical trial: MiraLAX vs. golytely –a controlled study of efficacy and patient tole– rability in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 33-40.

  29. Malik P, Balaban DH, Thompson WO, Galt DJ. Randomized study comparing two regimens of oral sodium phosphates solution versus low-dose polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54: 833-41.

  30. Aronchick CA. Bowel preparation scale. Gastrointest Endos 2004; 60: 1037,8; author reply 1038-9.

  31. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-6.

  32. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston bowel preparation scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-92.

  33. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, Fix OK, Jacobson BC. The Boston bowel preparation scale: A valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69(3, Pt. 2): 620-5.

  34. Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 1797-802.

  35. Varughese S, Kumar AR, George A, Castro FJ. Morning-only one-gallon polyethylene glycol improves bowel cleansing for afternoon colonoscopies: A randomized endoscopist-blinded prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2368-74.

  36. Park SS, Sinn DH, Kim YH, Lim YJ, Sun Y, Lee JH, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of split-dose magnesium citrate: Lowvolume (2 liters) polyethylene glycol vs. single- or split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for morning colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1319-26.

  37. Eun CS, Han DS, Hyun YS, Bae JH, Park HS, Kim TY, et al. The timing of bowel preparation is more important than the timing of colonoscopy in determining the quality of bowel cleansing. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 539-44.

  38. Gurudu SR, Ratuapli S, Heigh R, DiBaise J, Leighton J, Crowell M. Quality of bowel cleansing for afternoon colonoscopy is influenced by time of administration. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2318-22.

  39. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The outcome of a second preparation for colonoscopy after preparation failure in the first procedure. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69(3, Pt. 2): 626-30.

  40. Efficacy of mosapride citrate with polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy preparation. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(20): 2517-25.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com