Cargando…

Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2

BACKGROUND: Bristol stool form 1 and 2 is an important predictor of inadequate bowel preparation. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of supplemental preparation in bowel cleansing quality among patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2, as well as the feasibility of tailored bowel preparation guided by Br...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yueyue, Jia, Xinyong, Liu, Baozhen, Qi, Yanmei, Zhang, Xiubin, Ji, Rui, Yu, Yanbo, Zuo, Xiuli, Li, Yanqing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5328251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28241037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171563
_version_ 1782510869981167616
author Li, Yueyue
Jia, Xinyong
Liu, Baozhen
Qi, Yanmei
Zhang, Xiubin
Ji, Rui
Yu, Yanbo
Zuo, Xiuli
Li, Yanqing
author_facet Li, Yueyue
Jia, Xinyong
Liu, Baozhen
Qi, Yanmei
Zhang, Xiubin
Ji, Rui
Yu, Yanbo
Zuo, Xiuli
Li, Yanqing
author_sort Li, Yueyue
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Bristol stool form 1 and 2 is an important predictor of inadequate bowel preparation. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of supplemental preparation in bowel cleansing quality among patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2, as well as the feasibility of tailored bowel preparation guided by Bristol stool form scale. METHODS: Patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2 from 3 Chinese tertiary hospitals randomly received either 2 L PEG-ELP (group A) or 10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP (group B); patients with Bristol stool form 3 to 7 received 2 L PEG-ELP (group C) for bowel preparation. The primary endpoint is the rate of adequate bowel reparation for the whole colon. The adequate bowel preparation rate for separate colon segments, the polyp detection rate (PDR), tolerability, acceptability, sleeping quality and compliance were evaluated as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: 700 patients were randomized. In per-protocol analysis, patients in group B attained significantly higher successful preparation rate than group A (88.7% vs. 61.2%, p<0.001) and similar with group C (88.7% vs. 85.0%, p = 0.316). The PDR in group B was significantly higher than group A (43.2% vs. 25.7%, p<0.001). Acceptability was much higher in group B and C. CONCLUSIONS: 10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP can significantly improve both bowel preparation quality and PDR in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2. Bristol stool form scale may be an easy and efficient guide for tailored bowel preparation before colonoscopy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5328251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53282512017-03-09 Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2 Li, Yueyue Jia, Xinyong Liu, Baozhen Qi, Yanmei Zhang, Xiubin Ji, Rui Yu, Yanbo Zuo, Xiuli Li, Yanqing PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Bristol stool form 1 and 2 is an important predictor of inadequate bowel preparation. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of supplemental preparation in bowel cleansing quality among patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2, as well as the feasibility of tailored bowel preparation guided by Bristol stool form scale. METHODS: Patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2 from 3 Chinese tertiary hospitals randomly received either 2 L PEG-ELP (group A) or 10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP (group B); patients with Bristol stool form 3 to 7 received 2 L PEG-ELP (group C) for bowel preparation. The primary endpoint is the rate of adequate bowel reparation for the whole colon. The adequate bowel preparation rate for separate colon segments, the polyp detection rate (PDR), tolerability, acceptability, sleeping quality and compliance were evaluated as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: 700 patients were randomized. In per-protocol analysis, patients in group B attained significantly higher successful preparation rate than group A (88.7% vs. 61.2%, p<0.001) and similar with group C (88.7% vs. 85.0%, p = 0.316). The PDR in group B was significantly higher than group A (43.2% vs. 25.7%, p<0.001). Acceptability was much higher in group B and C. CONCLUSIONS: 10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP can significantly improve both bowel preparation quality and PDR in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2. Bristol stool form scale may be an easy and efficient guide for tailored bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Public Library of Science 2017-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5328251/ /pubmed/28241037 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171563 Text en © 2017 Li et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Yueyue
Jia, Xinyong
Liu, Baozhen
Qi, Yanmei
Zhang, Xiubin
Ji, Rui
Yu, Yanbo
Zuo, Xiuli
Li, Yanqing
Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2
title Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2
title_full Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2
title_fullStr Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2
title_full_unstemmed Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2
title_short Randomized controlled trial: Standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2
title_sort randomized controlled trial: standard versus supplemental bowel preparation in patients with bristol stool form 1 and 2
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5328251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28241037
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171563
work_keys_str_mv AT liyueyue randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT jiaxinyong randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT liubaozhen randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT qiyanmei randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT zhangxiubin randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT jirui randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT yuyanbo randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT zuoxiuli randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2
AT liyanqing randomizedcontrolledtrialstandardversussupplementalbowelpreparationinpatientswithbristolstoolform1and2