These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 2-Litre polyethylene glycol-citrate-simethicone plus bisacodyl versus 4-litre polyethylene glycol as preparation for colonoscopy in chronic constipation.
    Author: Parente F, Vailati C, Bargiggia S, Manes G, Fontana P, Masci E, Arena M, Spinzi G, Baccarin A, Mazzoleni G, Testoni PA.
    Journal: Dig Liver Dis; 2015 Oct; 47(10):857-63. PubMed ID: 26232311.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Chronic constipation is a risk factor of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, no large clinical trials have been performed in this subgroup of patients. AIMS: To compare bowel cleansing efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of 2-L polyethylene-glycol-citrate-simethicone (PEG-CS) plus 2-day bisacodyl (reinforced regimen) vs. 4-L PEG in patients with chronic constipation undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Randomized, observer-blind, parallel group study. Adult outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly allocated to 2-L PEG-CS/bisacodyl or 4-L PEG, taken as split regimens before colonoscopy. Quality of bowel preparation was assessed by the Ottawa Bowel Cleansing Scale (OBCS). The amount of foam/bubble interfering with colonic visualization was also measured. RESULTS: 400 patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference in successful cleansing (OBCS score ≤6): 80.2% in the 2-L PEG-CS/bisacodyl vs. 81.4% in the 4-L PEG group. Significantly more patients taking 2L PEG-CS/bisacodyl showed no or minimal foam/bubbles in all colonic segments (80% vs. 63%; p<0.001). 2-L PEG-CS/bisacodyl was significantly more acceptable for ease of administration (p<0.001), willingness to repeat (p<0.001) and showed better compliance (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Split 2-L PEG-CS plus bisacodyl was not superior to split 4-L PEG for colonoscopy bowel cleansing in patients with chronic constipation; however, it performed better than the standard regimen in terms of colonic mucosa visualization, patient acceptance and compliance.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]