Comparison of polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate and sennoside for colonoscopy preparation

Year 2018, , 74 - 77, 28.12.2018

Mustafa Kaplan

https://doi.org/10.17940/endoskopi.437152

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Background and aim: The efficiency,
cecal intubation rate and side effects of colonoscopy preparation with polyethylene
glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate and sennosid were compared in this study.

Material
and Methods: This study was carried out retrospectively by
investigating the records of patients undergoing colonoscopy between July 2017
and March 2018.The patients were divided into 3 groups: PEG, sodium phosphate
and sennoside group. Patients with dietary incompatibility, renal
insufficiency, intestinal obstruction, active infection, active bleeding and who
took fewer than 75% of medications were excluded from the study. Bowel
preperation was evaluated in 4 groups as excellent,
good, moderate and poor.

Results: The
study population was consisted of 269 persons, 129 female (48%) and 140 male
(52%) patients. The average age of the patients was 55 years. When all patients
were examined, the excellent cleaning
rate was 38%, the good cleaning rate
was 17%, the moderate cleaning rate
was 26% and the poor cleaning rate
was 19%. The adequate cleaning rate was found 52% in the sennoside group, 50%
in the sodium phosphate group and 66% in the PEG group. In this study, total cecal
intubation rate was 90%. The cecal intubation rate was 100% in the PEG group,
87% in the sennoside group and 85% in the sodium phosphate group. The most common
side effects in patients were nausea / vomiting (12%) and abdominal pain (9%).

Conclusion: Colonoscopy
preparation with PEG is a more effective method than preparation with sennoside
and sodium phosphate.

Keywords

Polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, sennoside, PEG

Kolonoskopi hazırlığı için polietilen glikol, sodyum fosfat ve sennosid kullanımının karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu
çalışmada kolonoskopi hazırlığı için kullanılan polietilen glikol (PEG), sodyum
fosfat ve sennosidin etkinlikleri, çekuma ulaşma oranları ve yan etkileri karşılaştırılmıştır.

Yöntem: Bu
çalışma Temmuz 2017-Mart 2018 tarihleri arasında kolonoskopi
yapılan hastaların kayıtları retrospektif incelenerek yapılmıştır. Hastalar 3
gruba bölünmüştür: PEG, sodyum fosfat ve sennosid grubu. Diyet
uyumsuzluğu olan, ilaçların %75’ten azını içen, renal yetmezlik, intestinal obstruksiyon, aktif enfeksiyon
ve aktif kanaması olan hastalar çalışmadan dışlanmıştır. Kolon temizliği mükemmel, iyi, orta ve kötü olmak üzere 4 grupta
değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Araştırma
popülasyonu 129 kadın (%48) ve 140 erkek (%52) 
erkek hasta olmak üzere 269 kişiden oluştu. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 55
yıldı. Tüm hastalar incelendiğinde mükemmel
temizlik oranı % 38, iyi temizlik
oranı %17, orta temizlik oranı %26 ve
kötü temizlik oranı %19 olarak
bulundu. Sennosid grubunda yeterli temizlik oranı %52, sodyum fosfat grubunda
%50 ve PEG grubunda %66 olarak bulundu. Çalışmada 242 hastada çekuma ulaşıldı (%90).
Çekuma ulaşma oranı PEG grubunda %100 iken sennosid grubunda %87 ve sodyum
fosfat grubunda %85 olarak bulunmuştur. Hastalarda en sık görülen yan etkiler ise
bulantı/kusma (%12) ve karın ağrısı idi (%9).

Sonuç: PEG ile
kolonoskopi hazırlığı sennosid ve sodyum fosfat ile hazırlığa göre daha efektif
bir yöntemdir.

Keywords

Polietilen glikol, sodyum fosfat, sennosid, PEG

References

• 1- Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003 Feb; 124(2):544-60.
• 2- Boyle P, Leon ME. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer. Br Med Bull. 2002; 64(1):1-25.
• 3- Fayad NF, Kahi CJ. Colonoscopy quality assessment. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015 Apr; 25(2):373-86.
• 4- 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.
• 5- Valverde A, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, et al. Senna vs polyethyleneglycol for mechanical preparation the eveningbefore elective colonic or rectal resection: a multicentercontrolled trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 1999;134:514-19.
• 6- Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WG, Prentice RS, Da Costa LR, Beck IT. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1990; 85: 422-427.
• 7- Kojecky V, Dolina J, Kianicka B, et al. A single or split dose picosulphate/magnesium citrate before colonoscopy: comparison regarding tolerance and efficacy with polyethylene glycol. A randomized trial. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2014 Jun; 23(2):141-6.
• 8- Bektaş H, Balık E, Bilsel Y, et al. Comparison of sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol, and senna solutions in bowel preparation: A prospective, randomizedcontrolled clinical study. Digestive Endoscopy 2005;17:290-96.
• 9- İlker SÜCÜLLÜ, A.İlker FİLİZ, Oğuz OKUL, Ergün YÜCEL, Yavuz KURT, M. Levhi AKIN. Kolonoskopi Öncesi Barsak Temizliğinde Sodyum Fosfat ve Sennosid’in Karşılaştırılması: Prospektif Randomize Çalışma. Kolon Rektum Hast. Derg. 2008; 133-137.
• 10- Yekta TÜZÜN, Coflkun BEYAZ, Mustafa YAKUT, Şerif YILMAZ, Kadim BAYAN, Mehmet DURSUN, Fikri CANORUÇ. Konstipasyonlu bireylerin kolonoskopi hazırlığında polietilen glikol ile sodyum fosfatın etkinlik ve güvenilirliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Endoskopi Dergisi, 2009; 17(1): 23-27.
• 11-Lee SW, Bang CS, Park TY, Suk KT, Baik GH, Kim DJ. Split-dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: 2 Liters Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid versus Sodium Picosulfate versus Oral Sodium Phosphate Tablets. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 25;70(2):89-95.
• 12- Cheng J, Tao K, Shuai X, Gao J. Sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):4033-41.
• 13- De Salvo L, Borgonovo G, Ansaldo GL, et al. The bowel cleansing for colonoscopy. A randomized trial comparing three methods. Ann Ital Chir. 2006 Mar-Apr;77(2):143-6;
• 14-Van Gorkom BA, Karrenbeld A, Limburg AJ, Kleibeuker JH. The effect of sennosides on colonic mucosal histology and bowel preparation. Z Gastroenterol. 1998 Jan;36(1):13-8.
• 15- Bechtold ML, Choudhary A. Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: a continual search for excellence. World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan 14;19(2):155-7.
• 16-Singh HK, Withers GD, Ee LC. Quality indicators in pediatric colonoscopy: an Australian tertiary center experience. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec;52(12):1453-1456.
• 17-Valori RM, Damery S, Gavin DR,et al. A new composite measure of colonoscopy: the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI). Endoscopy. 2018 Jan;50(1):40-51.
• 18- Leitao K, Grimstad T, Bretthauer M, et al. Polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation. Endosc Int Open. 2014 Dec;2(4):E230-4.
• 19-Yoon Suk Jung, Chang Kyun Lee, Hyo Jong Kim, Chang Soo Eun, Dong Soo Han, Dong Il Park. Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets vspolyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov 14; 20(42): 15845–15851.