Colon cleansing preparation for gastrointestinal procedures

Toledo, Teresa; DiPalma, Jack A.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.00966.x

Cited by 93 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Poorly visualized mucosa leads to missed diagnoses and increases colonoscopic risk [3][4][5] . Even a small amount of residual stool can obscure small lesions such as angiodysplasia [5] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of split-dosingvsnon-split (morning) dosing regimen for assessment of quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Shah

Desai

Samant

et al. 2014

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: To compare (using the Ottawa Bowel PreparationScale) the efficacy of split-dose vs morning administration of polyethylene glycol solution for colon cleansing in patients undergoing colonoscopy, and to assess the optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval. METHODS:Single-centre, prospective, randomized, investigator-blind stud in an academic tertiarycare centre. Two hundred patients requiring elective colonoscopy were assigned to receive one of the two preparation regimens (split vs morning) prior to colonoscopy. Main outcome measurements were bowel preparation quality and patient tolerability. RESULTS:Split-dose regimen resulted in better bowel preparation compared to morning regimen [Ottawa score mean 5.52 (SD 1.23) vs 6.02 (1.34); P = 0.017].On subgroup analysis, for afternoon procedures, both the preparations were equally effective (P = 0.756). There was no difference in tolerability and compliance between the two regimens. CONCLUSION:Overall, previous evening -same morning split-dosing regimen results in better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy compared to morning preparation. For afternoon procedures, both schedules are equally effective; morning preparation may be more convenient to the patient. Key words: Bowel preparation; Colonoscopy; Morning preparation; Split dose preparation; Preparation to colonoscopy interval Core tip: Split bowel reparation compared to single dose morning preparation resulted in a better bowel cleansing using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. The average score (± SD) using the Ottawa Scale was 6.02 ± 1.34 when morning preparation was given and 5.52 ± 1.23 when split preparation was given (P = 0.017). However, there was no statistical difference in the mean Ottawa score when the procedures were done in the afternoon with either the morning or the split preparation (6.09 vs 5.94, P = 0.756). Hence, AM only dosing is as effective as split dosing for patients scheduled for a colonoscopy in the afternoon.

show abstract

“…Poorly visualized mucosa leads to missed diagnoses and increases colonoscopic risk [3][4][5] . Even a small amount of residual stool can obscure small lesions such as angiodysplasia [5] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of split-dosingvsnon-split (morning) dosing regimen for assessment of quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Shah

Desai

Samant

et al. 2014

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Colonoscopy is considered to be the gold standard investigation for assessing colonic lesions; but many factors, such as the quality of bowel preparation, endoscopist, and patient factors, may affect the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety [1][2][3][4][5] . Inadequate bowel preparation has been reported in 10%-75% of colonoscopic examinations [1,3] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inadequate bowel preparation has been reported in 10%-75% of colonoscopic examinations [1,3] . The ideal preparation for colonoscopy should be safe, acceptable to patients with negligible discomfort, and it should take effect on rapid cleansing [2][3][4] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving quality of colonoscopy by adding simethicone to sodium phosphate bowel preparation

Tongprasert

Sobhonslidsuk²,

Rattanasiri³

2009

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To evaluate the effectiveness of simethicone in enhancing visibility and efficacy during colonoscopy. METHODS:A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted. One hundred and twenty-four patients were allocated to receive 2 doses of sodium phosphate plus 240 mg of tablet simethicone or placebo as bowel preparation. Visibility was blindly assessed for the amount of air bubbles and adequacy of colon preparation. Total colonoscopic time, side effects of the medication, endoscopist and patient satisfaction were also compared. RESULTS:Sodium phosphate plus simethicone, compared to sodium phosphate plus placebo, improved visibility by diminishing air bubbles (100.00% vs 42.37%, P < 0.0001) but simethicone failed to demonstrate improvement in adequacy of colon preparation (90.16% vs 81.36%, P = 0.17). Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were increased significantly in the simethicone group. However, there was no difference in the total duration of colonoscopy and side effects of the medication. CONCLUSION:The addition of simethicone is of benefit for colonoscopic bowel preparation by diminishing air bubbles, which results in enhanced visibility. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction is also increased.

show abstract

“…Only 33% of patients had a "clean bowel" while the remainder had either "pools of liquid" (62%) or "solid and liquid" (5%). Whether bowel images can be improved by modified preparation protocols [15] or by "electronic cleansing" [16] remains unclear. Intravenous Buscopan is not routinely used during CT colonography but does enhance colonic distension [17] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-center study comparing computed tomography colonography with conventional colonoscopy

Roberts‐Thomson

Tucker²,

Hewett³

et al. 2008

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

diagnosis of cancer, eight (89%) were identified by CT colonography as masses (5) or polyps (3). For polyps analyzed according to polyp, the overall sensitivity of CT colonography was 50% (95% CI, 39%-61%) but this increased to 71% (95% CI, 52%-85%) for polyps ≥ 6 mm in size. Similarly, specificity for all polyps was 48% (95% CI, 39%-58%) increasing to 67% (95% CI, 56%-76%) for polyps ≥ 6 mm. Adverse events were uncommon but included one colonic perforation at colonoscopy. Patient acceptance was high for both procedures but preference favoured CT colonography. CONCLUSION:Although CT colonography was more sensitive in this study than in some previous studies, the procedure is not yet sensitive enough for widespread application in symptomatic patients.

show abstract

Colon cleansing preparation for gastrointestinal procedures

Cited by 93 publications

References 65 publications

Comparison of split-dosingvsnon-split (morning) dosing regimen for assessment of quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Comparison of split-dosingvsnon-split (morning) dosing regimen for assessment of quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Improving quality of colonoscopy by adding simethicone to sodium phosphate bowel preparation

Single-center study comparing computed tomography colonography with conventional colonoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About