4-Liter Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Is Superior to Other Bowel Preparations, Based on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:207
作者
Enestvedt, Brintha K. [1 ]
Tofani, Christina [2 ]
Laine, Loren A. [4 ]
Tierney, Ann [3 ]
Fennerty, M. Brian [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Div Gastroenterol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Dept Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Univ Penn, Ctr Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Yale Univ, Sect Digest Dis, New Haven, CT USA
[5] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Div Gastroenterol, Portland, OR 97201 USA
关键词
Colorectal Cancer Screening; Visualization; Diagnostic Accuracy; Clinical Trial; ELECTROLYTE-SOLUTION; BLIND TRIAL; VOLUME PEG; COLONOSCOPY; EFFICACY; TOLERABILITY; QUALITY; IMPACT; MIRALAX;
D O I
10.1016/j.cgh.2012.08.029
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
100201 [内科学];
摘要
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions are used commonly in bowel preparation, but their poor palatability and large volumes (4 L) influence compliance. Adjunct therapies, such as bisacodyl, split-dose regimens, and lower-volume regimens have been tested. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a 4-L split dose of PEG is better than others for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database, recent abstracts from major conference proceedings, references from selected reviews and randomized trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and Google Scholar, through September 2011, for high-quality, randomized trials that compared 4-L split-dose PEG without adjunct therapy with other bowel preparation methods. Nine of 2477 trials considered were used in the analysis. We calculated pooled estimates of bowel preparation quality (primary outcome: excellent or good), preparation compliance, favorable overall experiences, willingness to repeat same preparation, and side effects. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios by fixed-and random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and publication bias. RESULTS: The overall pooled odds ratio for excellent or good bowel preparation quality for 4-L split-dose PEG was 3.46, compared with other methods (95% confidence interval, 2.45-4.89; P < .01). Although there was significant heterogeneity in results among studies, 7 of 9 reported a significant benefit from the 4-L split-dose PEG preparation. There were no significant differences between PEG and others in preparation compliance, favorable overall experience, willingness to repeat the same preparation, abdominal cramping, nausea, or sleep disturbance. There was no significant publication bias based on funnel plot. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis showed that 4-L split-dose PEG is better than other bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy. Significant heterogeneity among studies might result from differences in patient demographics and protocols. A 4-L split dose of PEG should be considered the standard with which new bowel preparation methods are compared.
引用
收藏
页码:1225 / 1231
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]
A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of the adjunct use of tegaserod in whole-dose or split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation [J].
Abdul-Baki, Heitham ;
Hashash, Jana G. ;
ElHajj, Ihab I. ;
Azar, Cecilio ;
El Zahabi, Lara ;
Mourad, Fadi H. ;
Barada, Kassem A. ;
Sharara, Ala I. .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2008, 68 (02) :294-300
[2]
A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation [J].
Aoun, E ;
Abdul-Baki, H ;
Azar, C ;
Mourad, F ;
Barada, K ;
Berro, Z ;
Tarchichi, M ;
Sharara, AI .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 62 (02) :213-218
[3]
Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy [J].
Chokshi, Reena V. ;
Hovis, Christine E. ;
Hollander, Thomas ;
Early, Dayna S. ;
Wang, Jean S. .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 75 (06) :1197-1203
[4]
Low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid versus high-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy [J].
Corporaal, Sietske ;
Kleibeuker, Jan H. ;
Koornstra, Jan J. .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2010, 45 (11) :1380-1386
[5]
A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*) [J].
Ell, C ;
Fischbach, W ;
Keller, R ;
Dehe, M ;
Mayer, G ;
Schneider, B ;
Albrecht, U ;
Schuette, W .
ENDOSCOPY, 2003, 35 (04) :300-304
[6]
Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG plus electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy [J].
Ell, Christian ;
Fischbach, Wolfgang ;
Bronisch, Hans-Joachim ;
Dertinger, Stefan ;
Layer, Peter ;
Ruenzi, Michael ;
Schneider, Thomas ;
Kachel, Guenther ;
Grueger, Joerg ;
Koellinger, Michael ;
Nagell, Waltraud ;
Goerg, Karl-Josel ;
Wanitschke, Roland ;
Gruss, Hans-Juergen .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2008, 103 (04) :883-893
[7]
Randomised clinical trial: MiraLAX vs. Golytely - a controlled study of efficacy and patient tolerability in bowel preparation for colonoscopy [J].
Enestvedt, B. K. ;
Fennerty, M. B. ;
Eisen, G. M. .
ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2011, 33 (01) :33-40
[8]
Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study [J].
Froehlich, F ;
Wietlisbach, V ;
Gonvers, JJ ;
Burnand, B ;
Vader, JP .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 61 (03) :378-384
[9]
Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia [J].
Harewood, GC ;
Sharma, VK ;
de Garmo, P .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2003, 58 (01) :76-79
[10]
MiraLAX Is Not as Effective as GoLytely in Bowel Cleansing Before Screening Colonoscopies [J].
Hjelkrem, Michael ;
Stengel, Joel ;
Liu, Mark ;
Jones, David P. ;
Harrison, Stephen A. .
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2011, 9 (04) :326-U74