Can mosapride citrate reduce the volume of lavage solution for colonoscopy preparation?

被引:24
作者
Tajika, Masahiro [1 ]
Niwa, Yasumasa [1 ]
Bhatia, Vikram [2 ]
Kondo, Shinya [1 ]
Tanaka, Tsutomu [1 ]
Mizuno, Nobumasa [3 ]
Hara, Kazuo [3 ]
Hijioka, Susumu [3 ]
Imaoka, Hiroshi [3 ]
Komori, Koji [4 ]
Yamao, Kenji [3 ]
机构
[1] Aichi Canc Ctr Hosp, Dept Endoscopy, Nagoya, Aichi 4648681, Japan
[2] Inst Liver & Biliary Sci, Dept Med Hepatol, New Delhi 110070, India
[3] Aichi Canc Ctr Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, Nagoya, Aichi 4648681, Japan
[4] Aichi Canc Ctr Hosp, Dept Surg Gastroenterol, Nagoya, Aichi 4648681, Japan
关键词
Mosapride citrate; Bowel preparation; Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution; Prokinetics; Colonoscopy; GLYCOL-ELECTROLYTE LAVAGE; ORAL SODIUM-PHOSPHATE; POLYETHYLENE-GLYCOL; BOWEL PREPARATION; SCREENING COLONOSCOPY; PREPARATION QUALITY; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; COLON; CISAPRIDE; BISACODYL;
D O I
10.3748/wjg.v19.i5.727
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
AIM: To evaluate the possibility of reducing the volume of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte solution using adjunctive mosapride citrate for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, non-inferiority study involving 252 patients of both sexes, aged from 20 to 80 years, scheduled for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy in our department. A total of 126 patients was randomized to receive 1.5 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride (1.5 L group), and 126 received 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride (2 L group). Patients completed a questionnaire on the acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparation process. The efficacy of bowel preparation was assessed using a 5-point scale based on the Aronchick scale. The primary end point was adequate bowel preparation rates (score of excellent/good/fair) vs (poor/inadequate). Acceptability and tolerability, as well as disease detection, were secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients was included in the analysis. There were no significant differences between the 2 L and 1.5 L groups in age, sex, body mass index, number of previous colonoscopies, and the preparation method used previously. The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5% in the 2 L group and 82.8% in the 1.5 L group [95% lower confidence limit (LCL) for the difference = -14.5%, non-inferiority P = 0.019] in the right colon. In the left colon, the adequate bowel preparation rates were 89.3% in the 2 L group and 81.1% in the 1.5 L group (95% LCL = -17.0%, non-inferiority P = 0.066). Compliance, defined as complete (100%) intake of the PEG solution, was significantly higher in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group (96.8% vs 85.7%, P = 0.002). The proportion of abdominal distension (none/mild/moderate/severe) was significantly lower in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group (36/65/22/3 vs 58/48/18/2, P = 0.040). Within the subgroup who had undergone colonoscopy previously, a significantly higher number of patients in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group felt that the current preparation was easier than the previous one (54.1% vs 28.0%, P = 0.001). The disease detection rate was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Although the 1.5 L group had better acceptability and tolerability, 15 mg of mosapride may be insufficient to compensate for a 0.5-L reduction of PEG solution. (C) 2013 Baishideng. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:727 / 735
页数:9
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]
ADAMS WJ, 1994, DIS COLON RECTUM, V37, P229, DOI 10.1007/BF02048160
[2]
ADAMS WJ, 1994, DIS COLON RECTUM, V37, P233, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02048160
[3]
A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda [J].
Aronchick, CA ;
Lipshutz, WH ;
Wright, SH ;
Dufrayne, F ;
Bergman, G .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2000, 52 (03) :346-352
[4]
Effect of mosapride on glycemic control and gastric emptying in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with gastropathy [J].
Asakawa, H ;
Hayashi, I ;
Fukui, T ;
Tokunaga, K .
DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2003, 61 (03) :175-182
[5]
Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol [J].
Belsey, J. ;
Epstein, O. ;
Heresbach, D. .
ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2009, 29 (01) :15-28
[6]
BRADY CE, 1985, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V80, P180
[7]
The impact of colon preparation timing on colonoscopic detection of colorectal neoplasms - A prospective endoscopist-blinded randomized trial [J].
Chiu, Han-Mo ;
Lin, Jaw-Town ;
Wang, Hsiu-Po ;
Lee, Yi-Chia ;
Wu, Ming-Shiang .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (12) :2719-2725
[8]
Clinical trial: 2-L polyethylene glycol-based lavage solutions for colonoscopy preparation - a randomized, single-blind study of two formulations [J].
Cohen, L. B. ;
Sanyal, S. M. ;
von Althann, C. ;
Bodian, C. ;
Whitson, M. ;
Bamji, N. ;
Miller, K. M. ;
Mavronicolas, W. ;
Burd, S. ;
Freedman, J. ;
Aisenberg, J. .
ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2010, 32 (05) :637-644
[9]
Comparison of reduced volume Versus four liters sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing [J].
DiPalma, JA ;
Wolff, BG ;
Meagher, A ;
Cleveland, MV .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2003, 98 (10) :2187-2191
[10]
Biochemical effects of oral sodium phosphate [J].
DiPalma, JA ;
Buckley, SE ;
Warner, BA ;
Culpepper, RM .
DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 1996, 41 (04) :749-753