4.3 Article

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy with magnesium sulphate and low-volume polyethylene glycol

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000093

关键词

polyethylene glycol solutions; afternoon; National Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme; colonoscopy; magnesium sulphate; bowel cleansing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patient compliance with bowel cleansing procedures represents one of the most objectionable aspects of colonoscopy. Adverse reactions to the purgative may result in failure to complete the preparation, inadequate visualization of the colon, polyp and even carcinoma miss rate and unwillingness to attend a follow-up colonoscopy. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bowel cleansing with magnesium sulphate and low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with electrolytes. The second objective was to evaluate whether bowel cleansing was better in participants scheduled for morning colonoscopies or afternoon colonoscopies. Patients and methods Magnesium sulphate mineral water (2 l) and 2 l of low-volume PEG and electrolytes solution were used as our bowel cleansing protocol. A total of 13 914 participants, who participated in the Slovenian colorectal cancer screening programme in the period between 2009 and 2011, were included. Results Excellent bowel preparation was achieved in 11 484 (82.61%) participants; 1894 (13.62%) participants had good bowel preparation, 439 (3.16%) participants had fair bowel preparation and 85 (0.61%) participants had poor bowel preparation. Better results were achieved in the afternoon colonoscopies and in younger participant groups (P < 0.001). No serious side effects of bowel cleansing were reported. Conclusion This is the first study to use magnesium sulphate mineral water and PEG plus electrolytes for bowel cleansing. We found excellent bowel cleansing in 82.61% participants and in more participants if colonoscopy was performed in the afternoon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据