Clinical effect of oral olive oil combined with polyethylene glycol electrolyte on bowel preparation for chronic constipation patients

Xiao‐hou Xi, Mingxin Zhang, Liping Cui, Qiang Lin, Weijia Dou, Shuguang Zhao, Liu Zhenxiong, Xuxia Wang, Jing-Jie Wang
{"title":"Clinical effect of oral olive oil combined with polyethylene glycol electrolyte on bowel preparation for chronic constipation patients","authors":"Xiao‐hou Xi, Mingxin Zhang, Liping Cui, Qiang Lin, Weijia Dou, Shuguang Zhao, Liu Zhenxiong, Xuxia Wang, Jing-Jie Wang","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1007-5232.2019.03.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral olive oil combined with polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) on bowel preparation before colonoscopy for chronic constipation patients. \n \n \nMethods \nA randomized, single-blind, prospective study was conducted on 180 patients with chronic constipation, who underwent colonoscopy at Tangdu Hospital of the Fourth Military Medical University from November 2017 to May 2018. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group A took 60 mL olive oil and a piece of crystal sugar at 7: 30 pm the day before colonoscopy, followed by 1 500 mL PEG at 8: 00 pm before the test, and 1 500 mL PEG at 5: 00 am the day of colonoscopy. Patients in group B took 60 mL olive oil and a piece of crystal sugar after administration of PEG at 8: 00 pm the day before colonoscopy, followed by 1 500 mL PEG at 5: 00 am the day of colonoscopy. The group C was given 1 500 mL PEG at 8: 00 pm the day before colonoscopy, and another 1 500 mL PEG at 5: 00 am the day of colonoscopy. We recorded the time of first defecation after taking medication, the number of defecation before sleep, the total number of defecation, the score of Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) of the right, middle and left colon, and the adverse reactions, and compared the data among the three groups. The measurement data was compared using the analysis of variance. After the difference was found, the LSD-t test was used to compare between the two groups. The enumeration data was compared using the Pearson χ2 test. \n \n \nResults \nOne patient in the group B terminated colonoscopy due to unable to continue cooperation during the examination. Group B and C both excluded one patient because of a large mass found in the descending colon of patients. Finally, there were 60 cases in the group A, 58 in the group B, and 59 in the group C. There was no statistical difference between the three groups in the general resource (P>0.05). The time of first defecation after taking medication for the group A, B and C was (2.25±2.32) h, (2.43±2.39) h and (3.36±2.79) h respectively, with statistical difference (F=3.36, P=0.037). The time of first defecation was longer in the group C than that of the group A and B (P=0.016 and P=0.046, respectively). The number of defecation before sleep for the group A, B and C was 3.47±2.09, 3.24±1.76 and 2.49±1.58 respectively, with statistical difference (F=4.65, P=0.011). The number of defecation before sleep was lesser in the group C than that of the group A and B (P=0.004, P=0.027, respectively). The total number of defecation for the group A, B and C was 7.20±2.67, 6.81±2.31 and 5.64±2.22 respectively. The difference among the three groups was statistically significant (F=6.68, P=0.002). For the group A and B, the total number of defecation was both more than that of the group C (P=0.001, P=0.010). There were no statistical differences among the three groups in the BBPS score of the left and middle colon and the total BBPS score (all P>0.05). The BBPS score of the right colon for the group A, B and C was 2.03±0.82, 1.95±0.87 and 1.53±0.80 respectively, with statistical difference (F=6.38, P=0.002), and was lower in the group C than that of the group A and B (P=0.001, P=0.006, respectively). Adverse reactions after taking medication including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and bloating were respectively reported in 7, 3, 0 and 3 cases in the group A, 5, 3, 0 and 6 in the group B, and 4, 2, 1 and 4 in the group C, and there was no statistical difference among the three groups (χ2=4.35, P=0.824). \n \n \nConclusion \nAdministration of olive oil compared with PEG can improve the cleanness of right colon for chronic constipation patients, shorten the time of first defecation after taking medication, and increase the number of defecation before sleep and the total number of defecation during bowel preparation. Taking olive oil before or after PEG at the night before colonoscopy has no significantly effect on bowel preparation and adverse reactions. \n \n \nKey words: \nColonoscopy; Olive oil; Polyethylene glycol electrolyte; Chronic constipation; Bowel preparation","PeriodicalId":10072,"journal":{"name":"中华消化内镜杂志","volume":"36 1","pages":"193-197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华消化内镜杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1007-5232.2019.03.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral olive oil combined with polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) on bowel preparation before colonoscopy for chronic constipation patients. Methods A randomized, single-blind, prospective study was conducted on 180 patients with chronic constipation, who underwent colonoscopy at Tangdu Hospital of the Fourth Military Medical University from November 2017 to May 2018. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group A took 60 mL olive oil and a piece of crystal sugar at 7: 30 pm the day before colonoscopy, followed by 1 500 mL PEG at 8: 00 pm before the test, and 1 500 mL PEG at 5: 00 am the day of colonoscopy. Patients in group B took 60 mL olive oil and a piece of crystal sugar after administration of PEG at 8: 00 pm the day before colonoscopy, followed by 1 500 mL PEG at 5: 00 am the day of colonoscopy. The group C was given 1 500 mL PEG at 8: 00 pm the day before colonoscopy, and another 1 500 mL PEG at 5: 00 am the day of colonoscopy. We recorded the time of first defecation after taking medication, the number of defecation before sleep, the total number of defecation, the score of Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) of the right, middle and left colon, and the adverse reactions, and compared the data among the three groups. The measurement data was compared using the analysis of variance. After the difference was found, the LSD-t test was used to compare between the two groups. The enumeration data was compared using the Pearson χ2 test. Results One patient in the group B terminated colonoscopy due to unable to continue cooperation during the examination. Group B and C both excluded one patient because of a large mass found in the descending colon of patients. Finally, there were 60 cases in the group A, 58 in the group B, and 59 in the group C. There was no statistical difference between the three groups in the general resource (P>0.05). The time of first defecation after taking medication for the group A, B and C was (2.25±2.32) h, (2.43±2.39) h and (3.36±2.79) h respectively, with statistical difference (F=3.36, P=0.037). The time of first defecation was longer in the group C than that of the group A and B (P=0.016 and P=0.046, respectively). The number of defecation before sleep for the group A, B and C was 3.47±2.09, 3.24±1.76 and 2.49±1.58 respectively, with statistical difference (F=4.65, P=0.011). The number of defecation before sleep was lesser in the group C than that of the group A and B (P=0.004, P=0.027, respectively). The total number of defecation for the group A, B and C was 7.20±2.67, 6.81±2.31 and 5.64±2.22 respectively. The difference among the three groups was statistically significant (F=6.68, P=0.002). For the group A and B, the total number of defecation was both more than that of the group C (P=0.001, P=0.010). There were no statistical differences among the three groups in the BBPS score of the left and middle colon and the total BBPS score (all P>0.05). The BBPS score of the right colon for the group A, B and C was 2.03±0.82, 1.95±0.87 and 1.53±0.80 respectively, with statistical difference (F=6.38, P=0.002), and was lower in the group C than that of the group A and B (P=0.001, P=0.006, respectively). Adverse reactions after taking medication including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and bloating were respectively reported in 7, 3, 0 and 3 cases in the group A, 5, 3, 0 and 6 in the group B, and 4, 2, 1 and 4 in the group C, and there was no statistical difference among the three groups (χ2=4.35, P=0.824). Conclusion Administration of olive oil compared with PEG can improve the cleanness of right colon for chronic constipation patients, shorten the time of first defecation after taking medication, and increase the number of defecation before sleep and the total number of defecation during bowel preparation. Taking olive oil before or after PEG at the night before colonoscopy has no significantly effect on bowel preparation and adverse reactions. Key words: Colonoscopy; Olive oil; Polyethylene glycol electrolyte; Chronic constipation; Bowel preparation
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口服橄榄油联合聚乙二醇电解质对慢性便秘患者肠道准备的临床影响
目的探讨口服橄榄油联合聚乙二醇电解质(PEG)对慢性便秘患者结肠镜检查前肠道准备的有效性和安全性。方法对2017年11月至2018年5月在第四军医大学唐都医院接受结肠镜检查的180例慢性便秘患者进行随机、单盲、前瞻性研究。患者被随机分为三组。A组患者在结肠镜检查前一天晚上7:30服用60mL橄榄油和一块冰糖,然后在测试前晚上8:00服用1500mL PEG,并在结肠镜当天早上5:00服用1500mL聚乙二醇。B组患者在结肠镜检查前一天晚上8:00服用PEG后,服用60mL橄榄油和一块冰糖,然后在结肠镜当天早上5:00服用1500mL PEG。C组在结肠镜检查前一天晚上8点给药1500 mL PEG,在结肠镜检当天早上5点给药1 500 mL PEG。我们记录了服药后首次排便的时间、睡前排便次数、排便总数、右、中、左结肠波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分和不良反应,并比较了三组之间的数据。使用方差分析对测量数据进行比较。发现差异后,使用LSD-t检验对两组进行比较。计数数据采用Pearsonχ2检验进行比较。结果B组1例患者因检查过程中无法继续配合而终止结肠镜检查。B组和C组都排除了一名患者,因为在患者的降结肠中发现了大的肿块。最后,A组60例,B组58例,C组59例。三组在一般资源上无统计学差异(P>0.05)。A、B和C组服药后首次排便时间分别为(2.25±2.32)h、(2.43±2.39)h和(3.36±2.79)h,差异有统计学意义(F=3.36,P=0.037)。C组首次排便时间长于A组和B组(分别为P=0.016和P=0.046)。A、B和C组的睡前排便次数分别为3.47±2.09、3.24±1.76和2.49±1.58,差异有统计学意义(F=4.65,P=0.011)。A、B和C组的排便总数分别为7.20±2.67、6.81±2.31和5.64±2.22。三组之间的差异具有统计学意义(F=6.68,P=0.002)。A组和B组的排便总数均多于C组(P=0.001,P=0.010)。三组之间左、中结肠的BBPS评分和总BBPS评分没有统计学差异(均P>0.05),B和C分别为2.03±0.82、1.95±0.87和1.53±0.80,具有统计学差异(F=6.38,P=0.002),并且C组低于A和B组(分别为P=0.001,P=0.006)。服药后的不良反应包括恶心、呕吐、腹痛和腹胀,A组分别报告7例、3例、0例和3例,B组分别报告5例、3例行、0例行和6例行,C组分别报告4例、2例行、1例行和4例行,结论橄榄油组与PEG组相比,能提高慢性便秘患者右半结肠的清洁度,缩短用药后首次排便时间,增加睡前排便次数和排便准备总次数。结肠镜检查前一晚在PEG之前或之后服用橄榄油对肠道准备和不良反应没有显著影响。关键词:结肠镜检查;橄榄油;聚乙二醇电解质;慢性便秘;肠道准备
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7555
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy is a high-level medical academic journal specializing in digestive endoscopy, which was renamed Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy in August 1996 from Endoscopy. Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy mainly reports the leading scientific research results of esophagoscopy, gastroscopy, duodenoscopy, choledochoscopy, laparoscopy, colorectoscopy, small enteroscopy, sigmoidoscopy, etc. and the progress of their equipments and technologies at home and abroad, as well as the clinical diagnosis and treatment experience. The main columns are: treatises, abstracts of treatises, clinical reports, technical exchanges, special case reports and endoscopic complications. The target readers are digestive system diseases and digestive endoscopy workers who are engaged in medical treatment, teaching and scientific research. Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy has been indexed by ISTIC, PKU, CSAD, WPRIM.
期刊最新文献
Risk assessment of cirrhosis patients with esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding by three scoring systems Effects of peroral endoscopic myotomy on esophageal motility in patients with achalasia Efficacy of hemostatic powder on preventing delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial Comparison of long-term outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery on treatment of early esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma Clinical, endoscopic and pathological features of early Barrett esophageal adenocarcinoma and its treatment efficacy by endoscopic submucosal dissection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1