Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department: High- Volume vs. Low-Volume Peg Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

IF 1.4 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Reviews on recent clinical trials Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.2174/1574887117666220908152754
Angela Saviano, Carmine Petruzziello, Maria Elena Riccioni, Marcello Di Pumpo, Martina Petrucci, Mattia Brigida, Christian Zanza, Marcello Candelli, Francesco Franceschi, Veronica Ojetti
{"title":"Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department: High- Volume vs. Low-Volume Peg Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.","authors":"Angela Saviano,&nbsp;Carmine Petruzziello,&nbsp;Maria Elena Riccioni,&nbsp;Marcello Di Pumpo,&nbsp;Martina Petrucci,&nbsp;Mattia Brigida,&nbsp;Christian Zanza,&nbsp;Marcello Candelli,&nbsp;Francesco Franceschi,&nbsp;Veronica Ojetti","doi":"10.2174/1574887117666220908152754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of admission to the Emergency Department (ED). Early colonoscopy is the exam of choice for evaluating LGIB, and an adequate colon cleansing is essential. High-volume solution 4L-PEG is largely used, but it has some limitations. Low-volume solution 2L-PEG may improve patient's tolerability and compliance, reducing the time of administration and speeding up the exam.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized 1:1, prospective observational monocentric study in 228 patients (144M/84F) with LGIB. 121 (69M/52F) received the High-Volume, while 107 (75M/32F) received Low-Volume. They completed a \"satisfaction questionnaire\" (taste and smell, mood, time of taking, general experience). We collected the results of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and the final diagnosis. The study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrial.gov with protocol number NCT0536 2227.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A mean value of BBPS 6,3 was achieved by both groups (p=0.57). Regarding smell, taste, mood and time of taking (1 to 5), we do not find any statistically differences. The overall satisfaction between the two preparations was 2.90 for low-volume compared to 3.17 for Highvolume (p=0.06). No side effects were reported. The proportion of patients without an evident source of bleeding was higher in High volume preparations compared to Low-volume (39% vs. 30%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low volume bowel preparation showed the same efficacy and tolerability with better satisfaction compared with high volume. Low-volume could represent an effective and more desirable preparation for patients in the ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":21174,"journal":{"name":"Reviews on recent clinical trials","volume":"18 1","pages":"76-81"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews on recent clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574887117666220908152754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of admission to the Emergency Department (ED). Early colonoscopy is the exam of choice for evaluating LGIB, and an adequate colon cleansing is essential. High-volume solution 4L-PEG is largely used, but it has some limitations. Low-volume solution 2L-PEG may improve patient's tolerability and compliance, reducing the time of administration and speeding up the exam.

Patients and methods: We conducted a randomized 1:1, prospective observational monocentric study in 228 patients (144M/84F) with LGIB. 121 (69M/52F) received the High-Volume, while 107 (75M/32F) received Low-Volume. They completed a "satisfaction questionnaire" (taste and smell, mood, time of taking, general experience). We collected the results of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and the final diagnosis. The study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrial.gov with protocol number NCT0536 2227.

Results: A mean value of BBPS 6,3 was achieved by both groups (p=0.57). Regarding smell, taste, mood and time of taking (1 to 5), we do not find any statistically differences. The overall satisfaction between the two preparations was 2.90 for low-volume compared to 3.17 for Highvolume (p=0.06). No side effects were reported. The proportion of patients without an evident source of bleeding was higher in High volume preparations compared to Low-volume (39% vs. 30%, respectively).

Conclusion: Low volume bowel preparation showed the same efficacy and tolerability with better satisfaction compared with high volume. Low-volume could represent an effective and more desirable preparation for patients in the ED.

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
急诊科下消化道出血:大容量与小容量结肠镜准备:一项随机试验。
背景:下消化道出血(LGIB)是急诊科(ED)入院的常见原因。早期结肠镜检查是评估LGIB的首选检查,充分的结肠清洗是必不可少的。大容量溶液4L-PEG被广泛使用,但它有一些局限性。小体积2L-PEG溶液可以提高患者的耐受性和依从性,减少给药时间,加快检查速度。患者和方法:我们对228例LGIB患者(144M/84F)进行了一项随机1:1、前瞻性单中心观察研究。121 (69M/52F)接收高容量,而107 (75M/32F)接收低容量。他们完成了一份“满意度问卷”(味觉和嗅觉、情绪、服药时间、总体体验)。我们收集了波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)的结果和最终诊断。该研究在clinicaltrial.gov上回顾性注册,协议号为NCT0536 2227。结果:两组BBPS平均为6,3 (p=0.57)。在嗅觉、味觉、情绪和服药时间(1 ~ 5)方面,我们没有发现统计学上的差异。两种制剂的总体满意度在小容量组为2.90,而高容量组为3.17 (p=0.06)。没有副作用的报道。大容量制剂中无明显出血源的患者比例高于小容量制剂(分别为39%和30%)。结论:与大容量肠道准备相比,小容量肠道准备具有相同的疗效和耐受性,且满意度更高。对于急诊科的病人来说,小容量的准备是一种有效的、更理想的准备。
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
Reviews on recent clinical trials
Reviews on recent clinical trials PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials publishes frontier reviews on recent clinical trials of major importance. The journal"s aim is to publish the highest quality review articles in the field. Topics covered include: important Phase I – IV clinical trial studies, clinical investigations at all stages of development and therapeutics. The journal is essential reading for all researchers and clinicians involved in drug therapy and clinical trials.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the Mysteries of Alzheimer's Disease Using Artificial Intelligence. Non-alcoholic Wernicke Encephalopathy in a Young Patient with Adenocarcinoma of the Colon: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. The Efficacy of Two Triple Therapy Regimens and One Quadruple Regimen [Omeprazole, Amoxicillin, Metronidazole with Bismuth] in Eradicating Helicobacter Pylori in Patients with Peptic Ulcer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Ongoing Clinical Trials for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) Afflicted Infertility in Women: A Narrative Review. Etiology, Recent Advances, and Clinical Trials Data for the Treatment of Angioedema: A Review.
×
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