在便秘患者结肠镜检查前的肠道准备中应用利那洛肽:前瞻性随机对照研究

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1111/jgh.16734
Haoxin Xu, Zhu He, Yulin Liu, Hong Xu, Pengfei Liu
{"title":"在便秘患者结肠镜检查前的肠道准备中应用利那洛肽:前瞻性随机对照研究","authors":"Haoxin Xu, Zhu He, Yulin Liu, Hong Xu, Pengfei Liu","doi":"10.1111/jgh.16734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and AimColonoscopy plays a crucial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for clear visualization of the colonic mucosa and lesion detection. However, inadequate bowel preparation is common in patients with constipation, and there is no standardized preparation protocol for these patients. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and tolerability of a pre‐colonoscopy combination regimen of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG).MethodsIn this prospective, single‐center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants were divided into two groups: a 3‐L PEG + 870‐μg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4‐L PEG group. The primary endpoints were the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the rate of adequate and excellent bowel preparation. Secondary endpoints were the rates of detection of colonic adenomas and polyps, cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy time, adverse reactions, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction.ResultsThe study included 319 patients. The 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4‐L PEG group (89.4% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 73.6% and 37.5% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 25.3%, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). The mean BBPS score for the right colon in the 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4‐L PEG group. There were no significant between‐group differences regarding the detection rates of colonic polyps and adenomas (44.4% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 37.7% and 23.1% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 20.1%, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> &gt; 0.05). There were no significant between‐group differences regarding cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy operation, and withdrawal times. However, patient tolerance and sleep quality were better in the 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group.ConclusionThe combination of 3‐L PEG and 870‐μg linaclotide, because of its lower volume of intake, can be considered as an alternative bowel preparation regimen for constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, especially for the elderly.","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with constipation: A prospective randomized controlled study\",\"authors\":\"Haoxin Xu, Zhu He, Yulin Liu, Hong Xu, Pengfei Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgh.16734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and AimColonoscopy plays a crucial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for clear visualization of the colonic mucosa and lesion detection. However, inadequate bowel preparation is common in patients with constipation, and there is no standardized preparation protocol for these patients. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and tolerability of a pre‐colonoscopy combination regimen of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG).MethodsIn this prospective, single‐center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants were divided into two groups: a 3‐L PEG + 870‐μg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4‐L PEG group. The primary endpoints were the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the rate of adequate and excellent bowel preparation. Secondary endpoints were the rates of detection of colonic adenomas and polyps, cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy time, adverse reactions, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction.ResultsThe study included 319 patients. The 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4‐L PEG group (89.4% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 73.6% and 37.5% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 25.3%, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). The mean BBPS score for the right colon in the 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4‐L PEG group. There were no significant between‐group differences regarding the detection rates of colonic polyps and adenomas (44.4% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 37.7% and 23.1% <jats:italic>vs</jats:italic> 20.1%, respectively; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> &gt; 0.05). There were no significant between‐group differences regarding cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy operation, and withdrawal times. However, patient tolerance and sleep quality were better in the 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group.ConclusionThe combination of 3‐L PEG and 870‐μg linaclotide, because of its lower volume of intake, can be considered as an alternative bowel preparation regimen for constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, especially for the elderly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16734\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16734","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的 结肠镜检查在结直肠癌的早期诊断和治疗中起着至关重要的作用。充分的肠道准备对于清晰观察结肠粘膜和发现病变至关重要。然而,在便秘患者中,肠道准备不充分的情况很常见,而且没有针对这些患者的标准化准备方案。在这项前瞻性、单中心、随机对照试验中,322 名参与者被分为两组:3 升 PEG + 870-μg 利那洛肽组(单次给药,连续 3 天)和 4 升 PEG 组。主要终点是波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分以及充分和良好肠道准备率。次要终点是结肠腺瘤和息肉的检出率、盲肠插管率、结肠镜检查时间、不良反应、患者满意度和医生满意度。3-L PEG + 利那洛肽组的肠道准备充分率和优秀率明显高于 4-L PEG 组(分别为 89.4% vs 73.6% 和 37.5% vs 25.3%;P < 0.05)。3-L PEG + 利那洛肽组右侧结肠的平均 BBPS 评分明显高于 4-L PEG 组。结肠息肉和腺瘤的检出率在组间无明显差异(分别为 44.4% vs 37.7% 和 23.1% vs 20.1%;P > 0.05)。在盲肠插管率、结肠镜检查操作和退出时间方面,组间差异不明显。结论 3-L PEG 和 870-μg 利那洛肽联合使用,由于摄入量较少,可作为接受结肠镜检查的便秘患者(尤其是老年人)的另一种肠道准备方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Application of linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with constipation: A prospective randomized controlled study
Background and AimColonoscopy plays a crucial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for clear visualization of the colonic mucosa and lesion detection. However, inadequate bowel preparation is common in patients with constipation, and there is no standardized preparation protocol for these patients. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and tolerability of a pre‐colonoscopy combination regimen of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG).MethodsIn this prospective, single‐center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants were divided into two groups: a 3‐L PEG + 870‐μg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4‐L PEG group. The primary endpoints were the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the rate of adequate and excellent bowel preparation. Secondary endpoints were the rates of detection of colonic adenomas and polyps, cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy time, adverse reactions, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction.ResultsThe study included 319 patients. The 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4‐L PEG group (89.4% vs 73.6% and 37.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < 0.05). The mean BBPS score for the right colon in the 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4‐L PEG group. There were no significant between‐group differences regarding the detection rates of colonic polyps and adenomas (44.4% vs 37.7% and 23.1% vs 20.1%, respectively; P > 0.05). There were no significant between‐group differences regarding cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy operation, and withdrawal times. However, patient tolerance and sleep quality were better in the 3‐L PEG + linaclotide group.ConclusionThe combination of 3‐L PEG and 870‐μg linaclotide, because of its lower volume of intake, can be considered as an alternative bowel preparation regimen for constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, especially for the elderly.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
326
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Author Index Nutrition Hepatology Basic Science Hepatology Clinical
×
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