Josué Aliaga Ramos, Danilo Carvalho, Vitor N Arantes
{"title":"使用口服乳果糖进行结肠镜检查肠道准备的新方案:一项前瞻性比较研究。","authors":"Josué Aliaga Ramos, Danilo Carvalho, Vitor N Arantes","doi":"10.5946/ce.2024.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the gold standard regimen for bowel preparation; however, due to the necessity of a large volume, patient tolerance is impaired. Therefore, lactulose is a novel alternative for colonoscopy preparation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lactulose-based bowel preparations in comparison with PEG for colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a prospective, non-blinded, comparative study. Outpatients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (111 patients), PEG; and group 2 (111 patients), lactulose. The following clinical outcomes were assessed in each group: degree of bowel clearance using the Boston bowel preparation score, colorectal polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and side effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 8.1% and 1.8% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p=0.030). The Boston bowel preparation score for the entire colon was 7.34±1.17 and 8.36±1.09 for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001). The satisfactory overall experience rates were 27.9% and 62.2% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The novel bowel preparation with oral lactulose was superior to that with PEG in terms of colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerance, and patient experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Josué Aliaga Ramos, Danilo Carvalho, Vitor N Arantes\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2024.056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the gold standard regimen for bowel preparation; however, due to the necessity of a large volume, patient tolerance is impaired. Therefore, lactulose is a novel alternative for colonoscopy preparation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lactulose-based bowel preparations in comparison with PEG for colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a prospective, non-blinded, comparative study. Outpatients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (111 patients), PEG; and group 2 (111 patients), lactulose. The following clinical outcomes were assessed in each group: degree of bowel clearance using the Boston bowel preparation score, colorectal polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and side effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 8.1% and 1.8% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p=0.030). The Boston bowel preparation score for the entire colon was 7.34±1.17 and 8.36±1.09 for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001). The satisfactory overall experience rates were 27.9% and 62.2% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The novel bowel preparation with oral lactulose was superior to that with PEG in terms of colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerance, and patient experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.
Background/aims: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered the gold standard regimen for bowel preparation; however, due to the necessity of a large volume, patient tolerance is impaired. Therefore, lactulose is a novel alternative for colonoscopy preparation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lactulose-based bowel preparations in comparison with PEG for colonoscopy.
Methods: This is a prospective, non-blinded, comparative study. Outpatients were randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (111 patients), PEG; and group 2 (111 patients), lactulose. The following clinical outcomes were assessed in each group: degree of bowel clearance using the Boston bowel preparation score, colorectal polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and side effects.
Results: The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 8.1% and 1.8% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p=0.030). The Boston bowel preparation score for the entire colon was 7.34±1.17 and 8.36±1.09 for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001). The satisfactory overall experience rates were 27.9% and 62.2% for the PEG and lactulose groups, respectively (p<0.001).
Conclusions: The novel bowel preparation with oral lactulose was superior to that with PEG in terms of colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerance, and patient experience.