PEG3350 + bisacodyl肠道准备的耐受性、安全性和有效性:两种治疗方法在儿科患者中不同持续时间的比较

Ligia Marcela Portillo-Canizalez, G. Blanco-Rodríguez, Gustavo Teyssier-Morales, J. Penchyna-Grub, S. T. Mendieta, J. Zurita-Cruz
{"title":"PEG3350 + bisacodyl肠道准备的耐受性、安全性和有效性:两种治疗方法在儿科患者中不同持续时间的比较","authors":"Ligia Marcela Portillo-Canizalez, G. Blanco-Rodríguez, Gustavo Teyssier-Morales, J. Penchyna-Grub, S. T. Mendieta, J. Zurita-Cruz","doi":"10.24875/BMHIME.M17000004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Multiple bowel preparations have been used in children undergoing colonoscopy, with variable limitations due to acceptance, tolerance, and proper cleaning. The objective of this study was to compare the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of colonoscopy preparation with one-day of PEG 3350 (polyethylene glycol) (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl compared with two days of preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl in pediatric patients. Methods: A clinical, randomized, single-blind trial was performed. Patients aged 2 to 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy were included. Patients were randomized into two groups: one day of preparation with PEG 3350 4 g/kg/day + bisacodyl and two days of preparation with PEG 3350 2 g/kg/day + bisacodyl. Through a questionnaire, a physical examination, and an endoscopic evaluation (Boston scale), the tolerance, safety and efficacy of both preparations evaluated were determined. Student’s t-test was performed for quantitative variables and χ2 for qualitative variables. Results: There were no significant differences in compliance rates, adverse effects, and extent of colonoscopic evaluation. Conclusions: Tolerance and safety between the intestinal preparation for 1-day colonoscopy with PEG 3350 (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl and the 2-day preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl were similar. The quality of cleanliness was good in both groups, being partially more effective in the 1-day group with PEG","PeriodicalId":100195,"journal":{"name":"Boletín Médico Del Hospital Infantil de México (English Edition)","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tolerance, safety, and efficacy of PEG3350 + bisacodyl bowel preparation: comparison between two treatments of different duration in pediatric patients\",\"authors\":\"Ligia Marcela Portillo-Canizalez, G. Blanco-Rodríguez, Gustavo Teyssier-Morales, J. Penchyna-Grub, S. T. Mendieta, J. Zurita-Cruz\",\"doi\":\"10.24875/BMHIME.M17000004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Multiple bowel preparations have been used in children undergoing colonoscopy, with variable limitations due to acceptance, tolerance, and proper cleaning. The objective of this study was to compare the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of colonoscopy preparation with one-day of PEG 3350 (polyethylene glycol) (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl compared with two days of preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl in pediatric patients. Methods: A clinical, randomized, single-blind trial was performed. Patients aged 2 to 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy were included. Patients were randomized into two groups: one day of preparation with PEG 3350 4 g/kg/day + bisacodyl and two days of preparation with PEG 3350 2 g/kg/day + bisacodyl. Through a questionnaire, a physical examination, and an endoscopic evaluation (Boston scale), the tolerance, safety and efficacy of both preparations evaluated were determined. Student’s t-test was performed for quantitative variables and χ2 for qualitative variables. Results: There were no significant differences in compliance rates, adverse effects, and extent of colonoscopic evaluation. Conclusions: Tolerance and safety between the intestinal preparation for 1-day colonoscopy with PEG 3350 (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl and the 2-day preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl were similar. The quality of cleanliness was good in both groups, being partially more effective in the 1-day group with PEG\",\"PeriodicalId\":100195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Boletín Médico Del Hospital Infantil de México (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Boletín Médico Del Hospital Infantil de México (English Edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24875/BMHIME.M17000004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Boletín Médico Del Hospital Infantil de México (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24875/BMHIME.M17000004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在接受结肠镜检查的儿童中已经使用了多种肠道准备,由于接受、耐受和适当的清洁而存在不同的局限性。本研究的目的是比较儿科患者结肠镜检查准备1天PEG 3350(聚乙二醇)(4 g/kg/天)+比沙代碱与2天PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/天)+比沙代碱的耐受性、安全性和有效性。方法:采用临床、随机、单盲试验。年龄在2至18岁的患者计划进行结肠镜检查。患者被随机分为两组:1天的peg3350 4 g/kg/天+比萨科代,2天的peg3350 2 g/kg/天+比萨科代。通过问卷调查、体格检查和内镜评估(波士顿量表),确定两种评估制剂的耐受性、安全性和有效性。定量变量采用学生t检验,定性变量采用χ2检验。结果:两组患者在依从率、不良反应和结肠镜评估程度上无显著差异。结论:1天结肠镜下肠制剂PEG 3350 (4 g/kg/天)+比沙可代与2天制剂PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/天)+比沙可代的耐受性和安全性相似。两组的清洁质量都很好,在使用PEG的1天组中部分更有效
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
Tolerance, safety, and efficacy of PEG3350 + bisacodyl bowel preparation: comparison between two treatments of different duration in pediatric patients
Background: Multiple bowel preparations have been used in children undergoing colonoscopy, with variable limitations due to acceptance, tolerance, and proper cleaning. The objective of this study was to compare the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of colonoscopy preparation with one-day of PEG 3350 (polyethylene glycol) (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl compared with two days of preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl in pediatric patients. Methods: A clinical, randomized, single-blind trial was performed. Patients aged 2 to 18 years scheduled for colonoscopy were included. Patients were randomized into two groups: one day of preparation with PEG 3350 4 g/kg/day + bisacodyl and two days of preparation with PEG 3350 2 g/kg/day + bisacodyl. Through a questionnaire, a physical examination, and an endoscopic evaluation (Boston scale), the tolerance, safety and efficacy of both preparations evaluated were determined. Student’s t-test was performed for quantitative variables and χ2 for qualitative variables. Results: There were no significant differences in compliance rates, adverse effects, and extent of colonoscopic evaluation. Conclusions: Tolerance and safety between the intestinal preparation for 1-day colonoscopy with PEG 3350 (4 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl and the 2-day preparation with PEG 3350 (2 g/kg/day) + bisacodyl were similar. The quality of cleanliness was good in both groups, being partially more effective in the 1-day group with PEG
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of body mass index on blood pressure measured with a mercury sphygmomanometer in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus Childhood rosacea Seroprevalence of Bordetella pertussis in pediatric healthcare workers at the Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez A mobile application for biliary atresia screening Validation of an instrument to measure the quality of life in children with oropharyngeal mucositis undergoing cancer treatment
×
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