Yeon Jung Kim, Seung Ho Kim, Tae Wook Baek, Hyungin Park
{"title":"稀聚乙二醇与低密度(0.1% w/v)硫酸钡混悬液用于CT肠造影的效果比较。","authors":"Yeon Jung Kim, Seung Ho Kim, Tae Wook Baek, Hyungin Park","doi":"10.3348/jksr.2022.0141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare small bowel distension and side effects between a diluted polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and a low-density (0.1% w/v) barium sulfate suspension (LDBSS) for CT enterography (CTE) preparation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, <i>p</i> = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, <i>p</i> = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, <i>p</i> = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, <i>p</i> = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.</p>","PeriodicalId":17455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology","volume":"84 4","pages":"911-922"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/3b/jksr-84-911.PMC10407077.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Efficacy of Diluted Polyethylene Glycol and Low-Density (0.1% w/v) Barium Sulfate Suspension for CT Enterography.\",\"authors\":\"Yeon Jung Kim, Seung Ho Kim, Tae Wook Baek, Hyungin Park\",\"doi\":\"10.3348/jksr.2022.0141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare small bowel distension and side effects between a diluted polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and a low-density (0.1% w/v) barium sulfate suspension (LDBSS) for CT enterography (CTE) preparation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, <i>p</i> = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, <i>p</i> = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, <i>p</i> = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, <i>p</i> = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology\",\"volume\":\"84 4\",\"pages\":\"911-922\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/3b/jksr-84-911.PMC10407077.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2022.0141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2022.0141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较稀释聚乙二醇(PEG)溶液和低密度(0.1% w/v)硫酸钡悬浮液(LDBSS)用于CT肠造影(CTE)制备时的小肠膨胀和副作用。材料和方法:本研究共纳入173例连续接受CTE治疗的患者。50例患者使用LDBSS (1 L), 123例患者使用稀释等渗PEG溶液(1 L)。两名盲法放射科医生分别以5分制对空肠和回肠膨胀进行评分。为了比较两组的副作用,患者报告口服造影剂后是否立即出现并发症。结果:对于回肠和空肠的膨胀,稀释后的PEG溶液与LDBSS在任何阅读器上都没有差异(回肠:阅读器1,中位数,4;4、四分位间距,3-4;3-4, p = 0.997;读数2,中位数,4;4、四分位数范围3.3-4.0;3-4, p = 0.064;空肠:读取器1,中位数,2;2、四分位数区间,2-3;2-3, p = 0.560;读取数2,中位数,3;2、四分位数区间,2-3;2-3, p = 0.192)。在口服造影剂后,没有患者抱怨立即出现并发症。结论:与LDBSS相比,稀释后的PEG溶液表现出相当的肠膨胀,没有立即的副作用;因此,它可以是一个有用的替代方案。
Comparison of the Efficacy of Diluted Polyethylene Glycol and Low-Density (0.1% w/v) Barium Sulfate Suspension for CT Enterography.
Purpose: To compare small bowel distension and side effects between a diluted polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and a low-density (0.1% w/v) barium sulfate suspension (LDBSS) for CT enterography (CTE) preparation.
Materials and methods: Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media.
Results: For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, p = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, p = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media.
Conclusion: The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.