Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 5/2017

18.11.2016

Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

verfasst von: Stanislas Chaussade, Christoph Schmöcker, Pierre Toulemonde, Miguel Muñoz-Navas, Valérie O’Mahony, Franck Henri

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 5/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial step in colonoscopy procedure and has been identified as the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel cleansing still had up to 10 % unprepared colon.

Aim

We herein compare efficacy, acceptability, tolerance and safety of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and split-dose PEG for bowel cleansing.

Patients and methods

A prospective non-inferiority randomized trial was performed and registered on www.​clinicaltrials.​gov (NCT01840553). Patients were randomized to either 32 NaP tablets or 4 L of PEG. Blind readers assessed the efficacy of colon cleansing using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

Results

A total of 461 patients were randomized in groups (NaP group: n = 231; PEG group: n = 230). Median age was 54 and 52 in NaP group and PEG group, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients experienced an overall compliance to the treatment in 99.6 and 94.1 % in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean time of withdrawal was 15.1 ± 8.9 and 15.4 ± 9.5 min in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.95). The good quality of bowel preparation, defined as BBPS score ≥7, was obtained in 86.4 and 89.0 % of cases in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.42). In all segment (right colon, transverse colon and left colon and rectum), the NaP group was non-inferior to the PEG group. Bowel prep regimen was more frequently considered as “easy” by patients from the NaP group (54.8 % of patients) than patients from the PEG group (29.0 % of patients; p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported. No statistical differences were found between the NaP group and the PEG group concerning the incidence of an adverse event (338 vs. 322, respectively).

Conclusion

While NaP tablets appeared as efficient as PEG in terms of colon cleansing prior to a colonoscopy, they significantly improved the overall compliance and eased product administration. At an era where bowel cleansing appears to be the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy, NaP tablets in patients without contraindication might be considered as an option.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Coriat R, Lecler A, Lamarque D, Deyra J, Roche H, Nizou C et al (2012) Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units. PLoS One 7(4):e33957CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Coriat R, Lecler A, Lamarque D, Deyra J, Roche H, Nizou C et al (2012) Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units. PLoS One 7(4):e33957CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Coriat R, Pommaret E, Chryssostalis A, Viennot S, Gaudric M, Brezault C et al (2009) Quality control of colonoscopy procedures: a prospective validated method for the evaluation of professional practices applicable to all endoscopic units. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 33(2):103–108CrossRefPubMed Coriat R, Pommaret E, Chryssostalis A, Viennot S, Gaudric M, Brezault C et al (2009) Quality control of colonoscopy procedures: a prospective validated method for the evaluation of professional practices applicable to all endoscopic units. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 33(2):103–108CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Parente F, Marino B, Crosta C (2009) Bowel preparation before colonoscopy in the era of mass screening for colo-rectal cancer: a practical approach. Dig Liver Dis 41(2):87–95CrossRefPubMed Parente F, Marino B, Crosta C (2009) Bowel preparation before colonoscopy in the era of mass screening for colo-rectal cancer: a practical approach. Dig Liver Dis 41(2):87–95CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat DiPalma JA, Brady CE 3rd, Stewart DL, Karlin DA, McKinney MK, Clement DJ et al (1984) Comparison of colon cleansing methods in preparation for colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 86(5 Pt 1):856–860PubMed DiPalma JA, Brady CE 3rd, Stewart DL, Karlin DA, McKinney MK, Clement DJ et al (1984) Comparison of colon cleansing methods in preparation for colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 86(5 Pt 1):856–860PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, Fanelli RD, Hyman N, Shen B et al (2006) A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 63(7):894–909CrossRefPubMed Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, Fanelli RD, Hyman N, Shen B et al (2006) A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 63(7):894–909CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Coriat R, Polin V, Oudjit A, Henri F, Dhooge M, Leblanc S et al (2014) Gastric emptying evaluation by ultrasound prior colonoscopy: an easy tool following bowel preparation. World J Gastroenterol 20(37):13591–13598CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Coriat R, Polin V, Oudjit A, Henri F, Dhooge M, Leblanc S et al (2014) Gastric emptying evaluation by ultrasound prior colonoscopy: an easy tool following bowel preparation. World J Gastroenterol 20(37):13591–13598CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, Fix OK, Jacobson BC (2009) The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 69(3 Pt 2):620–625CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, Fix OK, Jacobson BC (2009) The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 69(3 Pt 2):620–625CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Johanson JF, Popp JW Jr, Cohen LB, Lottes SR, Forbes WP, Walker K et al (2007) A randomized, multicenter study comparing the safety and efficacy of sodium phosphate tablets with 2 L polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl tablets for colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 102(10):2238–2246CrossRefPubMed Johanson JF, Popp JW Jr, Cohen LB, Lottes SR, Forbes WP, Walker K et al (2007) A randomized, multicenter study comparing the safety and efficacy of sodium phosphate tablets with 2 L polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl tablets for colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 102(10):2238–2246CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Rex DK, Schwartz H, Goldstein M, Popp J, Katz S, Barish C et al (2006) Safety and colon-cleansing efficacy of a new residue-free formulation of sodium phosphate tablets. Am J Gastroenterol 101(11):2594–2604CrossRefPubMed Rex DK, Schwartz H, Goldstein M, Popp J, Katz S, Barish C et al (2006) Safety and colon-cleansing efficacy of a new residue-free formulation of sodium phosphate tablets. Am J Gastroenterol 101(11):2594–2604CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hagège H, Laugier R, Nahon S, Coulom P, Isnard-Bagnis C, Albert-Marty A (2015) Real-life conditions of use of sodium phosphate tablets for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 3(4):E346–E353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hagège H, Laugier R, Nahon S, Coulom P, Isnard-Bagnis C, Albert-Marty A (2015) Real-life conditions of use of sodium phosphate tablets for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open 3(4):E346–E353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Rex DK (2006) Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 101(12):2866–2877CrossRefPubMed Rex DK (2006) Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 101(12):2866–2877CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Coriat R, Lecler A, Cassaz C, Roche H, Podevin P, Mesnard B et al (2009) Évaluation des pratiques professionnelles en endoscopie: étude multicentrique de faisabilité d’une méthode simple et reproductible d’évaluation de la qualité de la coloscopie dans des structures privées et publiques. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 33(HS1):175CrossRef Coriat R, Lecler A, Cassaz C, Roche H, Podevin P, Mesnard B et al (2009) Évaluation des pratiques professionnelles en endoscopie: étude multicentrique de faisabilité d’une méthode simple et reproductible d’évaluation de la qualité de la coloscopie dans des structures privées et publiques. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 33(HS1):175CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL, Moolenaar W, Ouwendijk RJ, Tang TJ et al (2011) Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 75(1):98–106CrossRefPubMed de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL, Moolenaar W, Ouwendijk RJ, Tang TJ et al (2011) Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 75(1):98–106CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee YH, Jeong SY, Kim YS, Jung HJ, Kwon MJ, Kwak CH et al (2015) Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets versus 2 L polyethylene glycol solution for bowel cleansing prior colonoscopy. Korean J Gastroenterol 65(1):27–34CrossRefPubMed Lee YH, Jeong SY, Kim YS, Jung HJ, Kwon MJ, Kwak CH et al (2015) Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets versus 2 L polyethylene glycol solution for bowel cleansing prior colonoscopy. Korean J Gastroenterol 65(1):27–34CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial
verfasst von
Stanislas Chaussade
Christoph Schmöcker
Pierre Toulemonde
Miguel Muñoz-Navas
Valérie O’Mahony
Franck Henri
Publikationsdatum
18.11.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5214-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.