Premium
COMPARISON OF SODIUM PHOSPHATE, POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL AND SENNA SOLUTIONS IN BOWEL PREPARATION: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL STUDY
Author(s) -
Bektas Hasan,
Balik Emre,
Bilsel Yilmaz,
Yamaner Sumer,
Bulut Turker,
Bugra Dursun,
Buyukuncu Yilmaz,
Akyuz Ali,
Sokucu Necmettin
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
digestive endoscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.5
H-Index - 56
eISSN - 1443-1661
pISSN - 0915-5635
DOI - 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2005.00547.x
Subject(s) - medicine , colonoscopy , bowel preparation , polyethylene glycol , senna , randomized controlled trial , cathartic , gastroenterology , incidence (geometry) , surgery , traditional medicine , colorectal cancer , physics , optics , cancer , chemical engineering , engineering
Background: Low volume oral solutions for colon cleansing before colonoscopy are gaining popularity over large volume oral lavage solutions. Therefore, we aimed to compare three oral solutions for colonoscopy to determine any changes in either patient compliance or cleansing ability. Methods: One hundred and seventy patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized into three groups (sodium phosphate: group 1; polyethylene glycol: group 2; and senna solution: group 3). Bodyweight and arterial blood pressure measurements and blood biochemistry analysis were performed prior to and following bowel preparation. Subsequently, the patients were asked to fill out a patient questionnaire for the evaluation of side‐effects and patient satisfaction. Then endoscopists classified the efficacy of colon cleansing as clean, suboptimal or dirty. Results: There were no clinically significant changes in weight or assessed laboratory parameters. No difference was seen in the incidence of side‐effects, with the exception of crampy abdominal pain, where the group 3 patients had an incidence of 27.3% ( P = 0.008). When the patients were asked which method they would choose if re‐cleansing was required, the rate of preference of the same method was highest in group 1 (59%), and lowest in group 3 (6.8%, P = 0.0001). While the three methods of preparation were equivalent in the overall quality of cleansing, group 3 had the highest rate of fecal contamination (17.8%). Conclusions: When compared with respect to their efficacies in colon cleansing, safety of application, ease of usage, and side‐effects, no significant differences were noted between sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol and senna solutions. Nevertheless, due to its greater tolerability, requirement of a shorter period of time in colon cleansing, and lower cost, we recommend the use of sodium phosphate in bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.