ABSTRACT
Background: Adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy. Objectives: Investigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Materials and methods: In this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power. Results: Overall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group. Conclusion: SPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation. Clinical trial registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011-000587-10].
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy is often unsatisfactory. No study has investigated the inpatient or outpatient setting as cause of inadequate cleansing. AIMS: To assess degree of bowel cleansing in inpatients and outpatients and to identify possible predictors of poor bowel preparation in the two populations. METHODS: Prospective multicentre study on consecutive colonoscopies in 25 regional endoscopy units. Univariate and multivariate analysis with odds ratio estimation were performed. RESULTS: Data from 3276 colonoscopies were analyzed (2178 outpatients, 1098 inpatients). Incomplete colonoscopy due to inadequate cleansing was recorded in 369 patients (11.2%). There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing rates between in- and outpatients in both colonic segments. In the overall population, independent predictors of inadequate cleansing both at the level of right and left colon were: male gender (odds ratio, 1.20 [1.02-1.43] and 1.27 [1.05-1.53]), diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 2.35 [1.68-3.29] and 2.12 [1.47-3.05]), chronic constipation (odds ratio, 1.60 [1.30-1.97] and 1.55 [1.23-1.94]), incomplete purge intake (odds ratio, 2.36 [1.90-2.94] and 2.11 [1.68-2.65]) and a runway time >12h (odds ratio, 3.36 [2.40-4.72] and 2.53 [1.74-3.67]). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the rate of inadequate bowel preparation between hospitalized patients and outpatients.
Subject(s)
Cathartics/administration & dosage , Colonoscopy/standards , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Outpatients/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Body Mass Index , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Chronic Disease , Constipation/complications , Diabetes Mellitus , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Preoperative Care/standards , Prospective Studies , Sex FactorsSubject(s)
Foreign Bodies/diagnosis , Stomach , Abdominal Pain/etiology , Aged , Female , Fever/etiology , Gastroscopy , Humans , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
Stent implantation is an alternative, safe, and reliable strategy for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia, especially for patients at high surgical risk. However, in-stent restenosis (the Achille's hill of bare metal stent) may occur in up to 20% of cases at 6 months and 53% at 1 year. We describe a case of celiac trunk stenosis treated by bare metal stent complicated by recalcitrant in-stent restenosis and treated by paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation.