Journal List > Korean J Gastroenterol > v.61(2) > 1007118

TOOLS
Seo, Han, Kim, Park, Kim, Jeong, Lee, Seo, Song, Choi, Cheon, and Lee: The Efficacy and Tolerability of Sugared Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy
Original Article

Korean J Gastroenterol 2013;61(2):88-92.

Published online: 4 October 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4166/kjg.2013.61.2.88

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Sugared Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy

Hyun Woong Seo, Koon Hee Han, Sunghun Kim, Jong Kyu Park, Young Don Kim, Woo Jin Jeong, Sang Jin Lee, Hyun Il Seo, Yun A Song, Seo Hyeon Choi, Gab Jin Cheon, Hee Jung Lee

Department of Internal Medicine, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, Korea

Correspondence to: Koon Hee Han, Department of Internal Medicine, Gangneung Asan Hospital, 38 Bangdong-gil, Sacheon-myeon, Gangneung 210-711, Korea. Tel: +82-33-610-3139, Fax: +82-33-610-8130, E-mail: gi@gnah.co.kr

Received 10 September 201219 November 2012       Accepted 30 November 2012

Copyright © 2013 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims

Although polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is commonly used for colonoscopic bowel preparation because of its safety and effectiveness, its salty taste decreases patient's compliance. The aim of this study was to compare the sugared PEG solution with the standard PEG solution in regard to the quality of bowel preparation and patient's compliance.

Methods

From January through June in 2012, 100 patients who underwent colonoscopy in Gangneung Asan Hospital were prospectively enrolled. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard PEG solution or sugared PEG solution. The quality of bowel preparation was assessed by a doctor's questionnaire and the patient's compliance was assessed by a patient's questionnaire.

Results

There was no significant difference in the quality of bowel preparation (4.2±2.0 vs. 4.1±1.5, p=0.783), and endoscopist's satisfaction score (8.2±1.8 vs. 8.5±1.3, p=0.253) between two groups. However, The degree of disgust was lower in the sugared PEG group than the standard PEG group (6.4±2.3 vs. 3.9±2.9, p=0.000). The willingness to repeat same regimen was higher in the sugared PEG group than the standard PEG group (2.0±0.6 vs. 2.3±0.7, p=0.004). There was no difference in side effects between two groups.

Conclusions

The sugared PEG solution as a bowel preparation method revealed a higher patient's compliance and was effective as the standard PEG solution. When the patient dislike the taste and saltness of the standard PEG solution, the sugared PEG solution will be good alternative method.

Keywords: Colonoscopy, Bowel preparation, Polyethylene glycols, Sugar, Compliance

References

1. Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology. 1980; 78:991–995.
crossref
2. Kang MJ, Jung SA, Jung JM, et al. A prospective trial comparing 4 L-polyethylene glycol with 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl tablets for colon preparation. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 37:167–173.
3. Kim SH, Park DI, Park SH, et al. Comparison of single versus split-dose of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 30:194–198.
4. Liley AW. The foetus as a personality. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1972; 6:99–105.
crossref
5. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004; 59:482–486.
crossref
6. Fordtran JS, Santa Ana CA, Cleveland MvB. A low-sodium solution for gastrointestinal lavage. Gastroenterology. 1990; 98:11–16.
crossref
7. Raymond JM, Beyssac R, Capdenat E, et al. Tolerance, effectiveness, and acceptability of sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution for colon cleaning before colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 1996; 28:555–558.
8. Froehlich F, Fried M, Schnegg JF, Gonvers JJ. Low sodium solution for colonic cleansing: a double-blind, controlled, randomized prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992; 38:579–581.
crossref
9. Froehlich F, Fried M, Schnegg JF, Gonvers JJ. Palatability of a new solution compared with standard polyethylene glycol solution for gastrointestinal lavage. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991; 37:325–328.
crossref
10. Kim JH, Byeon JS, Park SH, et al. Sulfate free polyethylene glycol versus standard polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation: a prospective, randomized, investigatorblinded comparison. Korean J Med. 2008; 74:30–36.
11. Kim YT, Kim YS, Park YJ, et al. A randomized prospective trial comparing a new polyethylene glycol based lavage solution with the standard polyethylene glycol solution in the preparation of patients undergoing colonoscopy (clinical trial of new PEG solution in bowel preparation). Korean J Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 20:171–176.
12. Marmo R, Rotondano G, Riccio G, et al. Effective bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized study of split-dosage versus non-split dosage regimens of high-volume versus low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72:313–320.
crossref

Table 1.
Cleanliness of the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale
Cleanliness (score) Description
Excellent (0) Perfect
Good (1) Fair (2) Between excellent and fair Necessary to suction liquid stool
Poor (3) Necessary to wash and to suction
Inadequate (4) Necessary to repeat preparation
Table 2.
Basic Characteristics of Patients
Characteristic Standard PEG (n=50) Sugared PEG (n=50) p-value
Mean age (yr) 55.8±10.2 50.6±13.7 0.036
Sex (male/female) 35/15 30/20 0.295
Height (cm) 165.8±9.0 165.8±9.6 0.972
Weight (kg) 66.0±11.6 66.3±10.9 0.894
BMI (kg/m2) 23.9±2.4 24.1±2.9 0.710
History of abdominal surgery 5 (10.0) 6 (12.0) 0.749

Values are presented as mean±SD, n, or n (%). PEG, polyethylene glycol.

Table 3.
Comparison of Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale, Insertion Time and Endoscopist's Satisfaction Score
Variable Standard PEG (n=50) Sugared PEG (n=50) p-value
Ottawa scale 4.2±2.0 4.1±1.5 0.783
Right colon 1.5±0.7 1.6±0.5 0.643
Mid colon 1.3±0.7 1.2±0.5 0.296
Rectosigmoid colon 1.2±0.6 1.2±0.5 1.000
Fluid in whole colon 0.2±0.5 0.2±0.5 0.668
Insertion time (min) 5.3±3.7 4.9±2.7 0.566
Endoscopist's satisfaction score 8.2±1.8 8.5±1.3 0.253

Values are presented as mean±SD. PEG, polyethylene glycol.

Table 4.
Comparison of Compliances
Compliance Standard PEG (n=50) Sugared PEG (n=50) p-value
Degree of disgust 6.4±2.3 3.9±2.9 0.000
Willingness to repeat the regimen 2.0±0.6 2.3±0.7 0.004

Values are presented as mean±SD. PEG, polyethylene glycol.

Table 5.
Comparison of Side Effect
Side effect Standard PEG (n=50) Sugared PEG (n=50) p-value
Sleep discomfort 5 (10.0) 3 (6.0) 0.715
Nausea 13 (26.0) 11 (22.0) 0.640
Vomiting 7 (14.0) 5 (10.0) 0.538
Abdominal pain 3 (6.0) 1 (2.0) 0.617
Abdominal discomfort 7 (14.0) 7 (14.0) 1.000
Dizziness 5 (10.0) 3 (6.0) 0.715
Sweating 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 1.000

Values are presented as n (%). PEG, polyethylene glycol.

TOOLS
Similar articles