Korean J Gastroenterol KJG The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 1598-9992 2233-6869 The Korean Society of Gastroenterology 10.4166/kjg.2012.59.6.414 Original Article Alimentary Tract Comparison among Conventional 4 L Polyethylene Glycol, Split Method of 4 L Polyethylene Glycol and Combination of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol and Sodium Phosphate Solution for Colonoscopy Preparation Jo So Young 1 Kim Nayoung 1 2 Lee Jung Won 2 Lim Ji Hwan 1 Choi Chiun 1 Chon Ilyoung 1 Kil Ho 1 Min Bo Young 1 Byoun Young Sang 1 Lee Ban Seok 1 Jang Sang Eon 1 Park Hyun Kyung 1 Jo Hyun Jin 1 Shin Cheol Min 1 Lee Sang Hyup 1 Park Young Soo 1 2 Hwang Jin-Hyeok 1 2 Kim Jin-Wook 1 2 Jeong Sook-Hyang 1 2 Lee Dong Ho 1 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Correspondence to: Nayoung Kim, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, 173-gil, Gumi-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 463-707, Korea. Tel: +82-31-787-7008, Fax: +82-31-787-4051, nayoungkim49@empal.com 06 2012 20 06 2012 59 6 414 422 15 11 2011 25 11 2011 25 11 2011 Copyright © 2012 The Korean Society of Gastroenterology 2012

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.

 Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to compare polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4 L, split method of PEG 4 L and PEG 2 L plus sodium phosphate (NaP) in the aspect of bowel preparation quality, safety, patients' compliance and preference.

 Methods

Total 249 subjects were prospectively enrolled and received bowel preparation for colonoscopy from August to October in 2010; PEG 4 L (93 subjects), split method of 4 L PEG (74 subjects) and PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL group (82 subjects). To investigate the completion, preference for bowel preparation and safety, a questionnaire survey was conducted before colonoscopy.

 Results

There were no significant intergroup differences in the aspect of completion of preparation, cecal intubation time and success rate. Satisfaction and preference were higher in PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL and split method of 4 L PEG compared with PEG 4 L. In the aspect of the bowel preparation quality PEG 4 L showed significantly higher quality in the morning colonoscopy (p<0.001). However, in the afternoon colonoscopy PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL showed better result than PEG 4 L (p=0.009). Hyperphosphatemia was most frequently observed in PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL, but no severe adverse events occurred (p<0.001).

 Conclusions

PEG 4 L showed better result than split method of 4 L PEG or PEG 2 L plus NaP 90 mL in the aspect of bowel preparation quality and safety.

 Colonoscopy Bowel preparation solution Polyethylene glycols Sodium phosphate

Financial support: None.

Conflict of interest: None.

 Tan JJ Tjandra JJ Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy - a meta-analysis Colorectal Dis 2006 8 247 258 DiPalma JA Brady CE 3rd Colon cleansing for diagnostic and surgical procedures: polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution Am J Gastroenterol 1989 84 1008 1016 Dipalma JA Marshall JB Comparison of a new sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution versus a standard solution for colonoscopy cleansing Gastrointest Endosc 1990 36 285 289 Kang MJ Jung SA Jung JM 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 Cohen SM Wexner SD Binderow SR Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods Dis Colon Rectum 1994 37 689 696 Young CJ Simpson RR King DW Lubowski DZ Oral sodium phosphate solution is a superior colonoscopy preparation to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl Dis Colon Rectum 2000 43 1568 1571 Law WL Choi HK Chu KW Ho JW Wong L Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing polyethylene glycol solution, one dose and two doses of oral sodium phosphate solution Asian J Surg 2004 27 120 124 Ell C Fischbach W Keller R Hintertux Study Group A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*) Endoscopy 2003 35 300 304 Martínek J Hess J Delarive J Cisapride does not improve precolonoscopy bowel preparation with either sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage Gastrointest Endosc 2001 54 180 185 Curran MP Plosker GL Oral sodium phosphate solution: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser Drugs 2004 64 1697 1714 Lee JW Kim NY Cha BH Comparison between conventional 4 L polyethylene glycol and combination of 2 L polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate solution as colonoscopy preparation Korean J Gastroenterol 2010 56 299 306 Aoun E Abdul-baki H Azar C A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation Gastrointest Endosc 2005 62 213 218 Abdul-baki H Hashash JG Elhajj II A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of the adjunct use of tegaserod in whole-dose or split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation Gastrointest Endosc 2008 68 294 300 El SA Kanafani ZA Mourad FH A randomized single-blind trial of whole versus split-dose polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation Gastrointest Endosc 2003 58 36 40 Park JS Sohn CI Hwang SJ Quality and effect of single dose versus split dose of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for early-morning colonoscopy Endoscopy 2007 39 616 619 Aronchick CA Lipshutz WH Wright SH DuFrayne F Bergman G Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing Am J Gastroenterol 1999 94 2667 Rostom A Jolicoeur E Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality Gastrointest Endosc 2004 59 482 486 Kim WH Cho YJ Park JY Min PK Kang JK Park IS Factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy Gastrointest Endosc 2000 52 600 605 Yoon JH Park DI Shin JE Comparison of bowel preparation depending on completion time of polyethylene glycol ingestion and start time of colonoscopy Intest Res 2010 8 24 29 Church JM Effectiveness of polyethylene glycol antegrade gut lavage bowel preparation for colonoscopy-timing is the key Dis Colon Rectum 1998 41 1223 1225 Aronchick CA Lipshutz WH Wright SH Dufrayne F Bergman G A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda Gastrointest Endosc 2000 52 346 352 Lieberman DA Ghormley J Flora K Effect of oral sodium phosphate colon preparation on serum electrolytes in patients with normal serum creatinine Gastrointest Endosc 1996 43 467 469

Overall quality of bowel cleansing among conventional 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG), split method of 4 L PEG and combination of 2 L PEG and sodium phosphate (NaP) solution group in total (A), in the morning colonoscopy (B) and in the afternoon colonoscopy (C).

Segmental quality of bowel cleansing among conventional 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG), split method of 4 L PEG and combination of 2 L PEG and sodium phosphate (NaP) solution group in total (A), in the morning colonoscopy (B) and in the afternoon colonoscopy (C).

Overall quality of bowel cleansing between night and morning colonoscopy preparation in conventional 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) (A) and combination of 2 L PEG and sodium phosphate solution (NaP) (B).

Patient Demographics

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

PEG, polyethylenel glycol; NaP, sodium phosphate.

aStatistically significant.

Bowel Preparation and Procedure Result

Values are presented as n (%), percent only, or mean±SD.

PEG, polyethylenel glycol; NaP, sodium phosphate.

aStatistically significant.

Satisfaction and Preference of Preparation Method

Values are presented as n (%).

PEG, polyethylenel glycol; NaP, sodium phosphate.

aThe number of patients who answered the questionnaires.

Laboratory Results after Bowel Preparation

Values are presented as mean±SD.

PEG, polyethylenel glycol; NaP, sodium phosphate; Ca, Calcium; P, Phosphate; Na, Sodium; K, Potassium; Cl, Chloride; HCO3-, Bicarbonate.

aStatistically significant.