Year 2024 / Volume 116 / Number 4
Original
1-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate + magnesium citrate bowel preparations for colonoscopy: effectiveness and safety

186-192

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2023.9785/2023

Elena Pérez Arellano, M.ª Isabel Rodríguez García, Ana Belén Galera Ródenas, Álvaro Flores de Miguel, Emilio de la Morena Madrigal,

Abstract
Background: adequate bowel preparation is crucial for the protective effect of colonoscopy. Commonly used preparation regimens like polyethylene glycol (PEG) or sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) have shown similar results in clinical trials, but low-volume PEG + ascorbic acid (1-L PEG + ASC) versus SPMC have never been compared in a real-life setting. Aim: to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG + ASC versus SPMC in a real-life setting for the overall population, for patients aged ≥ 65 years, and males versus females. Methods: out-patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent colonoscopy for any indication were randomly assigned to the 1-L PEG + ASC or SPMC group. Using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), the primary endpoints were the bowel cleansing success of the overall colon and right colon, as well as high-quality (HQ) cleansing. Furthermore, the effectiveness and safety outcomes for age groups and males versus females were compared. Results: 1-L PEG + ASC showed significantly better bowel cleansing success than SPMC. Particularly remarkable is the HQ cleansing reached with 1-L PEG + ASC compared with SPMC (55.5 % versus 25.4 % in the overall colon, and 58.7 % versus 27.2 % in the right colon). 1-L PEG + ASC was equally effective for men and women while SPMC showed significant differences between genders (men had worse bowel cleansing). Age did not affect the cleansing effectiveness. 1-L PEG + ASC versus SPMC showed significant differences in tolerance and safety; women also had significantly worse tolerance than men for both solutions, but these did not affect the quality of bowel cleansing. Conclusions: in our real-life setting, 1-L PEG + ASC offered better adequate and HQ bowel cleansing than SPMC, achieving excellent cleansing quality, regardless of gender or tolerance.
Lay Summary
The aim of this study is to compare two commonly used preparation solutions for colonoscopy in real clinical practice. The study covers any causes of colonoscopy encompassing the real clinical scenario. The results confirm that both preparations achieve adequate bowel cleansing, but 1L PEG+ASC offered better adequate and high-quality cleansing in the overall and right colon than SPMC. Also, 1L PEG+ASC was equally effective for men and women, while SPMC offers a worse bowel cleansing in men than in women.
Share Button
New comment
Comments
No comments for this article
References
Uncategorized References
1. Tan L, Lin ZC, Ma S, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018(11).
2. Shaukat A, Tuskey A, Rao VL, et al. Interventions to improve adenoma detection rates for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;96(2):171-183.
3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(3):145-164.
4. Kim HG, Huh KC, Koo HS, et al. Sodium Picosulfate with Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Plus Laxative Is a Good Alternative to Conventional Large Volume Polyethylene Glycol in Bowel Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Single-Blinded Trial. Gut Liver. 2015;9(4):494-501.
5. Sharma P, Burke CA, Johnson DA, et al. The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8(5):E673-e683.
6. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019. Endoscopy. 2019;51(8):775-794.
7. Schreiber S, Baumgart DC, Drenth JPH, et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy. 2019;51(1):73-84.
8. Díaz-Tasende J. Colonoscopy - When quality matters. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2022 Jun;114(6):314-316
9. Maida M, Sinagra E, Morreale GC, et al. Effectiveness of very low-volume preparation for colonoscopy: A prospective, multicenter observational study. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(16):1950-1961.
10. Manno M, Biancheri P, Bonura GF, et al. Safety of a novel 1L-polyethylene glycol-ascorbate solution for colonoscopy cleansing (REAL Study). Dig Liver Dis. 2022;54(11):1508-1512.
11. Bednarska O, Nyhlin N, Schmidt PT, et al. The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(5).
12. van Riswijk MLM, van Keulen KE, Siersema PD. Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc. 2022;34(1):13-32.
13. Choi SH, Yoon WE, Kim SH, et al. Comparison of Two Types of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol-ascorbic Acid as Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2022;80(2):85-92.
14. Barkun AN, Martel M, Epstein IL, et al. The Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative: High-Volume Split-Dose Vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Preparations: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(6):e1469-e1477.
15. Hong SN, Lee CK, Im JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;95(3):500-511.e502.
16. Klare P, Poloschek A, Walter B, et al. Single-day sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate versus split-dose polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: A prospective randomized endoscopist-blinded trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30(11):1627-1634.
17. Mathus-Vliegen EMH, van der Vliet K, Wignand-van der Storm IJ, et al. Split-dose bowel cleansing with picosulphate is safe and better tolerated than 2-l polyethylene glycol solution. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;30(7):709-717.
18. Cash BD, Allen C, Poppers DM. Transient alterations in plasma sodium concentrations with NER1006 bowel preparation: an analysis of three phase III, randomized clinical trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22(1):412.
Related articles

Letter

An uncommon colonic polyp

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9160/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Intestinal obstruction due to bariolith impaction

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9084/2022

Letter

Anorectal malignant melanoma, a diagnostic challenge

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9068/2022

Letter

Lead ingestion, medical emergency and action plan

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9048/2022

Letter

Endoscopic findings of radiation ileitis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9036/2022

Letter

Endoscopic imaging of pneumatosis intestinalis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8972/2022

Editorial

Colonoscopy — When quality matters

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8942/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Colonic Kaposi’s sarcoma as the first clinical manifestation of undiagnosed HIV

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8717/2022

Letter

Gastrointestinal lymphoma, a rare endoscopic lesion

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8555/2021

Letter

Cecal MALT lymphoma: a challenging diagnosis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8526/2021

Letter

Surprises in cecal intubation: foreign bodies in the colon

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8155/2021

Digestive Diseases Image

Phlebosclerotic colitis: an unusual cause of abdominal pain and hematochezia

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7358/2020

Case Report

Primary colon mantle lymphoma: a misleading macroscopic appearance!

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6405/2019

Digestive Diseases Image

Colorectal penetration by two intrauterine devices

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.5974/2018

Editorial

Colorectal cancer screening and survival

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5870/2018

Letter

Bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis after colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5658/2018

Review

Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5408/2017

Letter to the Editor

A rare complication after colonoscopy: a splenic rupture

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5362/2017

Letter to the Editor

Acute appendicitis after a colonic endoscopic submucosal resection

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5307/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

Contribution of the virtual colonoscopy in a case of intestinal intussusception

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5261/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

A bull horn fragment found on colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5020/2017

Editorial

Issue pending: minimizing anxiety before colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4756/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Intrauterine device in the rectal cavity

Letter to the Editor

Primary chancre in the rectum: an underdiagnosed cause of rectal ulcer

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4457/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis

Letter to the Editor

Splenic rupture after colorectal cancer screening

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2015.3714/2015

Citation tools
Pérez Arellano E, Rodríguez García M, Galera Ródenas A, Flores de Miguel Á, de la Morena Madrigal E. 1-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate + magnesium citrate bowel preparations for colonoscopy: effectiveness and safety. 9785/2023


Download to a citation manager

Download the citation for this article by clicking on one of the following citation managers:

Metrics
This article has received 385 visits.
This article has been downloaded 115 times.

Statistics from Dimensions


Statistics from Plum Analytics

Publication history

Received: 13/06/2023

Accepted: 31/10/2023

Online First: 20/11/2023

Published: 09/04/2024

Article revision time: 111 days

Article Online First time: 160 days

Article editing time: 301 days


Share
This article hasn't been rated yet.
Reader rating:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology is the official organ of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Cookie policy Privacy Policy Legal Notice © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology