Journals / Endoskopi / 2018 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, and sennoside for colonoscopy preparation

Kolonoskopi hazırlığı için polietilen glikol, sodyum fosfat ve sennosid kullanımının karşılaştırılması

Journal
Endoskopi
Pages
74–77
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclu-sion: Colonoscopy preparation with polyethylene glycol is a method more effective than preparation with sennoside and sodium phosphate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background and aims: In this study, we compared polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate and sennosid in terms of efficiency, cecal intubation rate, and side effects in colonoscopy preparation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study where we assessed the medical records of patients undergoing colonoscopy between July 2017 and March 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclu-sion: Colonoscopy preparation with polyethylene glycol is a method more effective than preparation with sennoside and sodium phosphate.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background and aims: In this study, we compared polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate and sennosid in terms of efficiency, cecal intubation rate, and side effects in colonoscopy preparation. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study where we assessed the medical records of patients undergoing colonoscopy between July 2017 and March 2018. The patients were divided into 3 groups: polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, and sennoside group. We excluded from the study patients with dietary re-strictions, renal insufficiency, intestinal obstruction, active infection, active bleeding, and those who took fewer than 75% of their medications. Bowel preparation was rated as excellent, good, moderate, or poor. Results: The study population consisted of 269 patients, 129 female (48%) and 140 male (52%). The average age of the patients was 55 years. When all the patients were examined, an excellent cleaning rate was found in 38% of the patients, a good cleaning rate was found in 17% of the patients, a moderate cleaning rate was found in 26% of the patients, and a poor cleaning rate was found in 19% of the patients. An adequate cleaning rate was found in 52% of the patients in the sennoside group, in 50% of the patients in the sodium phos-phate group, and in 66% of the patients in the polyethylene glycol group. In this study, the total cecal intubation rate was 90%. The cecal intubation rate was 100% in the polyethylene glycol group, 87% in the sennoside group, and 85% in the sodium phosphate group. The most common side effects in patients were nausea/vomiting (12%) and abdominal pain (9%). Conclu-sion: Colonoscopy preparation with polyethylene glycol is a method more effective than preparation with sennoside and sodium phosphate.

Özet

Giriş ve Amaç: Bu çalışmada kolonoskopi hazırlığı için kullanılan polietilen glikol (PEG), sodyum fosfat ve sennosidin etkinlikleri, çekuma ulaşma oran-ları ve yan etkileri karşılaştırılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma Temmuz 2017-Mart 2018 tarihleri arasında kolonoskopi yapılan hastaların kayıtları retrospektif incelenerek yapılmıştır. Hastalar; polietilen glikol, sodyum fosfat ve sennosid olarak 3 gruba bölünmüştür. Diyet uyumsuzluğu olan, ilaçların %75’ten azını içen, renal yetmezlik, intestinal obstrüksiyon, aktif enfeksi-yon ve aktif kanaması olan hastalar çalışmadan dışlanmıştır. Kolon temizliği mükemmel, iyi, orta ve kötü olmak üzere 4 grupta değerlendirilmiştir. Bul-gular: Araştırma popülasyonu 129 kadın (%48) ve 140 erkek (%52) erkek hasta olmak üzere 269 kişiden oluştu. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 55 yıldı. Tüm hastalar incelendiğinde mükemmel temizlik oranı %38, iyi temizlik oranı %17, orta temizlik oranı %26 ve kötü temizlik oranı %19 olarak bulundu. Sennosid grubunda yeterli temizlik oranı %52, sodyum fosfat grubunda %50 ve polietilen glikol grubunda %66 olarak bulundu. Çalışmada 242 hasta-da çekuma ulaşıldı (%90). Çekuma ulaşma oranı polietilen glikol grubunda %100 iken sennosid grubunda %87 ve sodyum fosfat grubunda %85 olarak bulunmuştur. Hastalarda en sık görülen yan etkiler ise bulantı/kusma (%12) ve karın ağrısı idi (%9). Sonuç: Polietilen glikol ile kolonoskopi hazırlığı sennosid ve sodyum fosfat ile hazırlığa göre daha efektif bir yöntemdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAPLAN, M. (2022). Comparison of polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, and sennoside for colonoscopy preparation. Endoskopi, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3, 74–77. https://ajindex.com/articles/501053

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine 16th Edition 2005;1858-9.
  2. Memik F, Dolar E. Karaciğer sirozu. Tabak F, editör. Klinik Gastroenteroloji. I. Baskı, İstanbul; Nobel ve Güneş Tıp Kitapevleri. 2005;626-33.
  3. Tabak F, Yurdaydın C, Kaymakoğlu S, et al; Guidelines Study Group VH. Diagnosis, management and treatment of hepatitis B virus infection: Turkey 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines. Turk J Gastroenterol 2017;28(Suppl 2):73-83.
  4. Idilman R, Baykam N, Kaymakoğlu S, et al; Guidelines Study Group VH. Turkey 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on recommendations for screening diagnosing and managing hepatitis C virus. Turk J Gastroenterol 2017 Dec;28(Suppl 2):90-93.
  5. Ökten A, Mungan Z, Çakaloğlu Y. Karaciğer sirozu: Gastroenterohepatoloji. Nobel Tıp Kitapevi 2001;449-50. Ökten A. Türkiye’de karaciğer sirozunun etiyolojisi. Hepatolojide Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyumu Kitabı,1998; 67. Quer J, Esteban J. Epidemiology. In: Thomas HC, Lemon S, Zuckerman AJ (eds). Viral hepatitis. Massachusetts, USA. Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing, 2005;407-25.
  6. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 2001;344:495- 500. Şahin M, Karayakar F, Erdogan KE, et al. Liver tissue trace element levels in HepB patients and the relationship of these elements with histological injury in the liver and with clinical parameters. J Trace Elem Med Biol 2018;45:70-77. Dienstag JL. The role of liver biopsy in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2002;36(5 Suppl 1):S152-60. Bedossa P, Poynard T. An algorithm fort he grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVİR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 1996;24:289-93.
  7. Silva AM, Matias CN, Nunes CL, et al. Lack of agreement of in vivo raw bioimpedance measurements obtained from two single and multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance devices. Eur J Clin Nutr 2018 Oct 22. [Epub ahead of print] Ruiz-Vargas A, Ivorra A, Arkwright JW. Design, Construction and Validation of an Electrical Impedance Probe with Contact Force and Temperature Sensors Suitable for in-vivo Measurements. Sci Rep 2018;8:14818. Kushner RF. Bioelectrical impedance analysis: a review of principles and applications. J Am Coll Nutr 1992;11:199-209.
  8. Baumgartner RN, Chumlea WC, Roche AF. Impedance for body composition. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1990;18:193-224.
  9. Houtkopper LB, Lohman TG, Going SB, Howell WH. Why bioelectrical impedance analysis should be used for estimating adiposity. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;64(3 Suppl):436S-448S. Köksal İ, Yılmaz G, Parlak M, et al; Study Group TCHC.