Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec;2(4):E230-4.
doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1377520. Epub 2014 Oct 24.

Polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation

Affiliations

Polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation

Kristian Leitao et al. Endosc Int Open. 2014 Dec.

Abstract

Background and study aims: Polyethylene glycol-based electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS) and the combination of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) are commonly used bowel preparation agents. The aim of the present study was to compare the two agents with regard to cleansing efficacy and tolerance among individuals scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy.

Materials and methods: The 368 colonoscopy outpatients at three Norwegian hospitals were randomized to bowel lavage with either PEG-ELS or SPMC. Compliance and patient tolerance were evaluated using a patient questionnaire. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPS), a validated scoring system with scores between 0 (best) and 14.

Results: There was no difference in the cleansing quality between the PEG-ELS and SPMC groups (median OBPS 5.0 in both groups). The group that received SPMC reported better overall patient tolerance than the PEG-ELS group (72.6 % vs 59.0 % reporting no or slight discomfort, P < 0.01). Compliance with the recommended total fluid intake (4 L) was better in the SPMC group than in the PEG-ELS group (94.2 % vs 81.2 % respectively, P < 0.01); moreover, the polyp detection rate was superior (34.3 % vs 23.3 %, P = 0.02).

Conclusion: PEG-ELS and SPMC are equally effective in cleansing efficacy, but SPMC was better tolerated by patients and resulted in superior patient compliance and polyp detection rate.

Clinical trial registration: NCT01624454.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Canard J M, Debette-Gratien M, Dumas R. et al.A prospective national study on colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in 2000 in France. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2005;29:17–22. - PubMed
    1. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J J. et al.Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:378–384. - PubMed
    1. Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L. et al.Colonoscopy vs fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. NEJM. 2012;366:697–706. - PubMed
    1. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B. et al.Comparing attendance and detection rate of colonoscopy with sigmoidoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2304–2312. - PubMed
    1. Senore C, Ederle A, Fantin A. et al.Acceptability and side effects of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in a screening setting. J Med Screen. 2011;18:128–134. - PubMed

Associated data