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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Jun;112(6):951-958.
doi: 10.1038/ajg.2017.53. Epub 2017 Mar 14.

Comparison of Two Intensive Bowel Cleansing Regimens in Patients With Previous Poor Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of Two Intensive Bowel Cleansing Regimens in Patients With Previous Poor Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Study

Antonio Z Gimeno-García et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: Inadequate bowel cleansing is a major burden for endoscopy units. The aim of this study was to compare two intensive bowel cleansing regimens in patients with previous colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation.

Methods: Patients with inadequate cleansing at index colonoscopy were randomized to 4-L split-dose polyethylene-glycol (PEG) regimen vs. 2-L split-dose PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) regimen. All individuals underwent a 3-day low-residue diet and received 10 mg of bisacodyl, the day before colonoscopy. Cleansing was considered to be adequate if the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scored ≥2 at each colonic segment. A non-inferiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that colonic cleansing with 2-L PEG+Asc was not inferior to 4-l PEG, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10%.

Results: Adequate bowel cleansing was significantly higher in patients assigned to 4-L PEG regimen (n=127) vs. those randomized to 2-L PEG+Asc regimen (n=129) by intention-to-treat analysis (81.1 vs. 67.4%, odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.163-3.689)) and by per-protocol analysis (86.6 vs. 71.7%, OR: 2.55, 95% CI: (1.316-4.922)). The study was terminated for futility after the interim analysis, because the 95% CI of the difference of proportions was 3.13-24.27% in the intention-to-treat analysis and 3.33-26.47% in the per-protocol analysis, confirming the superiority of 4-L PEG preparation.

Conclusions: After 3-day low-residue diet and oral bisacodyl before colonoscopy, colon cleansing with 4-L split-dose PEG was superior to 2-L split-dose PEG+Asc in patients with previous inadequate cleansing. (EUDRACT: 2013-002506-31, NCT02073552).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76 - PubMed
    1. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013 Jun;23(3):276-80 - PubMed
    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jun;69(7):1201-9 - PubMed
    1. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010 Nov;45(11):1380-6 - PubMed
    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 May;79(5):811-820.e3 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data