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
. 2024 Sep 17;39(1):143.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-024-04718-4.

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Wan-Qi Liu  1 , Lei Shu  2 , Xiaoli Zhou  2 , Xiao-Feng Wang  3 , Song Liu  4 , Zhao-Hong Shi  5
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Wan-Qi Liu et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. .

Abstract

Background and aim: The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation.

Methods: The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed.

Results: A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group.

Conclusions: 2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Colonoscopy; Linaclotide; Polyethylene glycol.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366(8):687–696 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jang JY, Chun HJ (2014) Bowel preparations as quality indicators for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 20(11):2746–2750 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M et al (2017) Performance measures for lower gastrobowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrobowel Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J 5(3):309–334 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mahmood S, Farooqui SM, Madhoun MF (2018) Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 30(8):819–826 - PubMed
    1. Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH (2007) The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single centre study of 10,571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis 9(8):745–748 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources