Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 14, 2014; 20(42): 15845-15851
Published online Nov 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i42.15845
Published online Nov 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i42.15845
Table 1 Demographic data and indication for colonoscopy n (%)
NaP tables (n = 158) | PEG solution (n = 162) | P value | |
Mean age (yr) | 46.5 ± 9.8 | 48.6 ± 10.3 | 0.064 |
Male | 70 (44.3) | 69 (42.6) | 0.758 |
BMI | 23.2 ± 3.1 | 23.0 ± 3.0 | 0.628 |
Experience of colonoscopy | 67 (42.4) | 74 (45.7) | 0.555 |
Surgical history | 23 (14.6) | 35 (21.6) | 0.102 |
Indication for colonoscopy | |||
Screening | 89 (56.3) | 81 (50.0) | 0.257 |
Bowel habit change | 9 (5.7) | 17 (10.5) | 0.116 |
Stool caliber change | 8 (5.1) | 6 (3.7) | 0.552 |
Melena/hematochezia | 13 (8.2) | 16 (9.9) | 0.608 |
Abdominal pain | 22 (13.9) | 10 (6.2) | 0.021 |
Anemia | 2 (1.3) | 2 (1.2) | 1.000 |
Weight loss | 1 (0.6) | 3 (1.9) | 0.623 |
P/Hx of CRN | 13 (8.2) | 17 (10.5) | 0.487 |
F/Hx of CRC | 0 | 7 (4.3) | 0.015 |
For polypectomy | 1 (0.6) | 3 (1.9) | 0.623 |
Table 2 Bowel preparation quality and procedure-related factors n (%)
NaP tables (n = 158) | PEG solution (n = 162) | P value | |
Bowel cleansing | |||
Adequate | 147 (93.0) | 150 (92.6) | 0.877 |
Inadequate | 11 (7.0) | 12 (7.4) | |
Boston scale score | |||
Right colon | 2.6 ± 0.6 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 0.262 |
Transverse colon | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 2.7 ± 0.5 | 0.022 |
Left colon | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 0.990 |
Global colon | 8.2 ± 1.3 | 8.0 ± 1.2 | 0.221 |
Cecal insertion time (min) | 4.5 ± 2.7 | 4.2 ± 2.6 | 0.224 |
Withdrawal time (min) | 10.5 ± 4.6 | 9.5 ± 3.6 | 0.028 |
Total colonoscopy time (min) | 15.2 ± 6.4 | 13.7 ± 5.4 | 0.023 |
Table 3 Detection rate of colorectal polyps and adenomas n (%)
NaP tablets (n = 158) | PEG solution (n = 162) | P value | |
Polyps regardless of size | |||
Participants | 91 (57.6) | 81 (50.0) | 0.173 |
Polyps/patient | 1.3 ± 1.7 | 1.2 ± 1.8 | 0.752 |
Polyps diameter ≤ 5 mm | |||
Participants | 76 (48.1) | 63 (38.9) | 0.096 |
Polyps/patient | 0.9 ± 1.3 | 0.8 ± 1.5 | 0.770 |
Polyps diameter > 5 mm | |||
Participants | 43 (27.2) | 44 (27.2) | 0.991 |
Polyps/patient | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 0.4 ± 0..8 | 0.508 |
Adenomas regardless of size | |||
Participants | 55 (34.8) | 57 (35.2) | 0.944 |
Polyps/patient | 0.7 ± 1.3 | 0.6 ± 1.1 | 0.679 |
Adenomas diameter ≤ 5 mm | |||
Participants | 40 (25.3) | 39 (24.1) | 0.797 |
Polyps/patient | 0.4 ± 0.9 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 0.813 |
Adenomas diameter > 5 mm | |||
Participants | 29 (18.4) | 33 (20.4) | 0.648 |
Polyps/patient | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.744 |
Table 4 Patient compliance, acceptability and satisfaction
NaP tablets | PEG solution | P value | |
(n = 158) | (n = 162) | ||
Compliance (amount of intake of cleansing agent) | 0.228 | ||
Optimal (100%) | 151 (95.6) | 148 (91.4) | |
Good (75%-100%) | 6 (3.8) | 14 (8.6) | |
Poor (< 75%) | 1 (0.6) | 0 | |
Acceptability (difficulty of the preparation) | < 0.001 | ||
None | 86 (54.4) | 50 (30.9) | |
Some | 59 (37.3) | 85 (52.5) | |
Much | 13 (8.2) | 27 (16.7) | |
Taste of the preparation | < 0.001 | ||
Very bad | 4 (2.5) | 14 (8.6) | |
Bad | 26 (16.5) | 54 (33.3) | |
Neutral | 82 (51.9) | 75 (46.3) | |
Good | 38 (24.1) | 14 (8.6) | |
Very good | 8 (5.1) | 5 (3.1) | |
Satisfaction level (VAS) | 7.8 ± 2.0 | 6.5 ± 2.4 | < 0.001 |
Table 5 Incidence of adverse events n (%)
Adverse events | NaP tablets (n = 158) | PEG solution (n = 162) | P value |
Nausea | 53 (33.5) | 53 (32.7) | 0.875 |
Vomiting | 17 (10.8) | 17 (10.5) | 0.939 |
Abdominal pain | 11 (7.0) | 14 (8.6) | 0.576 |
Abdominal distension/bloating | 44 (27.8) | 61 (37.7) | 0.062 |
Anal irritation symptom | 6 (3.8) | 8 (4.9) | 0.618 |
Sleep disturbance | 3 (1.9) | 7 (4.3) | 0.336 |
Total | 100 (63.3) | 112 (69.1) | 0.269 |
-
Citation: Jung YS, Lee CK, Kim HJ, Eun CS, Han DS, Park DI. Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets
vs polyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(42): 15845-15851 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i42/15845.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i42.15845