Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 6, 2019; 7(1): 39-48
Published online Jan 6, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.39
Published online Jan 6, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.39
Table 1 Aronchick bowel preparation scale
Grade | Point(s) | Description |
Excellent | 1 | Small amount of clear liquid with clear mucosa seen; more than 95% of mucosa seen |
Good | 2 | Small amount of turbid fluid without feces not interfering with examination; more than 90% of mucosa seen |
Fair | 3 | Moderate amount of stool that can be cleared with suctioning permitting adequate evaluation of entire colonic mucosa; more than 90% of mucosa seen |
Poor | 4 | Inadequate but examination completed; enough feces or turbid fluid to prevent a reliable examination; less than 90% of mucosa seen |
Inadequate | 5 | Re-preparation required; large amount of fecal residue precludes a complete examination |
Table 2 Boston bowel preparation scale
Point(s) | Description |
0 | Unprepared colon segment with stool that cannot be cleared |
1 | Portion of mucosa in segment seen after cleaning, but other areas not seen because of retained material |
2 | Minor residual material after cleaning, but mucosa of segment generally well seen |
3 | Entire mucosa of segment well seen after cleaning |
Table 3 Baseline characteristics of the patients
0.5-L Group (n = 47) | 1-L Group (n = 43) | Total (n = 90) | P value | ||
Age, years | |||||
mean ± SD | 49.7 ± 11.2 | 46.2 ± 10.8 | 48.0 ± 11.1 | 0.126 | |
Median (range) | 51 (29-72) | 48 (22-64) | 49 (22-72) | ||
Sex (male) | 29 (61.7) | 32 (74.4) | 61 (67.8) | 0.287 | |
BMI (kg/m2) | 24.2 ± 3.1 | 25.0 ± 3.4 | 24.6 ± 3.4 | 0.150 | |
Comorbidity | |||||
Diabetes | 7 (14.9) | 4 (9.3) | 11 (12.2) | 0.626 | |
Hypertension | 6 (12.8) | 6 (14.0) | 12 (13.3) | 1.000 | |
Abdominal surgery | 10 (21.3) | 9 (20.9) | 19 (21.1) | 1.000 | |
Dietary compliance | 23 (48.9) | 18 (41.8) | 41 (45.5) | 0.369 | |
Characteristic of last rectal effluent | 0.412 | ||||
Turbid liquid | 34 (72.3) | 27 (62.8) | 61 (67.8) | ||
Particulate liquid | 13 (27.7) | 15 (34.9) | 28 (31.1) | ||
Liquid with small amounts of feces | 0 (0) | 1 (2.3) | 1 (1.1) | ||
Number of defecations | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 1.3 | 3.5 ± 1.2 | 0.000 | |
Interval between preparation and colonoscopy | 86.3 ± 32.9 | 78.6 ± 27.1 | 82.6 ± 30.3 | 0.232 |
Table 4 Comparison of bowel preparation quality between study groups
0.5-L Group (n = 47) | 1-L Group (n = 43) | Total (n = 90) | P value | ||
ABPS | 0.617 | ||||
Excellent | 7 (14.9) | 7 (16.3) | 14 (15.6) | ||
Good | 31 (66.0) | 31 (72.1) | 62 (68.9) | ||
Fair | 9 (19.1) | 5 (11.6) | 14 (15.6) | ||
BBPS | |||||
Mean | 6.7 ± 1.5 | 7.0 ± 1.7 | 6.8 ± 1.6 | 0.342 | |
BBPS ≥ 8 | 13 (27.7) | 16 (37.2) | 29 (32.2) | 0.458 |
Table 5 Results of colonoscopy
0.5-L Group (n = 47) | 1-L Group (n = 43) | Total (n = 90) | P value | |
Cecal intubation | 47 (100.0) | 42 (97.7) | 89 (98.9) | 0.964 |
Cecal intubation time (min) | 3.3 ± 1.7 | 3.6 ± 2.3 | 3.4 ± 2.0 | 0.507 |
Withdrawal time (min) | 8.3 ± 2.3 | 7.9 ± 2.5 | 8.1 ± 2.4 | 0.432 |
PDR | 17 (36.2) | 19 (44.2) | 36 (40.0) | 0.575 |
ADR | 13 (27.7) | 16 (37.2) | 29 (32.2) | 0.870 |
Advanced ADR | 3 (6.4) | 4 (9.3) | 7 (7.8) | 1.000 |
Table 6 Other secondary points
0.5-L Group (n = 47) | 1-L Group (n = 43) | Total (n = 90) | P value | ||
Compliance to additional PEG + Asc | 44 (93.6) | 37 (86.0) | 81 (90.0) | 0.399 | |
Adverse effects of PEG | 31 (66.0) | 23 (53.5) | 54 (60.0) | 0.322 | |
Abdominal discomfort | 29 (61.7) | 28 (65.1) | 57 (63.3) | 0.907 | |
Nausea | 33 (70.2) | 25 (58.1) | 58 (64.4) | 0.33 | |
Vomiting | 5 (10.6) | 7 (16.3) | 12 (13.3) | 0.634 | |
Patient’s satisfaction | 6.7 ± 1.8 | 5.9 ± 1.9 | 6.3 ± 1.9 | 0.041 |
- Citation: Cho JH, Goo EJ, Kim KO, Lee SH, Jang BI, Kim TN. Efficacy of 0.5-L vs 1-L polyethylene glycol containing ascorbic acid as additional colon cleansing methods for inadequate bowel preparation as expected by last stool examination before colonoscopy. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(1): 39-48
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v7/i1/39.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i1.39