Liu FX, Wang L, Yan WJ, Zou LC, Cao YA, Lin XC. Cleansing efficacy and safety of bowel preparation protocol using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate considering subjective experiences: An observational study. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(15): 3586-3596 [PMID: 34046458 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i15.3586]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Yue-An Cao, BMed, Chief Doctor, Department of International Medical Center, Peking University International Hospital, No. 1 Life Park Road, Life Science Park of Zhong Guancun, Changping District, Beijing 102206, China. caoyuean@pkuih.edu.cn
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Observational Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. May 26, 2021; 9(15): 3586-3596 Published online May 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i15.3586
Table 1 The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (by colon segment)
Score
Description
0
Excellent: Clearly visible mucosal detail with almost no stool residue; any fluid present is clear with hardly any stool residue
1
Good: Some turbid fluid or stool residue, but mucosal detail still visible without the need for washing/suctioning
2
Fair: Some turbid fluid of stool residue obscuring mucosal detail; however, mucosal detail becomes visible with suctioning; washing not needed
3
Poor: Stool present obscuring mucosal detail and contour; a reasonable view is obtained by suctioning and washing
4
Inadequate: Solid stool obscuring mucosal detail, which cannot be cleared by washing and suctioning
Table 2 The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (total colon fluid)
Score
Description
0
Small volume of fluid
1
Moderate volume of fluid
2
Large volume of fluid
Table 3 Baseline characteristics of the study group, n (%)
Characteristics
Study population, n = 64
Gender
Male
42 (65.63)
Female
22 (34.38)
BMI, mean, kg/m2
25.1
BMI > 25
32 (50.00)
BMI ≤ 25
32 (50.00)
Constipation
6 (9.38)
History of abdominal surgery
9 (14.06)
Indication
Screening
47 (73.44)
History of colon polyp
12 (18.75)
Chronic constipation
3 (4.69)
Diarrhea
0 (0.00)
Other
2 (3.13)
History of past colonoscopy
42 (65.63)
Table 4 Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of bowel preparation
Variables
Score
OBPS (mean)
Ascending
1.4
Mid
0.9
Rectosigmoid
0.8
Total colon fluid
0.5
Overall (mean ± SD)
3.6 ± 0.312
Quality of bowel preparation, n (%)
Success rate (OBPS ≤ 7)
58 (93.55)
Excellence rate (OBPS ≤ 4)
42 (67.74)
Polyp detection rate (%)
36.9
Supplementary water intake (mL)
3000 (2250, 3800)
Sleep quality-VAS
0 (0, 6)
Anal pain-VAS
0 (0, 6)
Ease of drinking-VAS
10 (4, 10)
Taste-VAS
10 (5, 10)
Table 5 Univariate analysis
Variables
Overall
OBPS ≤ 4, n = 42
OBPS > 4, n = 20
Statistics
P value
Age (mean ± SD)
50.20 ± 10.36
47.90 ± 8.90
55.50 ± 11.90
2.81
0.0066
Male
41 (65.63)
30 (71.40)
11 (55.00)
1.63
0.255
BMI
25.1 ± 4.0
25.4 ± 4.1
24.6 ± 3.9
-0.68
0.4963
≤ 25
31 (50.00)
19 (45.20)
12 (60.00)
> 25
31 (50.00)
23 (54.80)
8 (40.00)
Constipation
6 (9.38)
1 (2.40)
5 (25.00)
7.9301
0.0112
History of abdominal surgery
9 (14.06)
4 (9.50)
5 (25.00)
2.6151
0.133
Taking drugs
10 (15.63)
5 (11.90)
5 (25.00)
1.7175
0.269
Indications
2.348
0.141
Screening
45 (72.58)
33 (78.60)
12 (60.00)
Other
17 (27.42)
9 (21.40)
8 (40.00)
No history of past colonoscopy
40 (65.63)
29 (69.00)
11 (55.00)
1.1679
0.395
Minutes from 1st dose of Picolax
First stool
73.0 (8, 243)
86.7 (8, 243)
98.2 (15, 230)
0.7234
0.4694
Last stool
169.3 ± 96.8
175.0 ± 104.8
158.1 ± 79.4
-0.64
0.5246
Minutes from 2nd dose of Picolax
First stool
38.9 ± 28.1
37.8 ± 28.5
42.8 ± 28.5
0.65
0.5212
Last stool
139.5 ± 63.1
140.9 ± 56.0
137.9
-0.18
0.8602
Water intake (mL)
3000.0 (2250, 3800)
2989.3 (2250, 3000)
2877.5 (2250, 3800)
3.6245
0.0569
Total frequency of defecation
9.0 (5, 21)
8.5 (5, 17)
9.0 (5, 21)
0.2819
0.779
Sleep disturbances (VAS > 1)
2.824
0.7271
Yes
20
15 (35.7)
5 (25.0)
No
42
27 (64.3)
15 (75.0)
Ease of drinking
0.01
1
Easy (VAS ≥ 9)
46
31 (73.8)
15 (75.0)
Hard (VAS < 9)
16
11 (26.2)
5 (25.0)
Taste
0.2214
1
Satisfied (VAS ≥ 9)
54
36 (85.7)
18 (90.0)
Dissatisfied (VAS < 9)
8
6 (14.3)
2 (10.0)
Table 6 Univariate logistic regression analysis for the group with Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale > 4
Variable
Regression coefficient
SEM
Statistics
P value
OR
95%CI
Age
0.0742
0.0299
6.1732
0.013
1.077
1.0160-1.1420
Male (n, %)
0.7156
0.5645
1.6071
0.2049
2.046
0.2677-6.1850
Constipation
2.6149
1.1362
5.2962
0.0214
13.665
1.4740-126.6990
Citation: Liu FX, Wang L, Yan WJ, Zou LC, Cao YA, Lin XC. Cleansing efficacy and safety of bowel preparation protocol using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate considering subjective experiences: An observational study. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(15): 3586-3596