Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S89
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637293
ESGE Days 2018 oral presentations
21.04.2018 – Colon cleansing
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

COMPARISON OF ORAL SULFATE SOLUTION AND 2 LITERS POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL WITH ASCORBIC ACID IN SPLIT DOSES AS BOWEL PREPARATION FOR COLONOSCOPY: A RANDOMIZED SINGLE-BLINDED TRIAL

MG Choi
1   The Catholic University of Korea/Catholic Photomedicine Research Institute, Dept of Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
,
HH Lee
1   The Catholic University of Korea/Catholic Photomedicine Research Institute, Dept of Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
,
CH Lim
1   The Catholic University of Korea/Catholic Photomedicine Research Institute, Dept of Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
,
YK Cho
1   The Catholic University of Korea/Catholic Photomedicine Research Institute, Dept of Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
,
JM Park
1   The Catholic University of Korea/Catholic Photomedicine Research Institute, Dept of Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
,
BI Lee
1   The Catholic University of Korea/Catholic Photomedicine Research Institute, Dept of Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
,
YS Cho
1   The Catholic University of Korea/Catholic Photomedicine Research Institute, Dept of Internal Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Republic of
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims:

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability oforal sulfate solution (OSS) and 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) in split doses for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy.

Methods:

A prospective, single-center, single-blinded randomized controlled trial was performed. The primary outcome was the rate of successful bowel cleansing by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Aronchick scale. Secondary outcomes were examination time, polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR), colonoscopic findings, and tolerability. Tolerability for ease and palatability, intention to reuse, and adverse events were evaluated using a questionnaire. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis were performed.

Results:

A total of 187 patients were finally randomized to receive either OSS (n = 93) or PEG+Asc (n = 94). The rate of successful cleansing was not different between two groups, based on the BBPS (OSS 87.1% vs. PEG+Asc 88.3%, P= 0.803) and Aronchick scale (OSS 89.2% vs. PEG+Asc 85.1%, P= 0.397) by ITT analysis. The withdrawal time of OSS group was significantly shorter than that of PEG+Asc group (11.8 ± 5.2 vs. 14.3 ± 8.5, P= 0.016). PDR and ADR were not significantly different in two groups. Regarding subject's satisfaction, 83.0% of the OSS group and 88.0% of the PEG+Asc group had intention to reuse (P= 0.284). The rates of adverse events (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, thirst, dizziness, paresthesia, numbness) were not significantly different between two groups. Mucosal erythema or apthous lesions were found only in PEG+Asc group (4.3% and 2.1%, respectively).

Conclusions:

OSS was as effective as PEG+Asc for successful bowel preparation and had acceptable tolerability. OSS is a promising and safe alternative with a low-volume preparation for colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02761213).