COMPARISON OF MEAN BOWEL PREPARATION IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING COLONOSCOPY PREPARED BY SODIUM PHOSPHATE VERSUS POLYETHYLENE USING BOSTON BOWEL PREPARATION SCORE
Main Article Content
Keywords
Bowel Cleaning, Polyethylene Glycol, Boston Bowel Preparation Score, Colonoscopy, and Sodium Phosphate.
Abstract
Introduction: Colonic preparation plays a crucial role in colonoscopy, as it affects the chances and success of identifying the lesion and other related results. Sodium Phosphate (NaP) and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) are two types of bowel preparation agents, comparison between them reveals that they have a propensity to cause side effects, complications, and patient compliance. The Bowel preparation score of Boston thus makes it easier to compare the efficacy of the various regimens because it has a touch of bias-free, objectivity in the process of assessment.
Objectives: The current study aimed to compare the mean bowel preparation quality of NaP and PEG in patients undergoing colonoscopy with the help of BBPS to check its effectiveness, safety, and compliance.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was done at Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Nishtar Medical University Hospital, Multan, Pakistan from January 2024 to June 2024, with 200 patients randomly placed in NaP or PEG. Descriptive statistics on BBPS, compliance level, and AEs on the patient samples were conducted.
Results: In this study, NaP was found to have overall better BBPS scores of 7.2 ± 1.4 than PEG of 6.5 ± 1.6, p = 0.03. However, NaP was significantly associated with a higher risk of dehydration compared to saline which was only 18% against 8% With PEG, more patients reported cases of nausea and bloating.
Conclusion: NaP is more effective as a bowel preparation though it poses more risks of dehydration than the other preparations. Besides, it was demonstrated that the mentioned PEG is safer for high-risk patients even if it harms lower compliance of the patient. Thus, the strategy of risk adjustment can be applied to bowel preparation outcomes, as it is with other similar procedures.
References
2- Gravina, A.G., Pellegrino, R., Romeo, M., Palladino, G., Cipullo, M., Iadanza, G., Olivieri, S., Zagaria, G., De Gennaro, N., Santonastaso, A. and Romano, M., 2023. Quality of bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing colonoscopy: What factors to consider?. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 15(3), p.133.
3- Othman, M.F., Zakaria, A.D., Yahya, M.M., Hashim, M.N.M., Mokhter, W.M.W., Zain, W.Z.W., Mohamad, I.S., Shah, M.S.M., Abd Aziz, S.H.S., Ab Kadir, M.N.N. and Zakaria, Z., 2023. Comparing low volume versus conventional volume of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation during colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences: MJMS, 30(5), p.106.
4- Kim, J.H., Park, Y.E., Kim, T.O., Park, J., Oh, G.M., Moon, W. and Park, S.J., 2022. Comparison of the efficacy and safety between oral sulfate tablet and polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy according to age. Medicine, 101(27), p.e29884.
5- Jeon, H.J., Keum, B., Bang, E.J., Lee, K.W., Kim, S.H., Lee, J.M., Choi, H.S., Kim, E.S., Jeen, Y.T., Lee, H.S. and Chun, H.J., 2023. Bowel preparation efficacy and safety of 1 L vs 2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology, 14(3), p.e00532.
6- Ali, I.A., Roton, D. and Madhoun, M., 2022. Oral sulfate solution versus low‐volume polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Digestive Endoscopy, 34(4), pp.721-728.
7- Shahini, E., Sinagra, E., Vitello, A., Ranaldo, R., Contaldo, A., Facciorusso, A. and Maida, M., 2023. Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature. World journal of gastroenterology, 29(11), p.1685.
8- Alsakkaf, A.A.A., 2021. THE STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF BOWEL PREPARATION AGENT ON THE QUALITY OF COLONOSCOPY IN HOSPITAL USM KUBANG KERIAN (Doctoral dissertation).
9- Sun, M., Yang, G. and Wang, Y., 2023. Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 38(1), p.69.
10- Jagdeep, J., Sawant, G., Lal, P., Bains, L. and Yadav, J., 2021. Oral lactulose vs. polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study. Cureus, 13(4).
11- Choi, S., Kim, J.S., Choe, B.H. and Kang, B., 2024. Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate tablet vs. polyethylene glycol and ascorbate for bowel preparation in children. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 12, p.1277083.
12- Arieira, C., de Castro, F.D., Carvalho, P.B., Magalhães, J., Xavier, S., Sousa, C., Rosa, B. and Cotter, J., 2021. Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG+ ascorbate. Endoscopy International Open, 9(11), pp.E1602-E1610.
13- Sirinawasatien, A., Sakulthongthawin, P., Chanpiwat, K. and Chantarojanasiri, T., 2022. Bowel preparation using 2-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen plus lubiprostone versus 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen: a randomized controlled trial. BMC gastroenterology, 22(1), p.424.
14- Park, J.H., Kim, M., Hong, S.W., Hwang, S.W., Park, S.H., Yang, D.H., Ye, B.D., Myung, S.J., Yang, S.K. and Byeon, J.S., 2024. Comparison of LL Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and Oral Sodium Sulfate Tablets for Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(23), p.7493.
15- Gimeno-García, A.Z., Hernández, G., Baute Dorta, J.L., Reygosa, C., de la Barreda, R., Hernandez-Bustabad, A., Amaral, C., Cedrés, Y., Del Castillo, R., Nicolás-Pérez, D. and Jiménez, A., 2021. An enhanced high-volume preparation for colonoscopy is not better than a conventional low-volume one in patients at risk of poor bowel cleansing: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in medicine, 8, p.654847.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Yasir Abbas Zaidi
Associate Professor of Gastroenterology, Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Nishtar Medical University Hospital, Multan, Pakistan
Kawsar Hayat Khan
Consultant Gastroenterology, SGTH, Pakistan
Sarwar Khan
Consultant Gastroenterologist, Category B Hospital Dargai Malakand, Pakistan
Muhammad Daud
Associate Professor RMI Peshawar, Pakistan
Sohail Hussain
MBBS, FCPS, MACG, Associate Professor, Consultant Gastroenterologist and Hepatologist, Assistant Director for Postgraduate Studies, Ziauddin University Karachi, Pakistan
Moazama Shakeel Ahmed
House Officer, Department of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University/ Mayo Hospital Lahore, Pakistan