Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children
Background Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG elect...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Pediatric research 2021-07, Vol.90 (1), p.171-175 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 175 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 171 |
| container_title | Pediatric research |
| container_volume | 90 |
| creator | Fang, Shengbo Song, Yanqing Liu, Yufei Wang, Libo |
| description | Background
Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG electrolyte solutions for BP in children.
Methods
The randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial enrolled 150 children aged 6–18 years undergoing colonoscopy in our center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 60 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 60) or 40 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 40) of PEG electrolytes (PEG-ELS) 4000. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for bowel cleansing evaluation. Primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability was also evaluated.
Results
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for both whole colon and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered the BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
Conclusions
Low volume of PEG-ELS for BP has good efficacy in bowel cleansing. PEG-ELS with 40 ml/kg volume was not inferior to that of 60 ml/kg.
Impact
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for whole and various colonic segments.
The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups.
More patients considered BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
This study showed that low-volume PEG-ELS monotherapy was effective in bowel cleansing and explored a possibly feasible BP method for pediatrics in China that PEG-ELS 40 was comparable to PEG-ELS 60 regimen. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41390-020-01216-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2454655900</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2454655900</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-68a68ca6c4bb1a6b02a8fc8e41aee0e7747db9192789c09947523d99bbc4e55e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc-KFDEQxoMo7uzoC3iQgBcvrUnnT3e8yaKusCCInpskXb2TJZO0SXqH9u18M7P2quDBQwhV9auvivoQekbJK0pY_zpzyhRpSFsfbalsxAO0o4LVkPPuIdoRwmjDlOrP0HnON4RQLnr-GJ0xRomURO7Qj886jPHovsOIrXfBWe1xSU77NximqYZ2xRXBJXpI2jjvyorjhMsp4tFNEyQIBee55vEYM9zVfDw1t9EvR8Bz9CuUw-ohAL72q40egwdbUi0UyHiKCZt4Ao_nBLNOurgYsIGaB1zpGGK2cV6xC_gQ8-yK9tu2B-fHOvwJejRpn-Hp_b9HX9-_-3Jx2Vx9-vDx4u1VY1knSiN7LXurpeXGUC0NaXU_2R441QAEuo53o1FUtV2vLFGKd6Jlo1LGWA5CANujl5vunOK3BXIZji5b8F4HiEseWi64FELVo-_Ri3_Qm7ikULcbWiFb0jHay0q1G2VTzDnBNMzJHXVaB0qGO4OHzeChGjz8MngQten5vfRijjD-afntaAXYBuRaCteQ_s7-j-xP2nW2lA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2562073186</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Fang, Shengbo ; Song, Yanqing ; Liu, Yufei ; Wang, Libo</creator><creatorcontrib>Fang, Shengbo ; Song, Yanqing ; Liu, Yufei ; Wang, Libo</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG electrolyte solutions for BP in children.
Methods
The randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial enrolled 150 children aged 6–18 years undergoing colonoscopy in our center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 60 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 60) or 40 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 40) of PEG electrolytes (PEG-ELS) 4000. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for bowel cleansing evaluation. Primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability was also evaluated.
Results
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for both whole colon and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered the BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
Conclusions
Low volume of PEG-ELS for BP has good efficacy in bowel cleansing. PEG-ELS with 40 ml/kg volume was not inferior to that of 60 ml/kg.
Impact
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for whole and various colonic segments.
The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups.
More patients considered BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
This study showed that low-volume PEG-ELS monotherapy was effective in bowel cleansing and explored a possibly feasible BP method for pediatrics in China that PEG-ELS 40 was comparable to PEG-ELS 60 regimen.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-3998</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-0447</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41390-020-01216-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33106606</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Nature Publishing Group US</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Cathartics - administration & dosage ; Child ; Child, Hospitalized ; Clinical Research Article ; Colonoscopy ; Colonoscopy - methods ; Double-Blind Method ; Electrolytes ; Electrolytes - administration & dosage ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Pediatric Surgery ; Pediatrics ; Polyethylene glycol ; Polyethylene Glycols - administration & dosage ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Pediatric research, 2021-07, Vol.90 (1), p.171-175</ispartof><rights>International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc 2020</rights><rights>2020. International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc.</rights><rights>International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-68a68ca6c4bb1a6b02a8fc8e41aee0e7747db9192789c09947523d99bbc4e55e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-68a68ca6c4bb1a6b02a8fc8e41aee0e7747db9192789c09947523d99bbc4e55e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33106606$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fang, Shengbo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Yanqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yufei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Libo</creatorcontrib><title>Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children</title><title>Pediatric research</title><addtitle>Pediatr Res</addtitle><addtitle>Pediatr Res</addtitle><description>Background
Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG electrolyte solutions for BP in children.
Methods
The randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial enrolled 150 children aged 6–18 years undergoing colonoscopy in our center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 60 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 60) or 40 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 40) of PEG electrolytes (PEG-ELS) 4000. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for bowel cleansing evaluation. Primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability was also evaluated.
Results
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for both whole colon and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered the BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
Conclusions
Low volume of PEG-ELS for BP has good efficacy in bowel cleansing. PEG-ELS with 40 ml/kg volume was not inferior to that of 60 ml/kg.
Impact
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for whole and various colonic segments.
The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups.
More patients considered BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
This study showed that low-volume PEG-ELS monotherapy was effective in bowel cleansing and explored a possibly feasible BP method for pediatrics in China that PEG-ELS 40 was comparable to PEG-ELS 60 regimen.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Cathartics - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Hospitalized</subject><subject>Clinical Research Article</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colonoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Electrolytes</subject><subject>Electrolytes - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Pediatric Surgery</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Polyethylene glycol</subject><subject>Polyethylene Glycols - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0031-3998</issn><issn>1530-0447</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc-KFDEQxoMo7uzoC3iQgBcvrUnnT3e8yaKusCCInpskXb2TJZO0SXqH9u18M7P2quDBQwhV9auvivoQekbJK0pY_zpzyhRpSFsfbalsxAO0o4LVkPPuIdoRwmjDlOrP0HnON4RQLnr-GJ0xRomURO7Qj886jPHovsOIrXfBWe1xSU77NximqYZ2xRXBJXpI2jjvyorjhMsp4tFNEyQIBee55vEYM9zVfDw1t9EvR8Bz9CuUw-ohAL72q40egwdbUi0UyHiKCZt4Ao_nBLNOurgYsIGaB1zpGGK2cV6xC_gQ8-yK9tu2B-fHOvwJejRpn-Hp_b9HX9-_-3Jx2Vx9-vDx4u1VY1knSiN7LXurpeXGUC0NaXU_2R441QAEuo53o1FUtV2vLFGKd6Jlo1LGWA5CANujl5vunOK3BXIZji5b8F4HiEseWi64FELVo-_Ri3_Qm7ikULcbWiFb0jHay0q1G2VTzDnBNMzJHXVaB0qGO4OHzeChGjz8MngQten5vfRijjD-afntaAXYBuRaCteQ_s7-j-xP2nW2lA</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>Fang, Shengbo</creator><creator>Song, Yanqing</creator><creator>Liu, Yufei</creator><creator>Wang, Libo</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group US</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children</title><author>Fang, Shengbo ; Song, Yanqing ; Liu, Yufei ; Wang, Libo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-68a68ca6c4bb1a6b02a8fc8e41aee0e7747db9192789c09947523d99bbc4e55e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Cathartics - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Hospitalized</topic><topic>Clinical Research Article</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colonoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Electrolytes</topic><topic>Electrolytes - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Pediatric Surgery</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Polyethylene glycol</topic><topic>Polyethylene Glycols - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fang, Shengbo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Song, Yanqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yufei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Libo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pediatric research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fang, Shengbo</au><au>Song, Yanqing</au><au>Liu, Yufei</au><au>Wang, Libo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children</atitle><jtitle>Pediatric research</jtitle><stitle>Pediatr Res</stitle><addtitle>Pediatr Res</addtitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>90</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>171</spage><epage>175</epage><pages>171-175</pages><issn>0031-3998</issn><eissn>1530-0447</eissn><abstract>Background
Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG electrolyte solutions for BP in children.
Methods
The randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial enrolled 150 children aged 6–18 years undergoing colonoscopy in our center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 60 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 60) or 40 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 40) of PEG electrolytes (PEG-ELS) 4000. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for bowel cleansing evaluation. Primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability was also evaluated.
Results
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for both whole colon and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered the BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
Conclusions
Low volume of PEG-ELS for BP has good efficacy in bowel cleansing. PEG-ELS with 40 ml/kg volume was not inferior to that of 60 ml/kg.
Impact
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for whole and various colonic segments.
The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups.
More patients considered BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
This study showed that low-volume PEG-ELS monotherapy was effective in bowel cleansing and explored a possibly feasible BP method for pediatrics in China that PEG-ELS 40 was comparable to PEG-ELS 60 regimen.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group US</pub><pmid>33106606</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41390-020-01216-5</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0031-3998 |
| ispartof | Pediatric research, 2021-07, Vol.90 (1), p.171-175 |
| issn | 0031-3998 1530-0447 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2454655900 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Adolescent Cathartics - administration & dosage Child Child, Hospitalized Clinical Research Article Colonoscopy Colonoscopy - methods Double-Blind Method Electrolytes Electrolytes - administration & dosage Female Humans Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Pediatric Surgery Pediatrics Polyethylene glycol Polyethylene Glycols - administration & dosage Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T14%3A05%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomized%20clinical%20trial:%20efficacy%20and%20tolerability%20of%20two%20different%20split%20dose%20of%20low-volume%20polyethylene%20glycol%20electrolytes%20for%20bowel%20preparation%20before%20colonoscopy%20in%20hospitalized%20children&rft.jtitle=Pediatric%20research&rft.au=Fang,%20Shengbo&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=171&rft.epage=175&rft.pages=171-175&rft.issn=0031-3998&rft.eissn=1530-0447&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41390-020-01216-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2454655900%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2562073186&rft_id=info:pmid/33106606&rfr_iscdi=true |