Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study

‍Objective‍ ‍To compare the efficacy of 2 L and 3 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution for bowel preparation in a real-world setting. Methods A real-world, single-center cohort study was conducted on the individuals undergoing colonoscopy in Department of Gastroenterology of Chengdu Thi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: LI Jiaojun, TAN Xianhao, ZHANG Chen
Format: Article
Language:zho
Published: Editorial Office of Journal of Army Medical University 2025-02-01
Series:陆军军医大学学报
Subjects:
Online Access:https://aammt.tmmu.edu.cn/html/202407055.html
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1823861276602793984
author LI Jiaojun
LI Jiaojun
TAN Xianhao
TAN Xianhao
ZHANG Chen
author_facet LI Jiaojun
LI Jiaojun
TAN Xianhao
TAN Xianhao
ZHANG Chen
author_sort LI Jiaojun
collection DOAJ
description ‍Objective‍ ‍To compare the efficacy of 2 L and 3 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution for bowel preparation in a real-world setting. Methods A real-world, single-center cohort study was conducted on the individuals undergoing colonoscopy in Department of Gastroenterology of Chengdu Third People’s Hospital between May and October 2023. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, they were given 2 L (n=4 684) and 3 L (n=3 700) PEG electrolyte solution for bowel preparation. The primary outcome indicator was the adequacy of bowel preparation by Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS). Secondary outcome indicators included the BBPS score, polyp detection rate (PDR), tolerability, compliance, and incidence of adverse events. Results‍ ‍The adequacy rate of bowel preparation was 94.35% in the 3 L group, significantly higher than that of the 2 L group (91.29%, P<0.001). The 3 L group obtained a higher BBPS score then the 2 L group (6.92±1.06 vs 6.81±1.14, P<0.001). But there was no statistical difference in the PDR between the 2 groups (P=0.073). And the rate of PEG completion (P=0.810), administration of low residue diet as required (P=0.094) or use of dimethicone (P=0.072) were comparable between the 2 groups. However, the incidences of vomiting (4.5% vs 3.2%, P=0.002), abdominal discomfort (5.0% vs 3.9%, P=0.011) and sleep disturbance (18.0% vs 14.6%, P<0.001) were obviously higher in the 3 L group than the 2 L group. Conclusion In a real-world setting, 2 L PEG is a considerably safe and effective regimen for bowel preparation.
format Article
id doaj-art-a76da9d4051b441eb8e834cb7885cea2
institution Kabale University
issn 2097-0927
language zho
publishDate 2025-02-01
publisher Editorial Office of Journal of Army Medical University
record_format Article
series 陆军军医大学学报
spelling doaj-art-a76da9d4051b441eb8e834cb7885cea22025-02-10T01:14:57ZzhoEditorial Office of Journal of Army Medical University陆军军医大学学报2097-09272025-02-0147325526110.16016/j.2097-0927.202407055Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world studyLI Jiaojun0LI Jiaojun1TAN Xianhao2TAN Xianhao3ZHANG Chen4School of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, SichuanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Chengdu Third People’s Hospital, Chengdu, SichuanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Chengdu Third People’s Hospital, Chengdu, SichuanCollege of Clinical Medicine, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, ChinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Chengdu Third People’s Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan ‍Objective‍ ‍To compare the efficacy of 2 L and 3 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution for bowel preparation in a real-world setting. Methods A real-world, single-center cohort study was conducted on the individuals undergoing colonoscopy in Department of Gastroenterology of Chengdu Third People’s Hospital between May and October 2023. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, they were given 2 L (n=4 684) and 3 L (n=3 700) PEG electrolyte solution for bowel preparation. The primary outcome indicator was the adequacy of bowel preparation by Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS). Secondary outcome indicators included the BBPS score, polyp detection rate (PDR), tolerability, compliance, and incidence of adverse events. Results‍ ‍The adequacy rate of bowel preparation was 94.35% in the 3 L group, significantly higher than that of the 2 L group (91.29%, P<0.001). The 3 L group obtained a higher BBPS score then the 2 L group (6.92±1.06 vs 6.81±1.14, P<0.001). But there was no statistical difference in the PDR between the 2 groups (P=0.073). And the rate of PEG completion (P=0.810), administration of low residue diet as required (P=0.094) or use of dimethicone (P=0.072) were comparable between the 2 groups. However, the incidences of vomiting (4.5% vs 3.2%, P=0.002), abdominal discomfort (5.0% vs 3.9%, P=0.011) and sleep disturbance (18.0% vs 14.6%, P<0.001) were obviously higher in the 3 L group than the 2 L group. Conclusion In a real-world setting, 2 L PEG is a considerably safe and effective regimen for bowel preparation. https://aammt.tmmu.edu.cn/html/202407055.html‍polyethylene glycolbowel preparationcomparative effectiveness researchreal world
spellingShingle LI Jiaojun
LI Jiaojun
TAN Xianhao
TAN Xianhao
ZHANG Chen
Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
陆军军医大学学报
‍polyethylene glycol
bowel preparation
comparative effectiveness research
real world
title Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
title_full Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
title_fullStr Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
title_short Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
title_sort efficacy of 2 l versus 3 l polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation a real world study
topic ‍polyethylene glycol
bowel preparation
comparative effectiveness research
real world
url https://aammt.tmmu.edu.cn/html/202407055.html
work_keys_str_mv AT lijiaojun efficacyof2lversus3lpolyethyleneglycolinbowelpreparationarealworldstudy
AT lijiaojun efficacyof2lversus3lpolyethyleneglycolinbowelpreparationarealworldstudy
AT tanxianhao efficacyof2lversus3lpolyethyleneglycolinbowelpreparationarealworldstudy
AT tanxianhao efficacyof2lversus3lpolyethyleneglycolinbowelpreparationarealworldstudy
AT zhangchen efficacyof2lversus3lpolyethyleneglycolinbowelpreparationarealworldstudy