Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulphate vs sodium biphosphonate by efficacy in bowel cleansing and patients’ tolerability: a randomised trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Adequate bowel preparation is necessary for a complete colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte oral solution (PEG-EOS), sodium picosulphate (SS) and sodium biphosphonate (SP) are the three most commonly used purgative agents. We aimed to determine their efficacy and tolerability compared to each other in a randomised study.

Methods

313 patients were randomly assigned to receive either PEG-EOS, SS or SP. Patients completed a tolerability score pre-colonoscopy. A cleanliness score was used to document adequacy of bowel preparation. A separate group of patients completed taste scores for the three cathartic agents before and after addition of flavour.

Results

PEG-EOS was the worst-tolerated regimen but achieved the highest rates of right colonic cleansing and the lowest rate of incomplete colonoscopies. There were no statistical differences in the rates of rectosigmoid and mid-gut cleansing among the three agents. SS was by far the preferred purgative in the taste assessment study. Addition of flavour increased significantly taste scores for PEG-EOS.

Conclusion

For adequate bowel cleansing PEG-EOS is the most effective but is the least tolerated and least preferred among patients. Addition of flavour increases significantly patients’ acceptance of PEG-EOS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wexner SD et al (2006) A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 63(7):894–909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ell C et al (2003) A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy (HSG-01*). Endoscopy 35(4):300–304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jansen SV et al (2011) Preparation before colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing different regimes. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23(10):897–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kastenberg D et al (2007) Tolerability and patient acceptance of sodium phosphate tablets compared with 4-L PEG solution in colon cleansing: combined results of 2 identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase 3 trials. J Clin Gastroenterol 41(1):54–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Renaut AJ et al (2008) A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phospo-soda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis 10(5):503–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schmidt LM et al (2004) Picoprep-3 is a superior colonoscopy preparation to Fleet: a randomized, controlled trial comparing the two bowel preparations. Dis Colon Rectum 47(2):238–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tjandra JJ, Chan M, Tagkalidis PP (2006) Oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) is a superior colonoscopy preparation to Picopre (sodium picosulfate-based preparation). Dis Colon Rectum 49(5):616–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mathus-Vliegen EM, Kemble UM (2006) A prospective randomized blinded comparison of sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for safe bowel cleansing. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 23(4):543–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lai EJ et al (2009) The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 69(3 Pt 2):620–625

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E (2004) Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 59(4):482–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gupta M, Holub JL, Eisen G (2010) Do indication and demographics for colonoscopy affect completion? A large national database evaluation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22(5):620–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Froehlich F et al (2005) Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European panel of appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 61(3):378–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brahmania M et al (2012) Incomplete colonoscopy: maximizing completion rates of gastroenterologists. Can J Gastroenterol 26(9):589–592

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Aljarallah B, Alshammari B (2011) Colonoscopy completion rates and reasons for incompletion. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 5(2):102–107

    Google Scholar 

  15. El Sayed AM et al (2003) A randomized single-blind trial of whole versus split-dose polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 58(1):36–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marmo R et al (2010) Effective bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized study of split-dosage versus non-split dosage regimens of high-volume versus low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions. Gastrointest Endosc 72(2):313–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ell C et al (2008) Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 103(4):883–893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Luke’s Hospital, Kilkenny, Ireland

    Z. Heetun, R. Crowley, F. Zeb, D. Kearns, M. H. Brennan, C. O’Connor, G. Courtney & A. R. Aftab

Authors
  1. Z. Heetun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Crowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Zeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Kearns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. H. Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Courtney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. R. Aftab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. Heetun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heetun, Z., Crowley, R., Zeb, F. et al. Comparison of polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulphate vs sodium biphosphonate by efficacy in bowel cleansing and patients’ tolerability: a randomised trial. Ir J Med Sci 185, 629–633 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1320-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1320-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation