Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized controlled trial comparing Moviprep® and Phosphoral® as bowel cleansing agents in patients undergoing colonoscopy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Introducing colonoscopy as part of colorectal cancer screening on a national level, we aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the two most common bowel cleansing agents, Moviprep® and Phosphoral®. Secondly, we evaluated the benefit for the patient and society in terms of sick leave and discomfort.

Methods

In a single-blinded randomized equivalence trial, Phosphoral® (NaP) was compared with Moviprep® (2 l polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid) in patients undergoing colonoscopy due to suspicion of cancer. Patients filled out questionnaires concerning stool consistency, discomfort and number of sick days due to bowel cleansing. Blinded colonoscopists estimated the efficiency of the cleansing using the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-six patients were included 250 of whom underwent full colonoscopy. There was no difference in the percentage of acceptable bowel cleansings in the two groups; however, a significantly higher number of A scores were observed in the Moviprep® group (p = 0.028). We found no correlation between stool consistency and outcome of the cleansing and no difference in subjective discomfort during cleansing. Vomiting during cleansing occurred more often in the Phosphoral® group (p = 0.002). There was a trend toward a smaller number of sick days in patients who used Moviprep® compared with Phosphoral®.

Conclusions

Moviprep® and Phosphoral® provided equally efficient bowel cleansing in 90 % of patients, but Moviprep® provided a higher quality of cleansings graded as successful. The two agents were equally tolerated, and no difference was found in the related number of sick days.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisker J (2010) Recommendations on screening for colorectal cancer [in Danish]. http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/publ/Publ2012/09sep/ScreeningTarmkraeftAnbef2udg.pdf. Last accessed 7/3/2014

  2. Colic E, Marcussen N (2011) Acute phosphate nephropathy as a complication to bowel cleansing with oral sodium phosphate. Ugeskr Laeger 173:3270–3271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Connor A, Tolan D, Hughes S, Carr N, Tomson C (2012) Consensus guidelines for the prescription and administration of oral bowel cleansing agents. Gut 61:1525–1532

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al (2013) Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 45:142–150

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Parente F, Marino B, Crosta C (2009) Bowel preparation before colonoscopy in the era of mass screening for colo-rectal cancer: a practical approach. Dig Liver Dis 41:87–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Belsey J, Crosta C, Epstein O et al (2012) Meta-analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy 1985–2010. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 35:222–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Juluri R, Eckert G, Imperiale TF (2011) Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol 14:38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Halphen M, Heresbach D, Gruss HJ, Belsey J (2013) Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 78:121–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heaton KW, Radvan J, Cripps H, Mountford RA, Braddon FE, Hughes AO (1992) Defecation frequency and timing, and stool form in the general population: a prospective study. Gut 33:818–824

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Aihara H, Saito S, Arakawa H et al (2009) Comparison of two sodium phosphate tablet-based regimens and a polyethylene glycol regimen for colon cleansing prior to colonoscopy: a randomized prospective pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:1023–1030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bartoli R, Boix J, Odena G, de Vega Moreno V, Lorenzo-Zuniga V (2012) Determination of the ideal preparation for colonoscopy in a rat model. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:542–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bitoun A, Ponchon T, Barthet M et al (2006) Results of a prospective randomised multicentre controlled trial comparing a new 2-L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol and electrolyte solution vs. sodium phosphate solution in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24:1631–1642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Clarkston WK, Tsen TN, Dies DF, Schratz CL, Vaswani SK, Bjerregaard P (1996) Oral sodium phosphate versus sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in outpatient preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 43:42–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jansen SV, Goedhard JG, Winkens B, van Deursen CT (2011) Preparation before colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing different regimes. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23:897–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ben CN, Ben MW, Hellara O et al (2012) Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Presse Med 41:37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Balaban DH, Leavell BS Jr, Oblinger MJ, Thompson WO, Bolton ND, Pambianco DJ (2003) Low volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy: randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial of liquid sodium phosphate versus tablet sodium phosphate. Am J Gastroenterol 98:827–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Corporaal S, Kleibeuker JH, Koornstra JJ (2010) Low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid versus high-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 45:1380–1386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Worthington J, Thyssen M, Chapman G, Chapman R, Geraint M (2008) A randomised controlled trial of a new 2 litre polyethylene glycol solution versus sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy. Curr Med Res Opin 24:481–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rodriguez De Miguel C, Serradesanferm A, Del Manzano S et al (2012) Timing of polyethylene glycol administration is a key factor in the tolerability and efficacy of colon preparation in colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterol Hepatol 35:236–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Repici A, Cestari R, Annese V et al (2012) Randomised clinical trial: low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy—a comparison between two different PEG-based formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 36:717–724

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kao D, Lalor E, Sandha G et al (2011) A randomized controlled trial of four precolonoscopy bowel cleansing regimens. Can J Gastroenterol 25:657–662

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC (2010) Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 72:686–692

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Di Palma J, Rex D (2011) Advances in bowel preparations: new formulation and clinical results. Gastroenterol Nurs 34(Suppl 2):S2–S8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff at the endoscopy unit at Randers Regional Hospital for contributing to this project, interviewing patients and filling in questionnaires. Also, we would like to thank the CRC coordinators for randomizing patients and distributing the agents as well as the participating doctors for evaluating the quality of the cleansing.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 1, 8900, Randers, Denmark

    S. Haas, L. M. Andersen & T. Sommer

  2. Ole Roemers Gade 2, 2.t.v., 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    S. Haas

Authors
  1. S. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. M. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Sommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Haas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haas, S., Andersen, L.M. & Sommer, T. Randomized controlled trial comparing Moviprep® and Phosphoral® as bowel cleansing agents in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Tech Coloproctol 18, 929–935 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1198-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1198-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation