Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography

  • Hollow Organ GI
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC.

Methods

398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison.

Results

Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29).

Conclusion

CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.

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
Figure 5:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1403-1412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. de Haan MC, Pickhardt PJ, Stoker J. CT colonography: accuracy, acceptance, safety and position in organised population screening. Gut 2015; 64:342-350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pickhardt PJ. Imaging and Screening for Colorectal Cancer with CT Colonography. Radiol Clin North Am 2017; 55:1183-1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ricci ZJ, Kobi M, Flusberg M, Yee J. CT Colonography in Review With Tips and Tricks to Improve Performance. Semin Roentgenol 2021; 56:140-151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spada C, Hassan C, Bellini D, et al. Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020. Eur Radiol 2021; 31:2967-2982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pickhardt PJ. CT colonography for population screening: ready for prime time? Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60:647-659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson B, Hinshaw JL, Robbins JB, Pickhardt PJ. Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206:1202-1207

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bannas P, Bakke J, Munoz del Rio A, Pickhardt PJ. Intra-individual comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation at CT colonography: automated volumetric analysis of residual fluid for quality assessment. Clin Radiol 2014; 69:1171-1177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bannas P, Bakke J, Patrick JL, Pickhardt PJ. Automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40:11-18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Borden ZS, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Lubner MG, Agriantonis DJ, Hinshaw JL. Bowel preparation for CT colonography: blinded comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for catharsis. Radiology 2010; 254:138-144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JH. Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181:799-805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, Taylor AJ, et al. Primary 2D versus primary 3D polyp detection at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189:1451-1456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim DH, Moreno CC, Pickhardt PJ. Computed Tomography Colonography: Pearls and Pitfalls. Radiol Clin North Am 2018; 56:719-735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH. CT colonography: pitfalls in interpretation. Radiol Clin North Am 2013; 51:69-88

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Slater A, Taylor SA, Burling D, Gartner L, Scarth J, Halligan S. Colonic polyps: effect of attenuation of tagged fluid and viewing window on conspicuity and measurement--in vitro experiment with porcine colonic specimen. Radiology 2006; 240:101-109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim DH, Lubner MG, Cahoon AR, Pooler BD, Pickhardt PJ. Flat Serrated Polyps at CT Colonography: Relevance, Appearance, and Optimizing Interpretation. Radiographics 2018; 38:60-74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim DH, Matkowskyj KA, Lubner MG, et al. Serrated Polyps at CT Colonography: Prevalence and Characteristics of the Serrated Polyp Spectrum. Radiology 2016; 280:455-463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51:775-794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. LLC V-J. Vi-Jon, LLC Expands Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Magnesium Citrate Saline Laxative Oral Solution Lemon Flavor Due to Microbial Contamination. In: FDA, 2022

  20. Burling D, Taylor SA, Halligan S, et al. Automated insufflation of carbon dioxide for MDCT colonography: distension and patient experience compared with manual insufflation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186:96-103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Michel SJ, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Taylor AJ. Effect of colonic distention on superiority of supine versus prone views in screening computed tomographic colonography. Clin Imaging 2007; 31:325-328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jung SH. Stratified Fisher's exact test and its sample size calculation. Biom J 2014; 56:129-140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vi-Jon, LLC Expands Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Magnesium Citrate Saline Laxative Oral Solution Lemon Flavor Due to Microbial Contamination. In: FDA, 2022

  24. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2191-2200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reumkens A, van der Zander Q, Winkens B, et al. Electrolyte disturbances after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2022; 34:913-926

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF, et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81:781-794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nyberg C, Hendel J, Nielsen OH. The safety of osmotically acting cathartics in colonic cleansing. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 7:557-564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Keedy AW, Yee J, Aslam R, et al. Reduced cathartic bowel preparation for CT colonography: prospective comparison of 2-L polyethylene glycol and magnesium citrate. Radiology 2011; 261:156-164

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jin Z, Lu Y, Zhou Y, Gong B. Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2016; 72:523-532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Matro R, Daskalakis C, Negoianu D, et al. Randomised clinical trial: Polyethylene glycol 3350 with sports drink vs. polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution as purgatives for colonoscopy--the incidence of hyponatraemia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014; 40:610-619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI, 53792-3252, USA

    Nicholas Zacharias, Meghan G. Lubner, David H. Kim & Perry J. Pickhardt

Authors
  1. Nicholas Zacharias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meghan G. Lubner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David H. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Perry J. Pickhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Perry J. Pickhardt.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

P.J.P serves as an advisor to Bracco Diagnostics, Nanox-AI, and GE Healthcare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zacharias, N., Lubner, M.G., Kim, D.H. et al. Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography. Abdom Radiol 48, 3322–3331 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-04025-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-04025-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation