Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recent reports have suggested that precolonoscopy bowel preparation is easier to tolerate if a small volume solution is used. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare three oral solutions for colonoscopy to determine any changes in either patient compliance or cleansing ability. METHODS: Four hundred fifty patients were prospectively randomized to receive either a standard 4-liter polyethylene glycol solution, a newer sulfatefree 4-liter polyethylene giycol solution, or a 90-ml oral sodium phosphate preparation. Before and after bowel preparation all patients were weighed, and serum electrolytes as well as phosphate, magnesium, calcium, and osmolarity were measured. In addition, a detailed questionnaire was used to assess side effects and patient satisfaction. Endoscopists blinded to the type and quantity of preparation used scored the type of residual stool and the percentage of bowel wall visualized for each segment of colon and for the overall examination. Nurses recorded all procedure times as well as the quantity of irrigation and aspiration. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-two agematched and sex-matched patients completed all phases of the trial. There were no clinically significant changes in weight or in any biochemical parameters. There was, however, asymptomatic hyperphosphatemia in the sodium phosphate group (P<0.01).The length of time to the cecum was similar for all three groups, with a higher volume of fluid suctioned for sodium phosphate (P< 0.01).Overall, endoscopists scored sodium phosphate as “excellent” or “good” in 90 percent vs.70 percent and 73 percent after the polyethylene glycol or sulfate-free lavage, respectively (P<0.01). Paniculate or solid stool was found in all segments of the colon more frequently after both large volume preparations than after sodium phosphate (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the frequency or intensity of any of the 11 side effects questioned. Eighty-three percent of the patients who received the sodium phosphate preparation stated they would take this same preparation again,vs.only 19 percent and 33 percent for polyethylene glycol and the sulfate-free lavage, respectively (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: The smaller volume oral sodium phosphate was not associated with any clinically significant problem, caused no increase in the incidence of side effects, was preferred by patients, and was more effective in colonic cleansing. However, the hyperphosphatemia seen may limit its use in patients with impaired renal function.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Michael KA, Dipiro JT, Bowden TA, Tedesco FJ. Whole bowel irrigation for mechanical colon cleaning. Clin Pharm 1985;4:414–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fordtran JS, Santa Ana CA, Cleveland MvB. A lowsodium solution for gastrointestinal lavage. Gastroenterology 1990;98:11–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WG,et al. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1990;85:422–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hewitt J, Reeve J, Rigby J, Cox AG. Whole-gut irrigation for large bowel surgery. Lancet 1973;2:337–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Love AH, Mitchell TG, Phillips RA. Water and sodium absorption in the human intestine. J Physiol 1968;195:133–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dillard RL, Eastman H, Fordtran JS. Volume-flow relationship during the transport of fluid through the human small intestine. Gastroenterology 1965;49:58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Speelman P, Bartelsman JF, Huibregtse K,et al. Cleansing of the colon with whole gut irrigation. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk 1981;125:1453.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Skucas J, Cutcliff W, Fischer HW. Whole gut irrigation as a means of cleaning the colon. Radiology 1976;121:303–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rhodes JB, Zvargulis JE, Williams CH,et al. Oral electolyte overload to cleanse the colon for colonoscopy. Gastointest Endosc 1977;24:24–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Adler M, Quenon M, Even-Adin D,et al. Whole gut lavage for colonoscopy -a comparison between two solutions. Gastrointest Endosc 1984;30:65–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Burbige EJ, Bourke E, Tarder G. Effect of preparation for colonoscopy on fluid and electrolyte balance. Gastrointest Endosc 1978;24:286–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chambers CE, Carter HG. Saline lavage; a rapid, safe, effective method of whole gut irrigation for bowel preparation. South Med J 1978;71:1065–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Minervini S, Alexander-Willians J, Donavan IA,et al. Comparison of three methods of whole bowel irrigation. Am J Surg 1980;140:400–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Foord KD. Oral mannitol as a preparation for doublecontrast barium enema. Clin Radiol 1982;33:467–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Donavan IA, Arabi Y, Keighley MR,et al. Modification of the physiological disturbances produced by whole gut irrigation by preliminary mannitol administration. Br J Surg 1980;67:138–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bigard MA, Gaucher P, Lassaille C. Fatal colonic explosion during colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 1979;77:1307–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Keighly MR, Taylor EW, Hares MM,et al. Influence of oral mannitol bowel preparation on colonic microflora and the risk of explosion during endoscopic diathermy. Br J Surg 1981;68:554–6.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Avgerinos A, Kalaantzis N, Rekoumis G,et al. Bowel preparation and the risk of explosion during colonoscopic polypectomy. Gut 1984;25:361–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hares MM, Greca F, Youngs D,et al. Failure of antimicrobial prophylaxis with cefoxitin or metronidazole and gentamicin: is mannitol to blame? J Hosp Infect 1981;2:127–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtram SG. Developement of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology 1980;78:991–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG,et al. Inhibition of water and electolyte absorption by polyethylene glycol (PEG). Gastroenterology 1980;79:35–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tumberg LA, Bieberdorf FA, Morkawski SG,et al. Interrelationships of chloride, bicarbonate, sodium and hydrogen transport in the human ileum. J Clin Invest 1970;49:557–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson TH. Fluid and electrolytes. Intestinal absorption. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1962:152.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mather MS, Maheshwari RK, Chadda VS,et al. Evaluation of oral saline lavage for gastrointestinal tract radiology. Am J Proctocol Gastroenterol 1979;30:11–5.

    Google Scholar 

  25. King DM, Dowes MO, Heddle RM. An alternative method of bowel preparation for barium enema. Br J Radiol 1979;52:388–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Glass RL, Winship DH, Rogers WA. Comparison of intragastric infusion with conventional mechanical bowel preparation. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:589–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldman J, Reichlderfer M. Evaluation of rapid colonoscopy preparation using a new gut lavage solution. Gastrointest Endosc 1982;28:9–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rhodes JB, Engstrom J, Stone KF. Metaclopramide reduces the distress associated with colon cleaning by an oral electrolyte overload. Gastrointest Endosc 1978;24:162–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ernstoff JJ, Howard DA, Marshall JB,et al. A randomized blinded clinical trial of a rapid colonic lavage solution (Golytely) compared with the standard preparation for colonoscopy and barium enema. Gastroenterology 1983;84:1512–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dipalma JA, Marshall JB. Comparison of a new sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solutionversus a standard solution for colonoscopy cleansing. Gastrointest Endosc 1990;36:285–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cohan CF, Kadakia SC, Kadakia AS. Serum electrolyte, mineral, and blood pH changes after phospate enema, water enema, and electrolyte lavage solutuion enema for flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1992;38:575–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zisper RD, Bischel MD, Abrams DE. Hypocalcemic tetany due to sodium phosphate ingestion in acute renal failure. Nephron 1975;14:378–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McConnell TH. Fatal hypocalcemia from phosphate absorption from laxative preparation. JAMA 1979;216:147–8.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marshall JB, Barthel JS, King PD. Prospective randomized trial comparing a new single-dose sodium phosphate solution regimen with PEG-electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:1578.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 3000 West Cypress Creek Road, 33309-1743, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Stephen M. Cohen M.D., Steven D. Wexner M.D., Sander R. Binderow M.D., Juan J. Nogueras M.D., Norma Daniel R.N. & Jonathan Jensen M.D.

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Eli D. Ehrenpreis M.D., Gregory F. Bonner M.D. & William B. Ruderman M.D.

Authors
  1. Stephen M. Cohen M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven D. Wexner M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sander R. Binderow M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan J. Nogueras M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Norma Daniel R.N.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eli D. Ehrenpreis M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jonathan Jensen M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gregory F. Bonner M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. William B. Ruderman M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported in part by a grant from the C. B. Fleet Company, Lynchburg, Virginia.

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Orlando, Florida, May 8 to 13, 1994.

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, S.M., Wexner, S.D., Binderow, S.R. et al. Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 37, 689–696 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02054413

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02054413

Key words

Search

Navigation