Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized Study Comparing Two Regimens of Oral Sodium Phosphates Solution Versus Low-Dose Polyethylene Glycol and Bisacodyl

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose Low-volume bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy are reported to improve patient acceptance and compliance. We sought to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of three low-volume regimens: an oral sodium phosphates solution 45/45 ml (NaP-45/45), a reduced-dose oral sodium phosphates solution 45/30 ml (NaP-45/30), and polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl (PEG-2L). Results A total of 121 patients were evaluated (mean age 55.2 ± 8.9 years). Bowel cleansings rated as excellent and good were significantly different among the groups: NaP-45/45 = 98%, NaP-45/30 = 88%, and PEG-2L = 76% (P < 0.04). Side effects were not significantly different except for greater thirst in the NaP-45/45 group (P = 0.001) and increased vomiting in females using PEG-2L (two-tailed interaction, P < 0.10). Willingness to retake the preparation was higher among the sodium phosphates regimens (88, 95, and 73%, respectively; P = 0.019). Conclusions Better cleansing and willingness to retake the regimen was achieved with the oral sodium phosphates solutions than with polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl.

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

Notes

  1. Study conducted during earlier development of Fleet Phospho-soda EZ-Prep with the product not finalized or marketed until September, 2006.

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2008) Cancer facts and figures 2008. American Cancer Society, Atlanta. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CFF2008Table_pg5.pdf, and http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/CFF2008Table_pg6.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2008

  2. American Cancer Society (2006) Cancer facts and figures 2006. American Cancer Society, Atlanta. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2007

  3. Winawer S, Zauber A, Ho M, O’Brien M, Gottlieb L, Sternberg S et al (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 329:1977–1981. doi:10.1056/NEJM199312303292701

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ransohoff DF (2005) Have we oversold colonoscopy? Gastroenterology 129:1815. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.10.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Turnbull BA, Ross ME (2004) Fecal DNA versus fecal occult blood for colorectal-cancer screening in an average-risk population. N Engl J Med 351:2704–2714. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa033403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ko CW, Dominitz JA, Nguyen TD (2003) Fecal occult blood testing in a general medical clinic: comparison between guaiac-based and immunochemical-based tests. Am J Med 115:111–114. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00294-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Habermann JK, Roblick VJ, Luke BT, Prieto DA, Finlay WJ, Podust VN et al (2006) Increased serum levels of complement C3a anaphylatoxin indicate the presence of colorectal tumors. Gastroenterology 131:1020–1029. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2006.07.011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Summers RM, Jerebko AK, Franaszek M, Malley JD, Johnson CD (2005) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy computer-aided polyp detection in a screening population. Gastroenterology 129:1832–1844. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.08.054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd (2002) A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:3186–3194. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07129.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen E (2003) Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 98:578–585. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07302.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ko CW, Riffle S, Shapiro JA, Saunders MD, Lee SD, Tung BY et al (2007) Incidence of minor complications and time lost from normal activities after screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 67:648–656. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2006.06.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rex D, Imperiale T, Latinovich D, Bratcher L (2002) Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1696–1700. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05827.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vanner S, MacDonald P, Paterson W, Prentice R, Da Costa L, Beck I (1990) 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 85:422–427

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Balaban D, Leavell B, Oblinger M, Thompson W, Bolton N, Pambianco D (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. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07380.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clarkston W, Tsen T, Dies D, Schratz C, Vaswani S, 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen S, Wexner S, Binderow S, Nogueras J, Daniel N, Ehrenpreis E et al (1994) Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum 37:689–696. doi:10.1007/BF02054413

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kolts B, Lyles W, Achem S, Burton L, Geller A, MacMath T (1993) A comparison of the effectiveness and patient tolerance of oral sodium phosphate, castor oil, and standard electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 88:1218–1223

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Marshall J, Pineda J, Barthel J, King P (1993) Prospective, randomized trial comparing sodium phosphate solution with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 39:631–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Young CJ, Simpson RR, King DW, Lubowski DZ (2000) Oral sodium phosphate solution is a superior colonoscopy preparation to polyethylene glycol with bisacodyl. Dis Colon Rectum 43:1568–1571. doi:10.1007/BF02236740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Scott SR, Raymond PL, Thompson WO, Galt DJB (2005) Efficacy and tolerance of sodium phosphates oral solution after diet liberalization. Gastroenterol Nurs 28:133–139. doi:10.1097/00001610-200503000-00008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Caswell M, Thompson WO, Kanapka JA, Galt DJB (2007) The time course and effect on serum electrolytes of oral sodium phosphates solution in healthy male and female volunteers. Can J Clin Pharmacol 14(3):e260–e274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Food and Drug Administration (2004) CDER drug and biologic approvals for calendar year. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/ndaaps04cy.htm. Accessed 23 Oct 2006

  23. Hale W, Perkins L, May F, Marks R, Stewart R (1986) Symptom prevalence in the elderly. An evaluation of age, sex, disease, and medication use. J Am Geriatr Soc 34:333–340

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. C.B. Fleet Co. Inc. (2006) Physicians’ desk reference, 60th edn. Thomson PDR, Montvale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sharma V, Chockalingham S, Ugheoke E, Kapur A, Ling P, Vasudeva R et al (1998) Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the use of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in four-liter versus two-liter volumes and pretreatment with either magnesium citrate or bisacodyl for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 47:167–171. doi:10.1016/S0016-5107(98)70351-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Adams W, Meagher A, Lubowski D, King D (1994) Bisacodyl reduces the volume of polyethylene glycol solution required for bowel preparation. Dis Colon Rectum 37:229–234. doi:10.1007/BF02048160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. DiPalma J, Wolff B, Meagher A, Cleveland M (2003) Comparison of reduced volume versus four liters sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 98:2187–2191. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07690.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Label and Approval History, HalfLytely (NDA) 021551. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington D.C. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007/021551s006lbl.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2008

  29. Poon C, Lee D, Mak S, Ko C, Chan KC, Chan KW et al (2002) Two liters of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution versus sodium phosphate as bowel cleansing regimen for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 34:560–563. doi:10.1055/s-2002-33207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mouly S, Mahe I, Knellwolf AL, Simoneau G, Bergmann JF (2005) Effects of the addition of high-dose vitamin C to polyethylene glycol solution for colonic cleansing: a pilot study in healthy volunteers. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 66:486–500. doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.12.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rex DK, Schwartz H, Goldstein M, Popp J, Katz S, Barish C et al (2006) Safety and colon-cleansing efficacy of a new residue-free formulation of sodium phosphate tablets. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2594–2604

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Johanson JF, Popp JW, Cohen LB, Lottes SR, Forbes WP, Walker K et al (2007) A randomized, multicenter study comparing the safety and efficacy of sodium phosphate tablets with 2L polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl tablets for colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01057.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ness R, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N (2001) Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 96:1797–1802. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, Radhakrishnan J, D’Agati VD (2005) Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: an underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 16:3389–3396. doi:10.1681/ASN.2005050496

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Russmann S, Lamerato L, Marfatia A, Motsko SP, Pezzullo JC, Olds G et al (2007) Risk of impaired renal function after colonoscopy: a cohort study in patients receiving either oral sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2655–2663. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01610.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Singal AK, Rosman AS, Post JB, Bauman WA, Spungen AM, Korsten MA (2007) The renal safety of bowel preparations for colonoscopy: a comparative study of oral sodium phosphate solution and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 27:41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brunelli SM, Lewis JD, Gupta M, Latif SM, Weiner MG, Feldman HI (2007) Risk of kidney injury following oral phosphosoda bowel preparations. J Am Soc Nephrol 18:3199–3205. doi:10.1681/ASN.2007040440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hurst FP, Bohen EM, Osgard EM, Oliver DK, Das NP, Gao SW et al (2007) Association of oral sodium phosphate purgative use with acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 18:3192–3198. doi:10.1681/ASN.2007030349

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was sponsored by C.B. Fleet Co. Dr. Malik was the PI for this study. Dr. Balaban is a medical consultant for C.B. Fleet Co., and has received speaker honoraria and research support from C.B. Fleet Company. Dr. Thompson is a consulting biostatistician for C.B. Fleet Co. Deborah JB Galt is a medical writer employed in the Medical Affairs Department at C.B. Fleet Co.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gastroenterology Associates of Tidewater P.C., 112 Gainsborough Square, Suite 200, Chesapeake, VA, 23320, USA

    Pramod Malik

  2. Charlottesville Gastroenterology Associates, 1139 E. High St. Suite 203, Charlottesville, VA, 22902, USA

    David H. Balaban

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Medical College of Georgia, 4260 Quail Springs Circle, Augusta, GA, 30907-2159, USA

    William O. Thompson

  4. C.B. Fleet Company, Inc., 4615 Murray Place, Lynchburg, VA, 24502, USA

    Deborah J. B. Galt

Authors
  1. Pramod Malik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David H. Balaban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William O. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah J. B. Galt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah J. B. Galt.

Additional information

This study has been presented in abstract form at the 2005 ACG Annual Meeting.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malik, P., Balaban, D.H., Thompson, W.O. et al. Randomized Study Comparing Two Regimens of Oral Sodium Phosphates Solution Versus Low-Dose Polyethylene Glycol and Bisacodyl. Dig Dis Sci 54, 833–841 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-008-0420-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-008-0420-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation