Background: Inpatients are at risk for inadequate colon cleansing. Experts recommend 4L-polyethylene-glycol (PEG) solution. A higher colon cleansing adequacy rate for a hyperosmolar 1L-PEG plus ascorbate prep has been recently reported. Aims: We aimed to determine whether 1L-PEG outperforms 4L-PEG among inpatients. Methods: post-hoc analysis of a large Italian multicenter prospective observational study among inpatients (QIPS study). We performed a propensity score matching between 1L-PEG and 4L-PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleansing as assessed by unblinded endoscopists through Boston scale. Secondary outcome was the safety profile. Results: Among 1,004 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 724 (72%) were prescribed 4L-PEG and 280 (28%) 1L-PEG. The overall adequate colon cleansing rate was 69.2% (n = 695). We matched 274 pairs of patients with similar distribution of confounders. The rate of patients with adequate colon cleansing was higher in 1L-PEG than in 4L-PEG group (84.3% vs. 77.4%, p = 0.039). No different shift in serum concentration of electrolytes (namely Na+, K+, Ca2+), creatinine and hematocrit were observed for both preparations. Conclusion: We found a higher rate of adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy with the 1L-PEG bowel prep vs. 4L-PEG, with apparent similar safety profile, among inpatients. A confirmatory randomized trial is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT04310332)

1L- vs. 4L-Polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients: A propensity score-matching analysis / Frazzoni L.; Spada C.; Radaelli F.; Mussetto A.; Laterza L.; La Marca M.; Piccirelli S.; Cortellini F.; Rondonotti E.; Paci V.; Bazzoli F.; Fabbri C.; Manno M.; Aragona G.; Manes G.; Occhipinti P.; Cadoni S.; Zagari R.M.; Hassan C.; Fuccio L.. - In: DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE. - ISSN 1590-8658. - STAMPA. - 52:12(2020), pp. 1486-1493. [10.1016/j.dld.2020.10.006]

1L- vs. 4L-Polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients: A propensity score-matching analysis

Frazzoni L.;Laterza L.;La Marca M.;Cortellini F.;Paci V.;Bazzoli F.;Zagari R. M.;Fuccio L.
2020

Abstract

Background: Inpatients are at risk for inadequate colon cleansing. Experts recommend 4L-polyethylene-glycol (PEG) solution. A higher colon cleansing adequacy rate for a hyperosmolar 1L-PEG plus ascorbate prep has been recently reported. Aims: We aimed to determine whether 1L-PEG outperforms 4L-PEG among inpatients. Methods: post-hoc analysis of a large Italian multicenter prospective observational study among inpatients (QIPS study). We performed a propensity score matching between 1L-PEG and 4L-PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleansing as assessed by unblinded endoscopists through Boston scale. Secondary outcome was the safety profile. Results: Among 1,004 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 724 (72%) were prescribed 4L-PEG and 280 (28%) 1L-PEG. The overall adequate colon cleansing rate was 69.2% (n = 695). We matched 274 pairs of patients with similar distribution of confounders. The rate of patients with adequate colon cleansing was higher in 1L-PEG than in 4L-PEG group (84.3% vs. 77.4%, p = 0.039). No different shift in serum concentration of electrolytes (namely Na+, K+, Ca2+), creatinine and hematocrit were observed for both preparations. Conclusion: We found a higher rate of adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy with the 1L-PEG bowel prep vs. 4L-PEG, with apparent similar safety profile, among inpatients. A confirmatory randomized trial is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT04310332)
2020
1L- vs. 4L-Polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients: A propensity score-matching analysis / Frazzoni L.; Spada C.; Radaelli F.; Mussetto A.; Laterza L.; La Marca M.; Piccirelli S.; Cortellini F.; Rondonotti E.; Paci V.; Bazzoli F.; Fabbri C.; Manno M.; Aragona G.; Manes G.; Occhipinti P.; Cadoni S.; Zagari R.M.; Hassan C.; Fuccio L.. - In: DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE. - ISSN 1590-8658. - STAMPA. - 52:12(2020), pp. 1486-1493. [10.1016/j.dld.2020.10.006]
Frazzoni L.; Spada C.; Radaelli F.; Mussetto A.; Laterza L.; La Marca M.; Piccirelli S.; Cortellini F.; Rondonotti E.; Paci V.; Bazzoli F.; Fabbri C.; Manno M.; Aragona G.; Manes G.; Occhipinti P.; Cadoni S.; Zagari R.M.; Hassan C.; Fuccio L.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/784158
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact