AIM:To evaluate the possibility of reducing the volume of polyethylene glycol(PEG)-electrolyte solution using adjunctive mosapride citrate for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS:This was a single-center,prospective, ran...AIM:To evaluate the possibility of reducing the volume of polyethylene glycol(PEG)-electrolyte solution using adjunctive mosapride citrate for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS:This was a single-center,prospective, randomized,investigator-blinded,non-inferiority study involving 252 patients of both sexes,aged from 20 to 80 years,scheduled for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy in our department.A total of 126 patients was randomized to receive 1.5 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride(1.5 L group),and 126 received 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride(2 L group).Patients completed a questionnaire on the acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparation process.The efficacy of bowel preparation was assessed using a 5-point scale based on the Aronchick scale.The primary end point was adequate bowel preparation rates(score of excellent/good/fair) vs(poor/inadequate).Acceptability and tolerability,as well as disease detection,were secondary end points. RESULTS:A total of 244 patients was included in the analysis.There were no significant differences between the 2 L and 1.5 L groups in age,sex,body mass index, number of previous colonoscopies,and the preparation method used previously.The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5%in the 2 L group and 82.8%in the 1.5 L group[95%lower confidence limit(LCL)for the difference=-14.5%,non-inferiority P=0.019]in the right colon.In the left colon,the adequate bowel preparation rates were 89.3%in the 2 L group and 81.1%in the 1.5 L group(95%LCL=-17.0%,non-inferiority P=0.066).Compliance,defined as complete (100%)intake of the PEG solution,was significantly higher in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group(96.8% vs 85.7%,P=0.002).The proportion of abdominal distension(none/mild/moderate/severe)was significantly lower in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group (36/65/22/3 vs 58/48/18/2,P=0.040).Within the subgroup who had undergone colonoscopy previously, a significantly higher number of patients in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group felt that t展开更多
文摘AIM:To evaluate the possibility of reducing the volume of polyethylene glycol(PEG)-electrolyte solution using adjunctive mosapride citrate for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS:This was a single-center,prospective, randomized,investigator-blinded,non-inferiority study involving 252 patients of both sexes,aged from 20 to 80 years,scheduled for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy in our department.A total of 126 patients was randomized to receive 1.5 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride(1.5 L group),and 126 received 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution plus 15 mg of mosapride(2 L group).Patients completed a questionnaire on the acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparation process.The efficacy of bowel preparation was assessed using a 5-point scale based on the Aronchick scale.The primary end point was adequate bowel preparation rates(score of excellent/good/fair) vs(poor/inadequate).Acceptability and tolerability,as well as disease detection,were secondary end points. RESULTS:A total of 244 patients was included in the analysis.There were no significant differences between the 2 L and 1.5 L groups in age,sex,body mass index, number of previous colonoscopies,and the preparation method used previously.The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5%in the 2 L group and 82.8%in the 1.5 L group[95%lower confidence limit(LCL)for the difference=-14.5%,non-inferiority P=0.019]in the right colon.In the left colon,the adequate bowel preparation rates were 89.3%in the 2 L group and 81.1%in the 1.5 L group(95%LCL=-17.0%,non-inferiority P=0.066).Compliance,defined as complete (100%)intake of the PEG solution,was significantly higher in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group(96.8% vs 85.7%,P=0.002).The proportion of abdominal distension(none/mild/moderate/severe)was significantly lower in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group (36/65/22/3 vs 58/48/18/2,P=0.040).Within the subgroup who had undergone colonoscopy previously, a significantly higher number of patients in the 1.5 L group than in the 2 L group felt that t
