Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in t...Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.展开更多
目的：比较不同剂量聚乙二醇电解质溶液行结肠镜检查肠道准备的效果，以及患者的依从性、耐受性和不良反应情况。方法采用随机、单盲、前瞻性研究方法，将2014年5月至2014年7月期间100例进行结肠镜检查的住院患者按当天结肠镜检查时间...目的：比较不同剂量聚乙二醇电解质溶液行结肠镜检查肠道准备的效果，以及患者的依从性、耐受性和不良反应情况。方法采用随机、单盲、前瞻性研究方法，将2014年5月至2014年7月期间100例进行结肠镜检查的住院患者按当天结肠镜检查时间顺序随机分成3组，分别在结肠镜检查当天服用聚乙二醇电解质溶液4 L（35例）、2 L（31例）和（2＋1）L（34例）。检查时分别对右半结肠、中段结肠和左半结肠的肠道准备效果进行渥太华量表评分，并观察总液体量进行评分，得出渥太华量表综合评分。同时对每位患者进行问卷调查，记录3组患者的依从性、耐受性及不良反应情况，进行统计学分析。结果剔除未能完成全结肠检查病例，纳入分析患者91例，其中4 L 组31例，2 L组30例，（2＋1）L 组30例。3组患者聚乙二醇电解质溶液肠道准备的渥太华量表综合评分相似（P ＞0.05），但4 L 组患者右半结肠清洁质量高于2 L 组患者（P ＜0.05）。与4 L 组和（2＋1）L组比较，采用2 L 聚乙二醇电解质溶液组的患者肠道准备的依从性和耐受性较高，不良反应率较低（P ＜0.05）。结论结肠镜检查当天服用2 L 聚乙二醇电解质溶液进行肠道准备的清洁效果和安全性较好，适合推广使用。当天服用4 L 聚乙二醇电解质溶液进行肠道准备方案，更适用于高度怀疑右半结肠病变的患者。展开更多
目的评价应用Bristol大便分型量表(BSFS)指导不同肠道准备方案后对提升整体人群肠道准备质量的效果,及2 L+2 L聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG-ES)作为Bristol大便性状1型及2型患者个性化方案的效果及耐受性。方法采用前瞻性研究方法,将拟行结...目的评价应用Bristol大便分型量表(BSFS)指导不同肠道准备方案后对提升整体人群肠道准备质量的效果,及2 L+2 L聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG-ES)作为Bristol大便性状1型及2型患者个性化方案的效果及耐受性。方法采用前瞻性研究方法,将拟行结肠镜检查的患者随机分为A、B两组,使用BSFS分辨出两组中Bristol大便性状1型、2型患者及3~7型患者并记录,其中A组中Bristol大便性状1型、2型患者肠道准备方案为2 L+2 L PEG-ES,3~7型患者为2 L PEG-ES方案;B组全部患者肠道准备方案均为2 L PEG-ES。结果本研究共纳入310例门诊患者,A组中肠道准备成功率、Boston肠道准备评分量表(BBPS)评分、息肉发现率、盲肠插管率均高于B组(P<0.05);A组中Bristol大便分型1型及2型患者的排便次数多于B组(P<0.05),但两组中该类人群的不良反应发生率及重复准备意愿无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论应用BSFS分辨出具有肠道准备不足风险的患者,通过指导个性化肠道准备方案,可使整体人群的肠道准备质量得到有效提升;同时,2 L+2 L PEG-ES方案作为该类患者的个性化肠道准备方案具有良好的清肠效果及耐受性。展开更多
文摘Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.
文摘目的：比较不同剂量聚乙二醇电解质溶液行结肠镜检查肠道准备的效果，以及患者的依从性、耐受性和不良反应情况。方法采用随机、单盲、前瞻性研究方法，将2014年5月至2014年7月期间100例进行结肠镜检查的住院患者按当天结肠镜检查时间顺序随机分成3组，分别在结肠镜检查当天服用聚乙二醇电解质溶液4 L（35例）、2 L（31例）和（2＋1）L（34例）。检查时分别对右半结肠、中段结肠和左半结肠的肠道准备效果进行渥太华量表评分，并观察总液体量进行评分，得出渥太华量表综合评分。同时对每位患者进行问卷调查，记录3组患者的依从性、耐受性及不良反应情况，进行统计学分析。结果剔除未能完成全结肠检查病例，纳入分析患者91例，其中4 L 组31例，2 L组30例，（2＋1）L 组30例。3组患者聚乙二醇电解质溶液肠道准备的渥太华量表综合评分相似（P ＞0.05），但4 L 组患者右半结肠清洁质量高于2 L 组患者（P ＜0.05）。与4 L 组和（2＋1）L组比较，采用2 L 聚乙二醇电解质溶液组的患者肠道准备的依从性和耐受性较高，不良反应率较低（P ＜0.05）。结论结肠镜检查当天服用2 L 聚乙二醇电解质溶液进行肠道准备的清洁效果和安全性较好，适合推广使用。当天服用4 L 聚乙二醇电解质溶液进行肠道准备方案，更适用于高度怀疑右半结肠病变的患者。
文摘目的评价应用Bristol大便分型量表(BSFS)指导不同肠道准备方案后对提升整体人群肠道准备质量的效果,及2 L+2 L聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG-ES)作为Bristol大便性状1型及2型患者个性化方案的效果及耐受性。方法采用前瞻性研究方法,将拟行结肠镜检查的患者随机分为A、B两组,使用BSFS分辨出两组中Bristol大便性状1型、2型患者及3~7型患者并记录,其中A组中Bristol大便性状1型、2型患者肠道准备方案为2 L+2 L PEG-ES,3~7型患者为2 L PEG-ES方案;B组全部患者肠道准备方案均为2 L PEG-ES。结果本研究共纳入310例门诊患者,A组中肠道准备成功率、Boston肠道准备评分量表(BBPS)评分、息肉发现率、盲肠插管率均高于B组(P<0.05);A组中Bristol大便分型1型及2型患者的排便次数多于B组(P<0.05),但两组中该类人群的不良反应发生率及重复准备意愿无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论应用BSFS分辨出具有肠道准备不足风险的患者,通过指导个性化肠道准备方案,可使整体人群的肠道准备质量得到有效提升;同时,2 L+2 L PEG-ES方案作为该类患者的个性化肠道准备方案具有良好的清肠效果及耐受性。
