Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
1 L- versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized multicenter study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
1 L- versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized multicenter study
Do you wish to request the book?
1 L- versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized multicenter study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
1 L- versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized multicenter study
2022
Overview
Background1 L-polyethylene glycol (PEG)/ascorbic acid (Asc) was developed to reduce the required oral preparation volume through increasing osmotic load through containing a greater quantity of ascorbate components. We aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of a split-dosing regimen of 1 L-PEG/Asc versus 2 L-PEG/Asc in elderly patients undergoing scheduled colonoscopy.MethodsThis was a prospective, non-inferiority, randomized, investigator-blinded multicenter study conducted in Korea between July 2019 and December 2020. Patients aged between 65 and 85 years were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to either the 1 L-PEG/Asc or 2 L-PEG/Asc group. The efficacy of the bowel preparation was evaluated using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).ResultsA total of 202 patients were analyzed. Successful overall bowel preparation was similar between the 1 L-PEG/Asc and 2 L-PEG/Asc groups based on HCS (95.1% vs. 93.1%, P = 0.528) and BBPS (93.1% vs. 90.0%, P = 0.422). The perfect overall bowel preparation rate in the 1 L-PEG/Asc group was higher than that in the 2 L-PEG/Asc group (HCS, 40.2% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.021; BBPS, 80.4% vs. 68.0%, P = 0.044). There were more high-quality bowel preparations for the right colon in the 1 L-PEG/Asc group (HCS, 46.1% vs. 30.0%, P = 0.019; BBPS, 83.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.025). The adenoma detection rate (47.1% vs. 49.0%, P = 0.782), rate of adverse events (25.5% vs. 23.0%, P = 0.680), shifts in laboratory results, and tolerability were comparable between the groups.Conclusion1 L-PEG/Asc was as effective, safe, and tolerable as 2 L-PEG/Asc in elderly patients with comorbidities.
