Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study - 15/02/12
Résumé |
Background |
Several factors influence bowel preparation quality. Recent studies have indicated that the time interval between bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy is also important in determining bowel preparation quality.
Objective |
To evaluate the influence of the preparation-to-colonoscopy (PC) interval (the interval of time between the last polyethylene glycol dose ingestion and the start of the colonoscopy) on bowel preparation quality in the split-dose method for colonoscopy.
Design |
Prospective observational study.
Setting |
University medical center.
Patients |
A total of 366 consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.
Intervention |
Split-dose bowel preparation and colonoscopy.
Main Outcome Measurements |
The quality of bowel preparation was assessed by using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale according to the PC interval, and other factors that might influence bowel preparation quality were analyzed.
Results |
Colonoscopies with a PC interval of 3 to 5 hours had the best bowel preparation quality score in the whole, right, mid, and rectosigmoid colon according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. In multivariate analysis, the PC interval (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI, 1.18-2.86), the amount of PEG ingested (OR 4.34; 95% CI, 1.08-16.66), and compliance with diet instructions (OR 2.22l 95% CI, 1.33-3.70) were significant contributors to satisfactory bowel preparation.
Limitations |
Nonrandomized controlled, single-center trial.
Conclusions |
The optimal time interval between the last dose of the agent and the start of colonoscopy is one of the important factors to determine satisfactory bowel preparation quality in split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Abbreviations : OR, Ottawa scale, PC, PEG
Plan
| DISCLOSURE: The authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. |
|
| If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr Kim at kto0440@yahoo.co.kr. |
Vol 75 - N° 3
P. 583-590 - mars 2012 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
