Sodium Picosulfate/magnesium Citrate Research Articles

A randomized prospective study comparing the effect of low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy preparation in China

Aim To evaluate the effect of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) with or without dimethicone on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Methods In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted from April 2021 to December 2021, consecutive adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy were prospectively randomized into four groups: SPMC, SPMC plus dimethicone, 3 L PEG, and 3 L PEG plus dimethicone. Primary endpoint was colon cleansing based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints were bubble score, time to cecal intubation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient safety and compliance, and adverse events. Results We enrolled 223 and 291 patients in SPMC and 3 L PEG group, respectively. The proportion with acceptable bowel cleansing, total BBPS score and cecal intubation time were similar in all four subgroups (p > 0.05). Patient-reported acceptability and tolerability was significantly greater in SPMC than 3 L PEG group (p < 0.001); adverse events were significantly lower in SPMC than latter group (p < 0.001). ADR in both groups was greater than 30%. Conclusion SPMC had significantly higher acceptability and tolerability than 3 L PEG, however, was similar in terms of bowel-cleansing effect and cecal intubation time and hence can be used before colonoscopy preparation.

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens. We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance. We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat. PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

Evaluating patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate for colonoscopy.

ObjectiveTo evaluate patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate (PICOPREP) for colonoscopy.MethodsA questionnaire survey regarding the patient acceptability of bowel preparation agent PICOPREP was administered to 54 patients, and its efficacy was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS).ResultsEighteen (33.3%) participants reported that PICOPREP is very easy to drink, 30 (55.5%) easy, four (7.4%) acceptable, one (1.9%) difficult, and one (1.9%) very difficult. The flavor was very good as reported by eight (14.8%) participants, good by 25 (46.3%), neutral by 20 (37.0%), bad by one (1.9%), and very bad by none. The number of patients who requested PICOPREP was 42 (77.7%), indicating its high acceptability. Evaluation of the OBPS score showed that the rectosigmoid colon had significantly better polyethylene glycol (PEG) scores than PICOPREP, but the entire colon did not show a significant difference between PICOPREP and PEG scores (1.09 ± 0.65 vs. 1.17 ± 0.76, p = 0.632 in the right colon; 0.48 ± 0.52 vs. 0.72 ± 0.66, p = 0.079 in the mid colon, 0.93 ± 0.49 vs. 0.63 ± 0.52, p = 0.012 in the rectosigmoid colon, and 3.28 ± 1.70 vs. 3.20 ± 1.90, p = 0.836 in the entire colon).ConclusionPICOPREP is considered as one of the important options due to its good patient acceptability and high efficacy similar to PEG.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review.

BackgroundColonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.MethodsA systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.ConclusionSplit-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

A Randomized, Endoscopist-Blinded, Prospective Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Patient Tolerability between Bowel Preparation Protocols Using Sodium Picosulfate Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene-Glycol (1 L and 2 L) for Colonoscopy.

Patient compliance during bowel preparation is important for successful colonoscopy. Bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG), the most commonly used solution for cleansing, involves the unpleasant ingestion of a large amount of liquid. Sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SP-MC) solution is an alternative option with better palatability than PEG. Therefore, in this study, we compared the efficacy and patient tolerability among the following three bowel preparation protocols: 2 L PEG-ascorbic acid (ASc), 1 L PEG-ASc plus bisacodyl, and SP-MC 340 mL plus bisacodyl. We conducted a randomized prospective endoscopist-blinded study between August 2018 and January 2019. A total of 311 patients were randomly classified into three groups according to the above-described bowel preparation protocols. To evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, we used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The degree of symptoms and the patients' satisfaction with each bowel preparation method were investigated using a questionnaire completed before sedation for colonoscopy. The baseline characteristics were similar among the three groups. There was no significant difference in the bowel preparation quality among the three groups. However, the incidence of symptoms, such as abdominal fullness and pain, was significantly lower (P = 0.006 and 0.027, respectively) while the patients' satisfaction rate was significantly higher (P = 0.012) in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the two PEG groups. In this study, the efficacy of the SP-MC plus bisacodyl solution was similar to that of the PEG solutions. However, patient tolerability and satisfaction were better in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the other groups. In conclusion, the use of SP-MC plus bisacodyl bowel preparation solution might be a better method for providing good intestinal cleansing and improving patient compliance.

Оценка эффективности препарата на основе цитрата магния и пикосульфата натрия при подготовке детей к колоноскопии

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the drug containing sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (SPMC) used for bowel preparation in children. Patients and methods. We have assessed the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in 80 children aged between 9 and 18 years (40 of them received SPMC for it and another 40 were prepared by cleansing enemas). The effectiveness of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston and Chicago Bowel Preparation Scales (BPS). Tolerability of the SPMC preparation scheme was estimated using a specially designed questionnaire. Results. Effective bowel preparation was achieved in 85% children receiving SPMC (excellent in 27.5% of cases and good in 57.5% of cases), whereas children in the control group have demonstrated significantly lower quality of bowel preparation (p = 0.021). We have observed that the right colon was significantly better prepared in the SPMC group than in the control group (p &lt; 0.001). Ninety percent of children were satisfied with the SPMC preparation scheme and agreed to use it in the future. Conclusion. Preparation of children for colonoscopy with SPMC was effective, safe, and well tolerated by them; therefore, SPMC is preferable over traditional cleansing enemas. Key words: children, inflammatory bowel diseases, colonoscopy, bowel preparation, sodium picosulfate–magnesium citrate

314 In Patients With an Overall Cleansing Success the 1L Polyethylene Glycol NER1006 Achieves More High-Quality Cleansed Segments per Patient Than Three Standard Bowel Preparations

INTRODUCTION: In pre-colonoscopy colon cleansing, the presence of removable stool is currently considered a success for reliable adenoma detection. The phase 3 trials of 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) NER1006 (trials DAYB, MORA and NOCT) are the largest to date joint prospective study on colon cleansing quality. Split dosing with NER1006 achieved a higher or at least as high cleansing success as sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC), 2L PEG + ascorbate (2LPEG), or oral sulfate solution (OSS). NER1006 also improves high-quality (HQ) cleansing in whole treatment groups, but patient level benefits are unclear. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of DAYB, MORA and NOCT examined if NER1006 increases the number of HQ segments per patient vs SPMC, 2LPEG or OSS, and if that could improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR) or mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP). Treatment-blinded central readers used the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) to assess cleansing quality. Site endoscopists detected polyps; adenomas were confirmed by histology. Patients with full HCS scoring and adenoma counts were included. In overall cleansing successes, (HCS Grades A-B; have segments with removable stool), the number of HQ segments (HCS scores 3-4; stool-free) per patient was assessed. One-sided t-tests compared treatments. Per-patient regression analyses assessed whether HQ segments per patient improves ADR (logistic; LogR) or MAP (linear; LinR), in all patients and in cleansing successes. Odds ratios or average increments are presented with 95% CI. Trend curves were plotted with data points for group means ± SD. RESULTS: A total of 1749 patients were included, 1471 (84%) with overall cleansing success (Figure 1). In cleansing successes, NER1006 achieved more HQ segments per patient than SPMC (1.13 ± 1.29 vs 0.76 ± 1.07; P = 0.005), 2LPEG: (2.52 ± 1.76 and 2.65 ± 1.81 vs 1.65 ± 1.71; P &lt; 0.001 for both) and OSS (2.61 ± 1.8 vs 2.30 ± 1.81; P = 0.032). More HQ segments per patient showed positive odds for ADR in all (OR 1.09 [1.03-1.16]; Ptrend = 0.003) and successfully cleansed patients (OR 1.11 [1.04-1.18]; Ptrend = 0.001) [Figure 2]. With LinR, more HQ segments per patient increased MAP in all (average increment 0.05 [0.01-0.09]; Ptrend = 0.012) and successfully cleansed patients (average increment 0.05 [0.01-0.10]; Ptrend = 0.025) [Figure 3]. CONCLUSION: NER1006 delivered more HQ segments per patient than SPMC, 2LPEG or OSS. More HQ segments per patient may increase ADR and MAP and thus protect patients against colorectal cancer.

Comparison of efficacy and tolerance of low-volume preparations prior to colonoscopy a randomized trial.

Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEGA), sodium picosulfate/ magnesium citrate (SPMC) and the oral sulfate formula (SIR) in a single- or split-dose regimen for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. Methods: Randomised, multicentre, open-label study. The subjects received either PEGA, SPMC or SIR in the single- or split-dose regimen before the colonoscopy. Quality and tolerability of the preparation and complaints during preparation were recorded using a 5 point scale. Results: 558 subject were analysed. Preparation quality was comparable in the single-dose regimen. The rate of satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1+2) was higher for split-dose SIR and PEGA compared to SPMC (95.6%, 86.2% vs. 72.5%, p&lt;0.028). The highest tolerance rate (score 1+2) was reported for SPMC (82.3%, p&lt;0.003) and the lowest for single-dose SIR (34.8%, p=0.008). The lowest frequency of nausea (10.4%) was observed for SPMC. The highest prevalence of bloating was linked with the use of PEGA (34.0%). Conclusion: Differences in bowel preparation quality were apparent only in the split-dose regimen, with SIR rated as most efficient. SPMC was the best tolerated formula. The split-dose regimen is more effective than single-dose preparation used in the evening before the examination.

Bowel Preparation Agent–Associated Esophageal and Gastric Complication

A 66-year-old man was referred for gastrointestinal bleeding after a negative upper endoscopy. He underwent a colonoscopy with bowel preparation using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC). The patient reported having chest discomfort after taking the first dose of SPMC. The colonoscopy suggested small-bowel bleeding and an enteroscopy was performed. Mucosal necrosis of the middle to lower esophagus (Figure A) and linear erythema in the proximal stomach (Figure B and Video 1) was found during enteroscopy.

Efficacy and tolerability of 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized controlled trial.

Previous studies comparing 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solution with ascorbic acid (PEG/Asc) with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SP/MC) drew inconclusive results. This study aimed to compare a 2-L-PEG/Asc with SP/MC by split method in bowel cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and safety and to identify factors influencing inadequate bowel preparation. We performed a prospective randomized, endoscopist-blinded, single-center, controlled trial. The Aronchick scale and Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBPS) were used to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy, and patients' tolerability and preferences were assessed by questionnaire. In total, 223 patients were randomized to receive 2-L-PEG/Asc (n = 109) or SP/MC (n = 114). There was no significant difference in overall bowel cleansing efficacy between the two groups; however, when analyzing by individual segment, mean bowel cleansing efficacy of right colon showed a trend in favor of SP/MC group than in PEG/Asc group (OBPS; 1.55 ± 0.66 vs. 1.74 ± 0.88, P = 0.08). Furthermore, SP/MC was better tolerated than PEG/Asc based on ease of consumption and preference to receive the agents again in the future. Total adverse events were significantly lower in SP/MC group than PEG/Asc group (47.4 vs. 62.4%, P = 0.031). In multivariate analysis, later colonoscopic starting time was the only independent factor predicting inadequate bowel preparation (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.156-1.692, P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall bowel cleansing efficacy between PEG/Asc and SP/MC; however, SP/MC showed better tolerability and safety profile than PEG/Asc. The independent factor for inadequate bowel preparation was later colonoscopic starting time when applied split method.

Evaluación comparativa de efectividad y tolerabilidad con polietilenglicol y picosulfato de sodio-citrato de magnesio como agentes de preparación intestinal para colonoscopia

Introduction: The effectiveness of colonoscopy depends on multiple factors, being two of the most important ones an adequate bowel preparation and the patient’s tolerability to the preparation. Objectives: Compare effectiveness and tolerability of two bowel preparation agents, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC). Patients and Methods: Randomized clinical trial on outpatients that went into colonoscopy in INDISA Clinic. We evaluated effectiveness and tolerability with Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) and Lawrence questionnaire [composed by Likert scale, two qualitative questions and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain], respectively. Results: 189 patients, 123 were randomized to PEG and 66 to SPMC. BBPS average in patients in the PEG branch was 7.51 (SD 1.66) and for SPMC 7.12 (SD 1.71) (p = 0.111). Likert scale for evaluating tolerability average for PEG was 0.94 (SD 0.68) and for SPMC 0.63 (SD 0.61) (p = 0.0004). VAS scale for PEG had an average of 7.68 (SD 2.4) and for PSCM 9.04 (SD 1.59) (p < 0.0001). When we asked for workplace absenteeism, there were no significant differences between both groups and when we asked about using the same intestinal preparation in a future colonoscopy there was statistical significance in favor to SPMC (p = 0.026). Conclusions: No differences were noted on effectiveness between the PEG and SPMC bowel preparations. Nevertheless, SPMC appeared to be better tolerated by patients.

White Diet with split-dose Picosalax is preferred, better tolerated, and non-inferior to day-before clear fluids with polyethylene glycol plus sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate for morning colonoscopy: A randomized, non-inferiority trial.

Background and AimBowel preparations with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and clear fluids are often poorly tolerated. We compared an innovative low‐residue White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax with the standard preparation at our institution of day‐before clear fluids and combination PEG plus sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC).MethodsAdults undergoing morning colonoscopy were randomized to either the White Diet and split‐dose, two sachets of Picosalax (WD/PICO) or day‐before clear fluids and 1‐L PEG plus two sachets of SPMC (CF/PEG + SPMC). The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation defined by an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 6. An intention‐to‐treat analysis with a predefined non‐inferiority margin of 15% was used to compare efficacy.ResultsA total of 250 patients were randomized (125 WD/PICO and 125 CF/PEG + SPMC). WD/PICO was non‐inferior to CF/PEG + SPMC for successful bowel preparation by intention‐to‐treat analysis (58% WD/PICO vs 62% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −14.2 to 6.2%) and per‐protocol analysis (64% WD/PICO vs 65% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −11.3 to 9.4%). Patients in the WD/PICO group reported greater satisfaction with the diet (P < 0.001), greater ease of following the diet (P < 0.001), and improved experience compared with prior colonoscopy (P < 0.0001), less bloating (P = 0.02), less weakness (P = 0.046), less hunger (P < 0.0001), and less interference with daily activities (P = 0.001). Procedure/withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates were similar between groups.ConclusionBowel preparation with the White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax was preferred and better tolerated without detriment to bowel preparation success compared with clear fluids and combination PEG plus SPMC for morning colonoscopy.

Acute Gastric Injury Caused by Undissolved Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate Powder.

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) is a widely used oral bowel cleansing agent considered to be relatively safe. However, partially dissolved or undissolved SPMC powder may cause severe injuries of the esophagus and stomach. We report a very rare case of acute gastric injury without esophageal damage caused by the ingestion of undissolved SPMC powder. A 69-year-old man experienced epigastric pain after swallowing SPMC powder without dissolving it in water in preparation for a screening colonoscopy. He realized his mistake immediately and subsequently drank 2 L of water. The esophagogastroduodenoscopy conducted after 12 hours indicated an acute gastric ulceration without injury of the esophagus or duodenum. The endoscopy conducted after 6 weeks of oral proton pump inhibitor treatment showed healing of the gastric injury. This suggested that drinking large amounts of water after ingesting partially dissolved or undissolved SPMC powder can prevent serious esophageal injury, but offers no preventive benefit for acute gastric injury.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation.

Previous studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) drew inconsistent conclusions. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of the two agents for colonoscopy preparation. A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2015 was acquired, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. We calculated the pooled estimates of bowel cleanliness, polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR), completion of preparation, willingness to repeat identical bowel preparation, and adverse events by using relative risk (RR) with random-effects models. A non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing SPMC to PEG for bowel cleaning efficacy. A total of 25 RCTs were qualified for analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two agents in bowel cleanliness, but the effect direction showed a trend in favor of PEG (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.86-1.01, P = 0.07). The non-inferiority analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of SPMC by retaining at least 90 % of the effect of PEG. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two agents in PDR (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.82-1.08, P = 0.37) and ADR (RR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.74-1.05, P = 0.16). However, a higher proportion of patients were likely to complete SPMC preparation (RR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.04-1.13, P < 0.001) and were willing to repeat SPMC preparation (RR 1.44; 95 % CI 1.25-1.67, P < 0.001). The total number of adverse events was significantly lower in the SPMC group (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.66-0.93, P = 0.004). SPMC, with better tolerability and less frequent adverse events, demonstrated non-inferior bowel cleaning efficacy than that of the PEG. Large-scale, well-organized, head-to-head studies are warranted.

Low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, and clear liquid diet alone prior to small bowel capsule endoscopy.

To compare low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate and clear liquid diet alone as bowel preparation prior to small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE). We retrospectively collected all CE studies done from December 2011 to July 2013 at a single institution. CE studies were reviewed only if low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate or clear liquid diet alone used as the bowel preparation. The studies were then reviewed by the CE readers who were blinded to the preparation type. Cleanliness and bubble burden were graded independently within the proximal, middle and distal small bowel using a four-point scale according to the percentage of small bowel mucosa free of debris/bubbles: grade 1 = over 90%, grade 2 = between 90%-75%, grade 3 = between 50%-75%, grade 4 = less than 50%. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. ANOVA and Fishers exact test were used where appropriate. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. A of total of 123 CE studies were reviewed. Twenty-six studies were excluded from analysis because of incomplete small bowel examination. In the remaining studies, 39 patients took low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, 31 took sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate and 27 took a clear liquid diet alone after lunch on the day before CE, followed by overnight fasting in all groups. There was no significant difference in small bowel cleanliness (1.98 ± 0.09 vs 1.84 ± 0.08 vs 1.76 ± 0.08) or small bowel transit time (213 ± 13 vs 248 ± 14 ± 225 ± 19 min) for clear liquid diet alone, MoviPrep and Pico-Salax respectively. The bubble burden in the mid small bowel was significantly higher in the MoviPrep group (1.6 ± 0.1 vs 1.9 ± 0.1 vs 1.6 ± 0.1, P < 0.05). However this did not result in a significant difference in diagnosis of pathology. There was no significant difference in small bowel cleanliness or diagnostic yield of small bowel CE between the three preparations regimens used in this study.

Split-dose sodium picosulfate–magnesium citrate colonoscopy preparation achieves lower residual gastric volume with higher cleansing effectiveness than a previous-day regimen

It is known that sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate (SPMC) bowel preparations are effective, well tolerated and safe, and that split-dosing is more effective for colon cleansing than previous-day regimens. Anesthetic guidelines consider that residual gastric fluid is independent of clear liquid fasting times. However, reluctance to use split-dosing persists. This may be due to limited data on residual gastric fluid volumes (RGFVs) and split-dosing bowel preparations, and that these may not be perceived as standard clear liquids. Furthermore, no studies are available on RGFV/residual gastric fluid pH (RGFpH) and SPMC. We aimed to evaluate the cleansing effectiveness and the RGFV/RGFpH achieved after an SPMC split-dosing regimen compared with a SPMC previous-day regimen. This was a single-center observational study. A total of 328 outpatients scheduled for simultaneous EGD and colonoscopy and following a split-dosing or previous-day regimen of SPMC were included. We prospectively measured colon cleanliness by using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, RGFV, and RGFpH. Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale scores for overall, right, mid-colon, and colon fluid were significantly better in the split-dosing group. In the split-dosing group, the 3- to 4-hour fasting time consistently achieved the best cleansing quality. RGFV was significantly lower in the split-dosing group (11.09 vs 18.62, P< .001). No significant differences in RGFpH were detected. Split-dosing SPMC provides higher colon cleansing quality with lower RGFVs than previous-day SPMC regimens. SPMC in split-dosing acts exactly as a standard clear liquid acts, and thus anesthetic guidelines on this issue may be applied with no concerns.

A randomized trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate solution vs. 4 L polyethylene glycol solution as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and acceptability of an evening-before regimens of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as bowel cleansers and to explore the results of a same-day regimen of SPMC. Multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel study carried out in subjects who were 18-80 years old and were undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for the first time. The primary outcome was treatment success, which was a composite outcome defined by (1) the evaluation of the overall preparation quality as "excellent" or "good" by two blinded independent evaluators with the Fleet(®) Grading Scale for Bowel Cleansing and (2) a subject's acceptability rating of "easy to take" or "tolerable." The primary outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression with site, gender, and age group (age ≥65 years and <65 years) as factors. Four hundred ninety subjects were included in the efficacy evaluation. Although treatment success was significantly higher in subjects assigned to the evening-before regimen of SPMC vs. subjects assigned to the evening-before PEG, when evaluating the two individual components for treatment success, there were significant differences in the ease of completion but not in the quality of preparation. The same-day SPMC regimen was superior to both the evening-before regimen of SPMC and PEG in terms of the quality of preparation, especially regarding the proximal colon. An evening-before regimen of SPMC is superior to an evening-before regimen of PEG in terms of subject's acceptability. The same-day SPMC regimen provides better cleansing levels in the proximal colon.

Polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation.

Background and study aims: Polyethylene glycol-based electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS) and the combination of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) are commonly used bowel preparation agents. The aim of the present study was to compare the two agents with regard to cleansing efficacy and tolerance among individuals scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Materials and methods: The 368 colonoscopy outpatients at three Norwegian hospitals were randomized to bowel lavage with either PEG-ELS or SPMC. Compliance and patient tolerance were evaluated using a patient questionnaire. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPS), a validated scoring system with scores between 0 (best) and 14. Results: There was no difference in the cleansing quality between the PEG-ELS and SPMC groups (median OBPS 5.0 in both groups). The group that received SPMC reported better overall patient tolerance than the PEG-ELS group (72.6 % vs 59.0 % reporting no or slight discomfort, P < 0.01). Compliance with the recommended total fluid intake (4 L) was better in the SPMC group than in the PEG-ELS group (94.2 % vs 81.2 % respectively, P < 0.01); moreover, the polyp detection rate was superior (34.3 % vs 23.3 %, P = 0.02). Conclusion: PEG-ELS and SPMC are equally effective in cleansing efficacy, but SPMC was better tolerated by patients and resulted in superior patient compliance and polyp detection rate.Clinical trial registration: NCT01624454

Su1554 A Comparative Study of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation Methods for Colonoscopy; Sodium Picosulfate Versus PEG-ASC

Low-volume bowel preparations have been shown to provide an equivalent cleansing with improved tolerability as compared to standard 4L-PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy. But, the study on superiority between low-volume bowel preparation methods are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare split-dose methods of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) and Polyethylene Glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) in the aspect of bowel preparation quality and compliance.