Tolerancia y limpieza del colon con dos preparaciones. Polietilenglicol o fosfato sódico

Article information

Objetivo

Comparar la limpieza del colon y la tolerancia con dos preparaciones, el polietilenglicol o Golitely® o solución evacuante Bohm-4 l (PEG) y el fosfato sódico (FS).

Material y mÉtodos

Se estudió de forma prospectiva y aleatorizada a 100 pacientes consecutivos que fueron sometidos a endoscopia baja tras tomar PEG (solución evacuante Bohm) o FS (Fosfosoda®). En todos los pacientes se valoró la presencia de efectos secundarios, el grado de incomodidad de las preparaciones (1: leve, 2: moderada y 3: severa) y el grado de limpieza con las preparaciones (1: mala, 2: regular, 3: buena y 4: excelente).

Resultados

La edad, el sexo, la distancia de la exploración y las operaciones previas fueron similares en ambos grupos. La incomodidad en el grupo de FS fue leve en 37 pacientes, moderada en 11 y severa en 2 (puntuación media 1,30 ± 0,54), mientras que en el grupo PEG fue leve en 28 pacientes, moderada en 15 y severa en 7 (puntuación media 1,58 ± 0,73). La limpieza del colon fue mala o regular en 11 sujetos (22%) en el grupo PEG y 8 (16%) en el grupo FS y buenaexcelente en 39 (78%) del grupo PEG frente a 42 (84%) en el grupo FS. De los 50 pacientes preparados con FS, 12 se habían preparado previamente con PEG; de ellos, 11 preferían la preparación con FS. De los 50 pacientes con PEG, 10 se habían preparado previamente, cuatro de ellos con enemas (peor con PEG) y seis con PEG (igual) (p < 0,005). Un paciente del grupo FS no finalizó la preparación y cuatro del grupo PEG, todos por vómitos. Los efectos secundarios fueron similares con ambas preparaciones.

Conclusiones

Los efectos secundarios y la limpieza del colon fueron similares con FS y con PEG. La tolerancia y el grado de comodidad fue mejor con el FS que con el PEG.

Objective

To compare colon cleansing and tolerance with two preparations: polyethylene glycol 4-liters (PEG) and sodium phosphate (FS).

Material and methods

Prospective randomized study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopy after taking PEG (Bohm lavage solution) or FS (Fosfosoda). All patients were evaluated for the presence of adverse effects, degree of discomfort of the preparations (1: mild, 2: moderate, 3: severe) and the degree of cleansing with the products (1: poor, 2: fair, 3: good, 4: excellent).

Results

Age, sex, depth of insertion and surgical history were similar for both groups. Discomfort in the FS group was mild in 37, moderate in 11 and severe in 2 (mean score 1.30 ± 0.54); in the PEG group it was mild in 28, moderate in 15 and severe in 7 (mean score 1.58 ± 0.73). Colon cleansing was poor or fair in 11 (22%) patients in the PEG group and in 8 (16%) patients in the FS group and was good or excellent in 39 (78%) in the PEG group in comparison with 42 (84%) in the FS group. Among the 50 patients who took the FS preparation, 12 had previously taken the PEG preparation and 11 of these preferred the FS preparation. Among the 50 patients who took the PEG preparation, 10 had previously taken preparations: 4 had used enemas (considering the present PEG to be worse) and 6 had taken the same PEG as that used in the present study (p < 0.005). One patient in the FS group and four in the PEG group did not complete the preparation because of vomiting. The adverse effects of both preparations were similar.

Conclusions

The adverse effects and degree of colon cleansing were similar for FS and PEG. Tolerance and patient comfort were greater with FS than with PEG.

Full text is only aviable in PDF

Bibliografía

[1.]

G.R. Davis, C.A. Santa Ana, S.G. Morawski, J.S. Fordtran.

Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion.

Gastroenterology, 78 (1980), pp. 991-995

Medline

[2.]

S.J. Vanner, P.H. MacKonald, W.G. Paterson, R.S.A. Prentice, L.R. Da Costa, I.T. Beck.

A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy.

Am J Gastroenterol, 85 (1990), pp. 422-427

Medline

[3.]

S.M. Cohen, S.D. Wexner, S.R. Binderow, J.J. Nogueras, N. Daniel, E.D. Ehrenpreis, et al.

Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods.

Dis Colon Rectum, 37 (1994), pp. 689-696

Medline

[4.]

J.M. Henderson, J.L. Barnett, D.K. Turgeon, G.H. Elta, E.M. Behler, I. Crause, et al.

Single-day, divided-dose oral sodium phosphate laxative versus intestinal lavage as preparation for colonoscopy: efficacy and patient tolerance.

Gastrointestinal Endosc, 42 (1995), pp. 238-243

[5.]

J.B. Marshall, J.S. Barthel, P.D. King.

Short report: prospective, randomized trial comparing a single dose sodium phosphate regimen with PEG-electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy preparation.

Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 7 (1993), pp. 679-682

Medline

[6.]

R.W. Golub.

Single-day oral sodium phosphate preparation for colonoscopy.

Gastrointestinal Endosc, 44 (1996), pp. 635-636

[7.]

T. Huynh, S. Vanner, W. paterson.

Safety profile of 5-h oral sodium phosphate regimen for colonoscopy cleansing: lack of clinically significant hypocalcemia or hypovolemia.

Am J Gastroenterol, 90 (1995), pp. 104-107

Medline

[8.]

R.F. Zwas, N.W. Cirillo, H.B. El-Serag, R.N. Eisen.

Colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with oral sodium phosphate solution.

Gastrointest Endosc, 43 (1996), pp. 463-466

Medline

[9.]

L.J. Hixson.

Colorectal ulcers associated with sodium phosphate catharsis.

Gastrointest Endosc, 42 (1995), pp. 101-102

Medline

[10.]

B.E. Kolts, W.E. Lyles, S.R. Achem, L. Burton, A.J. Geller, T. Mac-Math.

A comparison of the effectiveness and patient tolerance of oral sodium phosphate, castor oil and standard electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy preparation.

Am J Gastroenterol, 88 (1993), pp. 1218-1223

Medline

[11.]

F. Froehlich, M. Fried, J.F. Schnegg, J.J. Gonvers.

Low sodium solution for colonic cleansing: a double-blind, controlled, randomized prospective study.

Gastroenterol Endosc, 38 (1992), pp. 579-581

[12.]

S.E. Matter, P.S. Rice, D.R. Campbell.

Colonic lavage solutions: plain versus flavored.

Am J Gastroenterol, 88 (1993), pp. 49-52

Medline

[13.]

V.K. Sharma, S.K. Chockalinham, E.A. Uhgeoke, A. Kapur, P.H. Ling, R. Vasudeva, et al.

Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the use of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in four-liter versus two-liter volumes and pretreatment with either magnesium citrate or bisacodyl for colonoscopy preparation.

Gastrointest Endosc, 47 (1998), pp. 167-171

Medline

[14.]

C.W. Hsu, T.F. Imperiale.

Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation.

Gastrointest Endosc, 48 (1998), pp. 276-282

Medline

[15.]

D. Frommer.

Cleansing ability and tolerance of three bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Dis Colon Rectum, 40 (1997), pp. 100-104

Medline