Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy


Author index

Page Path
HOME > Browse Articles > Author index
Jin Ho Lee 2 Articles
Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation
Ji Hyung Nam, Seok Bo Hong, Yun Jeong Lim, Seongju Lee, Hyoun Woo Kang, Jae Hak Kim, Jin Ho Lee
Clin Endosc 2020;53(5):568-574.   Published online April 24, 2020
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
/Aims: The quality of bowel preparation is one of the quality indicators for colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-AA) for bowel preparation.
The study involved 167 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopies. Inadequate bowel preparation was defined as any score of ≤1 in each colon section based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the efficacy of OSS and PEG-AA. Subgroup analyses were performed based on patient characteristics.
Overall, 106 (63.5%) patients received OSS, and 61 (36.5%) patients received PEG-AA. The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 12.3% in patients receiving OSS and 32.8% in patients receiving PEG-AA (p=0.001). OSS (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26; p=0.003) and morning examination (OR=0.11; p=0.038) were significantly associated with efficient bowel preparation. The efficacy of OSS compared with PEG-AA was only significant in patients ≥50 years of age vs. <50 years of age (OR=0.13; p=0.001 vs. OR=0.96; p=0.959) and female vs. male patients (OR=0.06; p=0.002 vs. OR=0.58; p=0.339).
OSS was significantly more efficient for bowel preparation than PEG-AA, especially in patients ≥50 years of age and female patients. Morning examination led to a good quality of bowel preparation, irrespective of the preparation regimen.


Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Observation of the application effect of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) combined with ascorbic acid tablets in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients
    Le-Can Wu, En-Dian Zheng, Hao-Yue Sun, Xi-Zhou Lin, Ju-Yi Pan, Xiao-Xiao Lin
    Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparison of the efficacy and safety of an oral sulfate solution and 3-L polyethylene glycol on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial
    Peng Pan, Shengbing Zhao, Shuling Wang, Yihang Song, Lun Gu, Youxiang Chen, Jiangrong Zhao, Lungen Lu, Xiuling Li, Hongzhi Xu, Gaifang Liu, Yanqing Li, Le Xu, Jiangbin Wang, Zhaoshen Li, Yu Bai
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2023; 98(6): 977.     CrossRef
  • Randomized trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol–ascorbic acid for bowel cleansing in elderly people
    Seung‐Joo Nam, Sung Chul Park, Sung Joon Lee, Sang Hoon Lee, Ji Hyun Kim, Chang Seok Bang, Hyun Il Seo
    Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2022; 37(2): 319.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60–79: A Prospective Randomized Study
    Sung Hoon Jung, Chul-Hyun Lim, Tae-Geun Gweon, Jinsu Kim, Jung Hwan Oh, Kyu-Tae Yoon, Jee Young An, Jeong‑Seon Ji, Hwang Choi
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2022; 67(10): 4841.     CrossRef
  • Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Cheng Chen, Mengyang Shi, Zhongli Liao, Weiqing Chen, Yongzhong Wu, Xu Tian
    Digestive Endoscopy.2022; 34(6): 1121.     CrossRef
  • Efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral sulphate tablet for bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A multicentre randomized controlled study
    Kyeong Ok Kim, Eun Young Kim, Yoo Jin Lee, Hyun Seok Lee, Eun Soo Kim, Yun Jin Chung, Byung Ik Jang, Sung Kook Kim, Chang Heon Yang
    Journal of Crohn's and Colitis.2022; 16(11): 1706.     CrossRef
  • How to Choose the Optimal Bowel Preparation Regimen for Colonoscopy
    Ji Eun Na, Eun Ran Kim
    The Ewha Medical Journal.2021; 44(4): 122.     CrossRef
  • Oral Sulfate Solution is as Effective as 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid
    Sung Hyun Shin, Kwang An Kwon
    Clinical Endoscopy.2020; 53(5): 503.     CrossRef
  • 4,942 View
  • 175 Download
  • 9 Web of Science
  • 8 Crossref
Close layer
Comparison of Fentanyl versus Meperidine in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Colonoscopy in Korea
Gwan Woo Hong, Jun Kyu Lee, Jung Hyeon Lee, Ji Hun Bong, Sung Hun Choi, Hyeki Cho, Ji Hyung Nam, Dong Kee Jang, Hyoun Woo Kang, Jae Hak Kim, Yun Jeong Lim, Moon Soo Koh, Jin Ho Lee
Clin Endosc 2020;53(5):562-567.   Published online July 3, 2020
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
/Aims: Combination of midazolam and opioids is used widely for endoscopic sedation. Compared with meperidine, fentanyl is reportedly associated with rapid recovery, turnover rate of endoscopy room, and quality of endoscopy. We compared fentanyl with meperidine when combined with midazolam for sedative colonoscopy.
A retrospective, cross-sectional, 1:2 matching study was conducted. Induction and recovery time were compared as the primary outcomes. Moreover, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time of colonoscopy, paradoxical reaction, adenoma detection rate, and adverse effect of midazolam or opioids were assessed as the secondary outcomes.
A total of 129 subjects (43 fentanyl vs. 86 meperidine) were included in the analysis. The fentanyl group showed significantly more rapid induction time (4.5±2.7 min vs. 7.5±4.7 min, p<0.001), but longer recovery time (59.5±25.6 min vs. 50.3±10.9 min, p=0.030) than the meperidine group. In multivariate analysis, the induction time of the fentanyl group was 3.40 min faster (p<0.001), but the recovery time was 6.38 min longer (p=0.046) than that of the meperidine group. There was no difference in withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate between the two groups.
The fentanyl group had more rapid sedation induction time but longer recovery time than the meperidine group.


Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Efficacy and safety of EBUS‐TBNA under conscious sedation with meperidine and midazolam
    Roberto Piro, Eleonora Casalini, Matteo Fontana, Carla Galeone, Patrizia Ruggiero, Sofia Taddei, Giulia Ghidoni, Giulia Patricelli, Nicola Facciolongo
    Thoracic Cancer.2022; 13(4): 533.     CrossRef
  • Propofol Alone versus Propofol in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Endoscopy in Patients with Paradoxical Reactions to Midazolam
    Ji Hyung Nam, Dong Kee Jang, Jun Kyu Lee, Hyoun Woo Kang, Byung-Wook Kim, Byung Ik Jang
    Clinical Endoscopy.2022; 55(2): 234.     CrossRef
  • Efficacy of Analgesic Propofol/Esketamine and Propofol/Fentanyl for Painless Induced Abortion: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Naixing Xin, Wei Yan, Shuangfen Jin, Min Tang
    BioMed Research International.2022; 2022: 1.     CrossRef
  • Endoscopist-Driven Sedation Practices in South Korea: Re-evaluation Considering the Nationwide Survey in 2019
    Seon-Young Park, Jun Kyu Lee, Chang-Hwan Park, Byung-Wook Kim, Chang Kyun Lee, Hong Jun Park, Byung Ik Jang, Dong Uk Kim, Jin Myung Park, Jae Min Lee, Young Sin Cho, Hyung Ku Chon, Seung Young Seo, Woo Hyun Paik
    Gut and Liver.2022; 16(6): 899.     CrossRef
  • Drugs used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy
    Jun Kyu Lee
    Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(11): 735.     CrossRef
  • Risk Factors for Prolonged Hospital Stay after Endoscopy
    Toshihiro Nishizawa, Shuntaro Yoshida, Osamu Toyoshima, Tatsuya Matsuno, Masataka Irokawa, Toru Arano, Hirotoshi Ebinuma, Hidekazu Suzuki, Takanori Kanai, Kazuhiko Koike
    Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(6): 851.     CrossRef
  • 7,859 View
  • 128 Download
  • 6 Web of Science
  • 6 Crossref
Close layer

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
Close layer