Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 39(5); 2009 > Article
A Prospective Comparison of Sulfate Free Polyethylene Glycol versus Sodium Phosphate Solution for Precolonoscopic Bowel Preparation
Clinical Endoscopy 2009;39(5):265-270.
DOI: https://doi.org/
Published online: November 30, 2009
Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
prev next
  • 2,559 Views
  • 21 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
prev next

Background
/Aims: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is commonly used for precolonoscopic preparation because of its safety and effectiveness. Sulfate free PEG (SF-PEG) solution was developed to reduce the salty taste by removing the sodium sulfate. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient compliance of SF-PEG and sodium phosphate (NaP) solutions for preparing the bowel before colonoscopy.
Methods
From February through April in 2007, 534 patients who underwent colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. The efficacy of bowel cleansing was assessed by a doctor's questionnaire and the patient's compliance was assessed by a patient's questionnaire.
Results
There was no significant difference between the groups for the "stools and fluids" assessment of bowel cleansing (2.07 vs. 2.14, respectively, p=0.149). However, SF-PEG was more effective on the "air bubbles" assessment (1.34 vs. 1.71, respectively, p<0.001) and the overall assessment (0.72 vs. 0.91, respectively, p=0.010) than NaP. The patients preferred SF-PEG rather than NaP for "Taste" (1.34 vs. 2.25, respectively, p=0.148). However, the patients significantly preferred NaP rather than SF-PEG for "Quantity" (2.46 vs. 1.18, respectively, p<0.001).
Conclusions
The SF-PEG solution showed more effectiveness for bowel cleansing as compared to the NaP solution. SF-PEG tastes better than NaP, but patients are still required to consume 4 liters for the standard preparing regimen. (Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 2009;39:265-270)


Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
Close layer
TOP