Same-day single-dose vs large-volume split-dose regimens of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUNDSplit-dose regimens (SpDs) of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) have been established as the "gold standard" for bowel preparation; however, its use is limited by the large volumes of fluids required and sleep disturbance associated with night doses. Meanwhile, the same-day single...
Saved in:
Published in | World journal of clinical cases Vol. 10; no. 22; pp. 7844 - 7858 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
06.08.2022
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | BACKGROUNDSplit-dose regimens (SpDs) of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) have been established as the "gold standard" for bowel preparation; however, its use is limited by the large volumes of fluids required and sleep disturbance associated with night doses. Meanwhile, the same-day single-dose regimens (SSDs) of PEG has been recommended as an alternative; however, its superiority compared to other regimens is a matter of debate. AIMTo compare the efficacy and tolerability between SSDs and large-volume SpDs PEG for bowel preparation. METHODSWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, RCA, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomized trials comparing (2 L/4 L) SSDs to large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs PEG-based regimens, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis of relative risk ratio and mean difference was calculated for bowel cleanliness, sleep disturbance, willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation and adverse effects. A random effects model or fixed-effects model was chosen based on heterogeneity analysis among studies. RESULTSA total of 18 studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference of adequate bowel preparation (relative risk = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.92-1.02) (14 trials), right colon Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.04, 0.03) (9 trials) and right colon Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.04; 95%CI: -0.27, 0.34) (5 trials) between (2 L/4 L) SSDs and large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis favored the use of SSDs with less sleep disturbance (relative risk = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.68) and lower incidence of abdominal pain (relative risk = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.62, 0.90). During subgroup analysis, patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation than SpDs (P < 0.05). No significant difference in adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting and bloating, was found between the two arms (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONRegardless of adjuvant laxative use, the (2 L/4 L) SSD PEG-based arm was considered equal or better than the large-volume (≥ 3 L) SpDs PEG regimen in terms of bowel cleanliness and tolerability. Patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation due to the low-volume fluid requirement and less sleep disturbance. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Supported by Startup Fund for scientific research, Fujian Medical University, No. 2019QH1181. Corresponding author: Xiao-Ling Zheng, MD, PhD, Chief Physician, Professor, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center, The Shengli Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, No. 134 Dong Street, Gulou District, Fuzhou 350001, Fujian Province, China. shengli888220@163.com Author contributions: Pan H, Fang CY, Chen JS and Wang C contributed to data curation and writing the original draft; Zheng XL and Pan H contributed to the methodology; Zheng XL, Pan H and Fang CY contributed to the project administration; Chen YD, Huang JM and Zhou YS contributed to the supervision; Zheng XL and He LP contributed to the writing, reviewing and editing; all authors have read and approved the final manuscript. |
ISSN: | 2307-8960 2307-8960 |
DOI: | 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i22.7844 |