Polyethylene Glycol Powder Solution Versus Senna for Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Children
ABSTRACT Objectives: Safety and effectiveness of large‐volume polyethylene glycol‐based solution (PEG‐ES) have been documented, but the taste and volume can be barriers to successful colonoscopy preparation. Efficacy and safety of small‐volume electrolyte‐free (PEG‐P) preparation (Miralax) for colon...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition Vol. 56; no. 2; pp. 215 - 219 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Hagerstown, MD
Copyright by ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN
01-02-2013
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | ABSTRACT
Objectives:
Safety and effectiveness of large‐volume polyethylene glycol‐based solution (PEG‐ES) have been documented, but the taste and volume can be barriers to successful colonoscopy preparation. Efficacy and safety of small‐volume electrolyte‐free (PEG‐P) preparation (Miralax) for colonoscopy preparation have been rarely studied, although presently used at many pediatric centers. The primary objective of the present study was to determine whether PEG‐P results in a more efficacious and safe colonoscopy preparation as compared with senna.
Methods:
The study design was prospective, randomized, and single‐blinded. Patients ages 6 to 21 years were randomized to a 2‐day clean‐out regimen of PEG‐P at a dose of 1.5 g/kg divided twice per day for 2 days versus senna 15 mL daily (ages 6–12) or 30 mL daily (ages 12–21) for 2 days. Both preparations required 1 day of clear liquids whereas senna preparation required an additional day of full liquid diet. A blinded endoscopist graded the quality of preparation with a standardized cleanliness tool (Aronchick scale). Serum chemistry panels were obtained. Patients or parents rated symptoms and ease of preparation. The anticipated number of subjects was 166; however, the interim analysis demonstrated inferiority of senna preparation.
Results:
Thirty patients were evaluated in the present study. Of the patients in the PEG‐P arm, 88% (14/16) received an excellent/good score compared with 29% (4/14), with the senna preparation (P = 0.0022). Both preparations were well‐tolerated by patient‐graded ease of preparation. Demographics and laboratory values did not differ significantly across the 2 groups. No serious adverse events were noted.
Conclusions:
PEG‐P is an effective colonoscopy preparation whereas senna preparation was insufficient. Both were well‐tolerated and appear safe in a pediatric population. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | This article has been developed as a Journal CME Activity by NASPGHAN. Visit to view instructions, documentation, and the complete necessary steps to receive CME credit for reading this article. http://www.naspghan.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=361 N.A.T. is supported by training grant NIH‐T32‐DK007066. registration number: NCT01140295. www.jpgn.org Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website . www.clinicaltrials.gov The authors report no conflicts of interest. ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-News-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 0277-2116 1536-4801 |
| DOI: | 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182633d0a |