Author of 1 Presentation

SS 2.4 - Low-volume reduced bowel preparation for CTC: a randomised controlled trial

Presentation Number
SS 2.4
Channel
On-demand channel 6

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the feasibility and patient tolerance of a reduced bowel preparation for CTC.

Material and methods

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this multicentric randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced (52.5 g of Macrogol dissolved in 500 mL of water, RBP) or full (105 g of Macrogol in 1000 mL, FBP) bowel preparation and faecal tagging. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of four-point Likert scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were randomly allocated to treatments (44 in FBP group, 34 in RBP group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. Homogeneity of fluid tagging (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.075), volume of residual stools (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.082), and colonic distension (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.073) were similar for both groups. RBP resulted in better patient tolerance.

Conclusion

Reduced bowel preparation may provide better tolerance for patients undergoing CTC without affecting colon cleansing and image quality.

Collapse

Slides

Collapse

Video-on-demand

[session]
[presentation]
[presenter]
Collapse

Presenter of 1 Presentation

SS 2.4 - Low-volume reduced bowel preparation for CTC: a randomised controlled trial

Presentation Number
SS 2.4
Channel
On-demand channel 6

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the feasibility and patient tolerance of a reduced bowel preparation for CTC.

Material and methods

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this multicentric randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced (52.5 g of Macrogol dissolved in 500 mL of water, RBP) or full (105 g of Macrogol in 1000 mL, FBP) bowel preparation and faecal tagging. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of four-point Likert scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were randomly allocated to treatments (44 in FBP group, 34 in RBP group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. Homogeneity of fluid tagging (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.075), volume of residual stools (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.082), and colonic distension (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.073) were similar for both groups. RBP resulted in better patient tolerance.

Conclusion

Reduced bowel preparation may provide better tolerance for patients undergoing CTC without affecting colon cleansing and image quality.

Collapse

Slides

Collapse

Video-on-demand

[session]
[presentation]
[presenter]
Collapse

Author of 1 Presentation

SS 2.4 - Low-volume reduced bowel preparation for CTC: a randomised controlled trial (ID 951)

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the feasibility and patient tolerance of a reduced bowel preparation for CTC.

Material and methods

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this multicentric randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced (52.5 g of Macrogol dissolved in 500 mL of water, RBP) or full (105 g of Macrogol in 1000 mL, FBP) bowel preparation and faecal tagging. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of four-point Likert scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were randomly allocated to treatments (44 in FBP group, 34 in RBP group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. Homogeneity of fluid tagging (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.075), volume of residual stools (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.082), and colonic distension (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.073) were similar for both groups. RBP resulted in better patient tolerance.

Conclusion

Reduced bowel preparation may provide better tolerance for patients undergoing CTC without affecting colon cleansing and image quality.

Collapse

Slides

Collapse

Video-on-demand

[session]
[presentation]
[presenter]
Collapse

Presenter of 1 Presentation

SS 2.4 - Low-volume reduced bowel preparation for CTC: a randomised controlled trial (ID 951)

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the feasibility and patient tolerance of a reduced bowel preparation for CTC.

Material and methods

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this multicentric randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced (52.5 g of Macrogol dissolved in 500 mL of water, RBP) or full (105 g of Macrogol in 1000 mL, FBP) bowel preparation and faecal tagging. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of four-point Likert scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were randomly allocated to treatments (44 in FBP group, 34 in RBP group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. Homogeneity of fluid tagging (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.075), volume of residual stools (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.082), and colonic distension (median score 0 vs 0, p=0.073) were similar for both groups. RBP resulted in better patient tolerance.

Conclusion

Reduced bowel preparation may provide better tolerance for patients undergoing CTC without affecting colon cleansing and image quality.

Collapse

Slides

Collapse

Video-on-demand

[session]
[presentation]
[presenter]
Collapse