收藏切换
Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
收藏切换
Jiaojun LI1, 2, Xianhao TAN2, 3, Chen ZHANG2, Yifeng LIU2, Lin JIANG2, Xiaobin SUN2, Jing SHAN2
Journal of Army Medical University | 2025, 47(3) : 255 - 261
Less
收藏切换
Journal of Army Medical University | 2025, 47(3): 255-261
• Clinical Medicine •
Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study
Full
Jiaojun LI1, 2, Xianhao TAN2, 3, Chen ZHANG2, Yifeng LIU2, Lin JIANG2, Xiaobin SUN2, Jing SHAN2
Affiliations
  • 1School of Clinical Medicine,North Sichuan Medical College,Nanchong,Sichuan
  • 2Department of Gastroenterology,Chengdu Third People’s Hospital,Chengdu,Sichuan
  • 3College of Clinical Medicine,Southwest Medical University,Luzhou,Sichuan,China
Published: 2025-02-15 doi: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202407055
Outline
收藏切换
Objective‍

‍To compare the efficacy of 2 L and 3 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution for bowel preparation in a real-world setting.

Methods

A real-world, single-center cohort study was conducted on the individuals undergoing colonoscopy in Department of Gastroenterology of Chengdu Third People's Hospital between May and October 2023. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, they were given 2 L (n=4 684) and 3 L (n=3 700) PEG electrolyte solution for bowel preparation. The primary outcome indicator was the adequacy of bowel preparation by Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS). Secondary outcome indicators included the BBPS score, polyp detection rate (PDR), tolerability, compliance, and incidence of adverse events.

Results

‍The adequacy rate of bowel preparation was 94.35% in the 3 L group, significantly higher than that of the 2 L group (91.29%, P<0.001). The 3 L group obtained a higher BBPS score then the 2 L group (6.92±1.06 vs 6.81±1.14, P<0.001). But there was no statistical difference in the PDR between the 2 groups (P=0.073). And the rate of PEG completion (P=0.810), administration of low residue diet as required (P=0.094) or use of dimethicone (P=0.072) were comparable between the 2 groups. However, the incidences of vomiting (4.5% vs 3.2%, P=0.002), abdominal discomfort (5.0% vs 3.9%, P=0.011) and sleep disturbance (18.0% vs 14.6%, P<0.001) were obviously higher in the 3 L group than the 2 L group.

Conclusion

In a real-world setting, 2 L PEG is a considerably safe and effective regimen for bowel preparation.

‍polyethylene glycol  /  bowel preparation  /  comparative effectiveness research  /  real world
李蕉君, 谭贤豪, 张宸, 刘一锋, 姜琳, 孙晓滨, 单晶. 在真实世界中使用2 L和3 L聚乙二醇电解质溶液进行肠道准备的效果比较. 陆军军医大学学报, 2025 , 47 (3) : 255 -261 . DOI: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202407055
Jiaojun LI, Xianhao TAN, Chen ZHANG, Yifeng LIU, Lin JIANG, Xiaobin SUN, Jing SHAN. Efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation: a real-world study[J]. Journal of Army Medical University, 2025 , 47 (3) : 255 -261 . DOI: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202407055
Year 2025 volume 47 Issue 3
17
6
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.16016/j.2097-0927.202407055
  • Receive Date:2024-07-14
  • Online Date:2026-10-30
  • Published:2025-02-15
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received:2024-07-14
  • Revised:2024-08-05
Affiliations
    1School of Clinical Medicine,North Sichuan Medical College,Nanchong,Sichuan
    2Department of Gastroenterology,Chengdu Third People’s Hospital,Chengdu,Sichuan
    3College of Clinical Medicine,Southwest Medical University,Luzhou,Sichuan,China
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/ljjydxxb/EN/10.16016/j.2097-0927.202407055
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family
属数
Number of
genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)
属
Genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT