Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Validated Bowel-Preparation Tolerability Questionnaire and Assessment of Three Commonly Used Bowel-Cleansing Agents

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Study Aims

Bowel-cleansing studies are frequently underpowered, poorly designed, and with subjective assessments. Consensus on tolerability of the bowel-cleansing agents is thus lacking. This study developed and validated a bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire and used it to assess the tolerability of three bowel-cleansing agents, sodium phosphate (NaP), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and sodium picosulphate (Pico), in a prospective randomized single-blinded trial of ambulatory patients.

Patients and Methods

The bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire was validated in 125 consecutive patients and then bowel-preparation agent tolerability was assessed in 634 patients in a prospective randomized single-blinded trial.

Results

The questionnaire’s internal consistency was satisfactory with good to excellent “test–retest” reliability for aggregate tolerability and visual analogue scores. Validity assessment confirmed it as reliable and accurate. Of 634 patients, 97.8 % took >75 % of the allocated preparation and 98.9 % completed the questionnaire. Overall, Pico was better tolerated than PEG (p < 0.001) and NaP (p < 0.001). NaP was better tolerated than PEG (p < 0.001). Regardless of the bowel-preparation agent used, males tolerated them better than females (p = 0.009) as did patients having their procedure in the AM. Older patients, however, tolerated all preparations better than younger patients (p = 0.006).

Conclusions

This study used the first validated bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire and identified that age, sex, and procedure time all impacted tolerability. Overall, Pico was best tolerated, but PEG’s tolerability in patients ≥60 years was equal to that of Pico and NaP, suggesting that PEG can be recommended for older patients to avoid the electrolyte disturbances associated with the osmotic preparations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Byrne MF. The curse of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1587–1590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25:373–384.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Binderow SR, et al. Prospective, randomized, endoscopic-blinded trial comparing precolonoscopy bowel cleansing methods. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37:689–696.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Golub RW, Kerner BA, Wise WE Jr, et al. Colonoscopic bowel preparations–which one? A blinded, prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:594–599.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Frommer D. Cleansing ability and tolerance of three bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:100–104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schmidt LM, Williams P, King D, Perera D. Picoprep-3 is a superior colonoscopy preparation to Fleet: a randomized, controlled trial comparing the two bowel preparations. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:238–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Law WL, Choi HK, Chu KW, Ho JW, Wong L. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing polyethylene glycol solution, one dose and two doses of oral sodium phosphate solution. Asian J Surg. 2004;27:120–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tjandra JJ, Chan M, Tagkalidis PP. Oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) is a superior colonoscopy preparation to Picopre (sodium picosulfate-based preparation). Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:616–620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bitoun A, Ponchon T, Barthet M, et al. Results of a prospective randomised multicentre controlled trial comparing a new 2-L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol and electrolyte solution vs. sodium phosphate solution in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24:1631–1642.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kastenberg D, Barish C, Burack H, et al. Tolerability and patient acceptance of sodium phosphate tablets compared with 4-L PEG solution in colon cleansing: combined results of 2 identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase 3 trials. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007;41:54–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lichtenstein GR, Grandhi N, Schmalz M, et al. Clinical trial: sodium phosphate tablets are preferred and better tolerated by patients compared to polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl tablets for bowel preparation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:1361–1370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schanz S, Kruis W, Mickisch O, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy with sodium phosphate solution versus polyethylene glycol-based lavage: a multicenter trial. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2008;2008:713521.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hookey LC, Vanner SJ. Pico-salax plus two-day bisacodyl is superior to pico-salax alone or oral sodium phosphate for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:703–709.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lawrance IC, Willert RP, Murray K. Bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: prospective randomized assessment of efficacy and of induced mucosal abnormality with three preparation agents. Endoscopy. 2011;43:412–418.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Marmo R, Rotondano G, Riccio G, et al. Effective bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized study of split-dosage versus non-split dosage regimens of high-volume versus low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:313–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008.

  17. Hsu CW, Imperiale TF. Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:276–282.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tan JJ, Tjandra JJ. Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy—a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:247–258.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rejchrt S, Bures J, Siroky M, et al. A prospective, observational study of colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with orally administered sodium phosphate for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:651–654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zwas FR, Cirillo NW, Eisen RN, el-Serag HB. Colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with oral sodium phosphate solution. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43:463–466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Menees S, Higgins P, Korsnes S, Elta G. Does colonoscopy cause increased ulcerative colitis symptoms? Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13:12–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch HJ, et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:883–893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Worthington J, Thyssen M, Chapman G, Chapman R, Geraint M. A randomised controlled trial of a new 2-l polyethylene glycol solution versus sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:481–488.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Park SS, Sinn DH, Kim YH, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of split-dose magnesium citrate: low-volume (2 l) polyethylene glycol vs. single- or split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for morning colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1319–1326.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160–164.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kastenberg D, Chasen R, Choudhary C, et al. Efficacy and safety of sodium phosphate tablets compared with PEG solution in colon cleansing: two identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase III trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:705–713.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Fremantle Hospital, Fremantle, WA, Australia

    I. C. Lawrance & R. P. Willert

  2. The School of Medicine and Pharmacology, Fremantle Hospital, University of Western Australia, T Block, Alma Street, Fremantle, 6059, WA, Australia

    I. C. Lawrance

  3. Statistical Consulting Group, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    K. Murray

Authors
  1. I. C. Lawrance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. P. Willert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. C. Lawrance.

Additional information

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00750763.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawrance, I.C., Willert, R.P. & Murray, K. A Validated Bowel-Preparation Tolerability Questionnaire and Assessment of Three Commonly Used Bowel-Cleansing Agents. Dig Dis Sci 58, 926–935 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-012-2449-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-012-2449-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation