A Trial of Four Different Bowel Cleansing Regimens Prior to Colonoscopy

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

200 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2007-09-30

Study Completion Date

2009-07-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

To compare 4 commonly used bowel preparations in terms of efficacy, patient tolerability and safety. All these 4 bowel preparations are likely to be efficacious and safe. However, those with lower volume are likely to be better tolerated and completed by patients.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Different Same-day Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation Procedures on Patient Compliance, Tolerability, and Bowel Cleansing

NCT06722209

Colonoscopy Colonoscopy Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures Colonoscopy Preparation +1 more

NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA

Comparison of Colon Cleansing Quality Between the Setting of Colon Cleansing Room and the Standard Colon Preparation in a Community Base Setting -- a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

NCT02046161

Colon Cleansing Level

COMPLETED NA

Safety and Efficacy of High Dose Bowel Preparation Solutions for Patients With Difficult To Clean Colons For Colonoscopy

NCT02661750

Preparation for Colonoscopy

COMPLETED

Efficacy of Morning-only Bowel Preparation for Afternoon Colonoscopy.

NCT00687830

Colon Cancer

COMPLETED PHASE3

Colon Cleansing Efficacy With 1L vs. 2L vs. 4L-PEG for Colonoscopy Among Inpatients

NCT04708366

Colon Disease

UNKNOWN PHASE4

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Adequate bowel preparation is imperative for diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety. Several bowel cleansing preparations have been approved by Health Canada and are commonly used prior to colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered to be the "gold standard" for bowel preparation. It is a nonabsorbable solution which passes through the bowel without net absorption or secretion. Significant fluid and electrolyte shifts are therefore avoided. However, the large volume (4 liters), the salty taste and the sulphur smell frequently lead to poor tolerability and compliance, sometimes resulting in inadequate bowel preparation. Several other bowel cleansing preparations have been developed and include sodium phosphate (NaP), magnesium citrate, and sodium picosulphate plus magnesium oxide (PSMC)-containing preparations. NaP is a low volume hyperosmotic solution which draws plasma water into the bowel lumen to promote colonic cleansing. As a result, significant fluid and electrolyte shifts can occur. The advantage of the low volume is better patient tolerance compared to PEG. However, even in healthy individuals severe electrolyte disturbances have been reported when the 2 required doses are taken 12 hours apart. Therefore Health Canada has recommended that 2 doses of NaP be taken 24 hours apart. Patients with renal failure, congestive heart failure and liver failure should avoid this preparation (Grade I A). PSMC is a hyperosmotic saline laxative which increases intraluminal volume resulting in increased intestinal motility. Magnesium, a constituent of PSMC, stimulates the release of cholecystokinin which also stimulates intestinal motility. Since magnesium is eliminated by the kidney, patients with renal insufficiency or failure should also avoid this preparation.

Many randomized controlled trials have compared the efficacy and tolerability of various bowel cleansing regimens. Studies comparing full-volume (4 liters) PEG with low-volume (2 liters) PEG combined with magnesium citrate or bisacodyl have demonstrated equal efficacy of colonic cleansing but with improved patient tolerance. However, there is little data on how low volume PEG compares with NaP. The only meta-analysis of twenty nine trials on optimal bowel preparation concluded that NaP was more effective in bowel cleansing than 4-liter PEG or PSMC. However, there were only three trials comparing NaP to PSMC that met inclusion and exclusion criteria in this meta-analysis and the results have been conflicting. Also there were only three trials comparing PEG to PSMC in this meta-analysis with inconclusive data. Moreover, the mean number of patients per trial was small at 223, with the highest number of patients in a trial at 500.

A consensus document prepared by three leading American gastrointestinal societies (American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons) as well as a position paper by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology identified the lack of an ideal bowel preparation which meets all these criteria. Furthermore, the need for further studies was identified in the following areas:

1. Two-liter PEG vs NaP
2. PSMC vs NaP

Outpatients who need to undergo routine colonoscopy will be recruited. Each patient will be randomly assigned to one of the four bowel preparations after they have given consent to participate in the study:

1. Group 1. 4L PEG.
2. Group 2. 2L PEG plus 4 tablets of bisacodyl.
3. Group 3. 90 cc NaP.
4. Group 4. PSMC plus 1 bottle of Mg-citrate (300 cc).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Bowel Preparation

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

1. 4L PEG only

4L PEG PO

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR