Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG electrolyte solutions for BP in children.
The randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial enrolled 150 children aged 6–18 years undergoing colonoscopy in our center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 60 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 60) or 40 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 40) of PEG electrolytes (PEG-ELS) 4000. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for bowel cleansing evaluation. Primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability was also evaluated.
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for both whole colon and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered the BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
Low volume of PEG-ELS for BP has good efficacy in bowel cleansing. PEG-ELS with 40 ml/kg volume was not inferior to that of 60 ml/kg.
PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for whole and various colonic segments.
The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups.
More patients considered BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.
This study showed that low-volume PEG-ELS monotherapy was effective in bowel cleansing and explored a possibly feasible BP method for pediatrics in China that PEG-ELS 40 was comparable to PEG-ELS 60 regimen.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $38.38 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Lightdale, J. R. et al. Modifications in endoscopic practice for pediatric patients. Gastrointest. Endosc. 79, 699–710 (2014).
Belsey, J., Epstein, O. & Heresbach, D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment. Pharm. Ther. 25, 373–384 (2007).
Barkun, A. et al. Commonly used preparations for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability, and safety—a Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position paper. Can. J. Gastroenterol. 20, 699–710 (2006).
Pall, H. et al. Bowel preparation for pediatric colonoscopy: report of the NASPGHAN endoscopy and procedures committee. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 59, 409–416 (2014).
Gordon, M., Karlsen, F., Isaji, S. & Teck, G. O. Bowel preparation for elective procedures in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Paediatr. Open 1, e000118 (2017).
Yoshioka, S. et al. Study to determine guidelines for pediatric colonoscopy. World J. Gastroenterol. 23, 5773–5779 (2017).
Di Nardo, G. et al. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: an RCT. Pediatrics 134, 249–256 (2014).
Berger, T. et al. Bowel preparation in pediatric colonoscopy: results of an open observational study. Endosc. Int. Open 4, E820–E827 (2016).
Turner, D. et al. Evidence-based recommendations for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children: a report from a national working group. Endoscopy 42, 1063–1070 (2010).
Kierkus, J. et al. High- versus low-volume polyethylene glycol plus laxative versus sennosides for colonoscopy preparation in children. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 57, 230–235 (2013).
Lai, E. J., Calderwood, A. H., Doros, G., Fix, O. K. & Jacobson, B. C. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest. Endosc. 69, 620–625 (2009).
Garber, A. et al. Modifiable factors associated with quality of bowel preparation among hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy. J. Hosp. Med. 14, 278–283 (2019).
Lorenzo, F. et al. Factors that affect adequacy of colon cleansing for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. Clin. Gastroenteral. Hepatol. S1542-3565(20)30342-30346 (2020).
Adamiak, T. et al. One-day bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol 3350: an effective regimen for colonoscopy in children. Gastrointest. Endosc. 71, 573–577 (2010).
Jibaly, R., LaChance, J., Lecea, N. A., Ali, N. & Weber, J. E. The utility of PEG3350 without electrolytes for 2-day colonoscopy preparation in children. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 21, 318–321 (2011).
Abbas, M. I., Nylund, C. M., Bruch, C. J., Nazareno, L. G. & Rogers, P. L. Prospective evaluation of 1-day polyethylene glycol-3350 bowel preparation regimen in children. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 56, 220–224 (2013).
Turner, D. et al. Pico-Salax versus polyethylene glycol for bowel cleanout before colonoscopy in children: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 41, 1038–1045 (2009).
Hunter, A. & Mamula, P. Bowel preparation for pediatric colonoscopy procedures. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 51, 254–261 (2010).
Hassan, C. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—update 2019. Endoscopy 51, 775–794 (2019).
Seo, E. H. et al. Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 75, 583–590 (2012).
We thank Professor Ying kit Leung for guidance about research direction.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Fang, S., Song, Y., Liu, Y. et al. Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children. Pediatr Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-01216-5