Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. May 26, 2021; 9(15): 3586-3596
Published online May 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i15.3586
Published online May 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i15.3586
Table 1 The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (by colon segment)
| Score | Description |
| 0 | Excellent: Clearly visible mucosal detail with almost no stool residue; any fluid present is clear with hardly any stool residue |
| 1 | Good: Some turbid fluid or stool residue, but mucosal detail still visible without the need for washing/suctioning |
| 2 | Fair: Some turbid fluid of stool residue obscuring mucosal detail; however, mucosal detail becomes visible with suctioning; washing not needed |
| 3 | Poor: Stool present obscuring mucosal detail and contour; a reasonable view is obtained by suctioning and washing |
| 4 | Inadequate: Solid stool obscuring mucosal detail, which cannot be cleared by washing and suctioning |
Table 2 The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (total colon fluid)
| Score | Description |
| 0 | Small volume of fluid |
| 1 | Moderate volume of fluid |
| 2 | Large volume of fluid |
Table 3 Baseline characteristics of the study group, n (%)
| Characteristics | Study population, n = 64 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 42 (65.63) |
| Female | 22 (34.38) |
| BMI, mean, kg/m2 | 25.1 |
| BMI > 25 | 32 (50.00) |
| BMI ≤ 25 | 32 (50.00) |
| Constipation | 6 (9.38) |
| History of abdominal surgery | 9 (14.06) |
| Indication | |
| Screening | 47 (73.44) |
| History of colon polyp | 12 (18.75) |
| Chronic constipation | 3 (4.69) |
| Diarrhea | 0 (0.00) |
| Other | 2 (3.13) |
| History of past colonoscopy | 42 (65.63) |
Table 4 Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of bowel preparation
| Variables | Score |
| OBPS (mean) | |
| Ascending | 1.4 |
| Mid | 0.9 |
| Rectosigmoid | 0.8 |
| Total colon fluid | 0.5 |
| Overall (mean ± SD) | 3.6 ± 0.312 |
| Quality of bowel preparation, n (%) | |
| Success rate (OBPS ≤ 7) | 58 (93.55) |
| Excellence rate (OBPS ≤ 4) | 42 (67.74) |
| Polyp detection rate (%) | 36.9 |
| Supplementary water intake (mL) | 3000 (2250, 3800) |
| Sleep quality-VAS | 0 (0, 6) |
| Anal pain-VAS | 0 (0, 6) |
| Ease of drinking-VAS | 10 (4, 10) |
| Taste-VAS | 10 (5, 10) |
Table 5 Univariate analysis
| Variables | Overall | OBPS ≤ 4, n = 42 | OBPS > 4, n = 20 | Statistics | P value |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 50.20 ± 10.36 | 47.90 ± 8.90 | 55.50 ± 11.90 | 2.81 | 0.0066 |
| Male | 41 (65.63) | 30 (71.40) | 11 (55.00) | 1.63 | 0.255 |
| BMI | 25.1 ± 4.0 | 25.4 ± 4.1 | 24.6 ± 3.9 | -0.68 | 0.4963 |
| ≤ 25 | 31 (50.00) | 19 (45.20) | 12 (60.00) | ||
| > 25 | 31 (50.00) | 23 (54.80) | 8 (40.00) | ||
| Constipation | 6 (9.38) | 1 (2.40) | 5 (25.00) | 7.9301 | 0.0112 |
| History of abdominal surgery | 9 (14.06) | 4 (9.50) | 5 (25.00) | 2.6151 | 0.133 |
| Taking drugs | 10 (15.63) | 5 (11.90) | 5 (25.00) | 1.7175 | 0.269 |
| Indications | 2.348 | 0.141 | |||
| Screening | 45 (72.58) | 33 (78.60) | 12 (60.00) | ||
| Other | 17 (27.42) | 9 (21.40) | 8 (40.00) | ||
| No history of past colonoscopy | 40 (65.63) | 29 (69.00) | 11 (55.00) | 1.1679 | 0.395 |
| Minutes from 1st dose of Picolax | |||||
| First stool | 73.0 (8, 243) | 86.7 (8, 243) | 98.2 (15, 230) | 0.7234 | 0.4694 |
| Last stool | 169.3 ± 96.8 | 175.0 ± 104.8 | 158.1 ± 79.4 | -0.64 | 0.5246 |
| Minutes from 2nd dose of Picolax | |||||
| First stool | 38.9 ± 28.1 | 37.8 ± 28.5 | 42.8 ± 28.5 | 0.65 | 0.5212 |
| Last stool | 139.5 ± 63.1 | 140.9 ± 56.0 | 137.9 | -0.18 | 0.8602 |
| Water intake (mL) | 3000.0 (2250, 3800) | 2989.3 (2250, 3000) | 2877.5 (2250, 3800) | 3.6245 | 0.0569 |
| Total frequency of defecation | 9.0 (5, 21) | 8.5 (5, 17) | 9.0 (5, 21) | 0.2819 | 0.779 |
| Sleep disturbances (VAS > 1) | 2.824 | 0.7271 | |||
| Yes | 20 | 15 (35.7) | 5 (25.0) | ||
| No | 42 | 27 (64.3) | 15 (75.0) | ||
| Ease of drinking | 0.01 | 1 | |||
| Easy (VAS ≥ 9) | 46 | 31 (73.8) | 15 (75.0) | ||
| Hard (VAS < 9) | 16 | 11 (26.2) | 5 (25.0) | ||
| Taste | 0.2214 | 1 | |||
| Satisfied (VAS ≥ 9) | 54 | 36 (85.7) | 18 (90.0) | ||
| Dissatisfied (VAS < 9) | 8 | 6 (14.3) | 2 (10.0) |
Table 6 Univariate logistic regression analysis for the group with Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale > 4
| Variable | Regression coefficient | SEM | Statistics | P value | OR | 95%CI |
| Age | 0.0742 | 0.0299 | 6.1732 | 0.013 | 1.077 | 1.0160-1.1420 |
| Male (n, %) | 0.7156 | 0.5645 | 1.6071 | 0.2049 | 2.046 | 0.2677-6.1850 |
| Constipation | 2.6149 | 1.1362 | 5.2962 | 0.0214 | 13.665 | 1.4740-126.6990 |
- Citation: Liu FX, Wang L, Yan WJ, Zou LC, Cao YA, Lin XC. Cleansing efficacy and safety of bowel preparation protocol using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate considering subjective experiences: An observational study. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(15): 3586-3596
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i15/3586.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i15.3586
