Magnesium sulfate saline laxatives in the preparation for colonoscopy – our experience

Česká verzia

Authors: S. Dražilová ¹; J. Lietava ²; P. Borecký ³
Authors place of work: Oddelenie vnútorného lekárstva s JIS metabolickou, Nemocnica Poprad, a. s., Slovenská republika ¹; I. interná klinika LF a UN Bratislava, Slovenská republika ²; Špecializovaná geriatrická nemocnica Podunajské Biskupice, UN Bratislava, Slovenská republika ³
Published in the journal: Gastroent Hepatol 2017; 71(6): 524-530
Category: Klinická a experimentální gastroenterologie: původní práce
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amgh2017524

Publikácia je venovaná pamiatke predčasne zosnulého MUDr. Maroša Škovrana.

Summary

Aim:
To assess the efficacy of and tolerance to the new saline laxative F.X. Passage^® SL with 30% magnesium sulfate for colonoscopy preparation and to compare it with the standard preparation consisting of sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate.

Methodology:
This was an open, comparative, randomised, unblind, prospective study. All patients were treated at the Gastroenterological Outpatient Service of the Department of Internal Medicine of Hospital Poprad between November, 2015, and December, 2016. A total of 91 and 61 patients received the magnesium sulfate and standard preparations, respectively. Basic characteristics, presence of gastrointestinal diseases, comorbidities and medications taken were comparable in the two groups. Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

Results:
The mean BBPS score for the whole colon was significantly higher in the magnesium sulfate group (7.70 ± 1.19) than in the standard preparation group (7.19 ± 1.32; p=0.013). The same significant difference was observed in single segments (right colon and transverse colon). Both regimens were tolerated and effective in patients suffering from obstipation. Compliance, especially with the drinking regime, was better in the magnesium sulfate group than in the standard preparation group. Although adverse effects (mostly nausea and vomiting) were more frequent in the magnesium sulfate group than in the standard preparation group, no patient suffered a serious adverse effect.

Conclusions:
Magnesium sulfate was superior to sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate for effective colon cleansing. Although the magnesium sulfate preparation was associated with a significantly higher number of adverse events, this was not a limitation for the colonoscopy procedure.

Key words:
colonoscopy – laxatives – Boston Bowel Preparation Scale – magnesium sulfate

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE „uniform requirements“ for biomedical papers.

Submitted:
6. 5. 2017

Accepted:
26. 9. 2017

Zdroje

1. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014; 147 (4): 903–924. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07. 002.

2. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequate-ly prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004; 53: 277–283.

3. WÖRWAG Pharma GmbH & Co. KG Fachinformation F.X. Passage^® SL. Datum schválení: 7. 4. 2005.

4. SPC Picoprep^®, prášok na perorálny roztok. Dátum revízie textu: Január 2013.

5. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72 (4): 686–692. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068.

6. Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA et al. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80 (2): 269–276. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01. 031.

7. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69 (3 Pt 2): 620–625. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057.

8. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European panel of appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy european multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61 (3): 378–384.

9. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58 (1): 76–79.

10. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296–1308.

11. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101 (4): 873–885.

12. Aronchick CA. Bowel preparation scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60 (6): 1037–1038.

13. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59 (4): 482–486.

14. Lembo A, Camilleri M. Chronic constipation. N Engl J Med 2003; 349 (14): 1360–1368.

15. Aihara H, Saito S, Ohya T et al. A pilot study using reduced-volume oral sulfate solution as a preparation for colonoscopy among a Japanese population. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28 (1): 83–87. doi: 10.1007/ s00384-012-1588-2.

16. Tepes B, Mlakar DN, Metlicar T. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy with magnesium sulphate and low-volume polyethylene glycol. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 616–620. doi: 10.1097/MEG. 0000000000000093.

17. Martin D, Walayat S, Ahmed Z et al. Impact of bowel preparation type on the quality of colonoscopy: a multicenter community-based study. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect 2016; 6 (2): 31074. doi: 10.3402/jchimp.v6.31074.

18. Jayanthi V, Ramathilakam B, Malathi S et al. Comparison of polyethylene glycol versus combination of magnesium sulphate and bisacodyl for colon preparation. Trop Gastroenterol 2000; 21 (1): 18–19.

19. Rex DK, DiPalma JA, McGowan J et al. A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80 (6): 1113–1123. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.329.

20. Beloosesky Y, Grinblat J, Weiss A et al. Electrolyte disorders following oral sodium phosphate administration for bowel cleansing in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163 (7): 803–808.

21. Manes G, Amato A, Arena M et al. Efficacy and acceptability of sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate vs low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for colon cleansing: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15: 1145–1153. doi: 10.1111/codi.12246.

22. Kontani M, Hara A, Ohta S et al. Hypermagnesemia induced by massive cathartic ingestion in an elderly woman without pre-existing renal dysfunction. Intern Med 2005; 44 (5): 448–452.