Home > Journals > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche > Past Issues > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2010 October;169(5) > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2010 October;169(5):207-11

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

GAZZETTA MEDICA ITALIANA ARCHIVIO PER LE SCIENZE MEDICHE

A Journal on Internal Medicine and Pharmacology


Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2010 October;169(5):207-11

language: Italian

Comparison of a new solution of reduced volume (2 litres of peg + asc) with a standard solution (4 litres of peg and electrolytes) for colonscopic preparation

Castiglione A., Frattino A., Esposito P., Laghi F., Riegler G.

Unità Operativa di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia digestiva, Seconda Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italia


PDF  


Aim. Comparing a new PEG formulation (MOVIPREP) with a standard preparation (SELG-ESSE 1000) in order to evaluate its efficacy, tolerance and determine if the intestinal cleaning obtained and the patient’s compliance is similar to the one obtained by SELG-ESSE 1000.
Methods. This study enlisted 125 ambulatory patients: 52 took MOVIPREP, 73 took SELG-ESSE. Patients also answered to a questionnaire in order to evaluate some parameters (how much solution did they take, tastefulness, undesired effects). The level of intestinal cleaning was coded thanks to a specific standardized classification (Aronchick’s scale).
Results. We did not find any significant difference between the tested preparations, about compliance to complete the solution assumption, the tastefulness and the degree of colonic cleaning. Undesired effects showed the same incidence in both groups: in MOVIPREP group proximal effects (nausea, vomit etc.) prevailed; in the SELG-ESSE group, distal ones (abdominal cramps, evacuation urgency). Also colonic cleaning did not show any relevant difference. The cost was cheaper for SELG-ESSE.
Conclusion. Both preparations showed a similar performance; the little difference about tastefulness and the colonic cleaning, in favour of MOVIPREP, was not statistically significant; in favour of SELG-ESSE the iso-osmolalrity of the solution and the cheaper cost.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail