Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume 29 (2015), Issue 7, Pages 384-390
Original Article

Polyethylene Glycol versus sodium picosulfalte Bowel Preparation in the Setting of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Omar Kherad,1 Sophie Restellini,2 Myriam Martel,3 and Alan N Barkun3,4

1Internal Medicine Department, La Tour Hospital and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
2Department of specilaties of Internal Medicine, Divison of Gastroenterology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland
3Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
4Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Received 22 January 2015; Accepted 18 May 2015

Copyright © 2015 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy is an important predictor of colonoscopy quality.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in terms of effectiveness between different existing colon cleansing products in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program.

METHODS: The records of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec) between April 2013 and April 2014 were retrospectively extracted from a dedicated electronic digestive endoscopic institutional database.

RESULTS: Overall, 2867 charts of patients undergoing colonoscopy were assessed, of which 1130 colonoscopies were performed in a screening setting; patients had adequate bowel preparation in 90%. Quality of preparation was documented in only 61%. Bowel preparation was worse in patients receiving sodium picosulfate (PICO) alone compared with polyethylene glycol, in a screening setting (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.2 to 0.6]). Regardless of the preparation type, the odds of achieving adequate quality cleansing was 6.6 for patients receiving a split-dose regimen (OR 6.6 [95% CI 2.1 to 21.1]). In multivariable analyses, clinical variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation in combined population were use of PICO, a nonsplit regimen and inpatient status. The polyp detection rate was very high (45.6%) and was correlated with withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION: Preparation quality needs to be more consistently included in the colonoscopy report. Split-dose regimens increased the quality of colon cleansing across all types of preparations and should be the preferred method of administration. Polyethylene glycol alone provided better bowel cleansing efficacy than PICO in a screening setting but PICO remains an alternative in association with an adjuvant.