Article

Bowel preparation for CT colonography: Blinded comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for catharsis

Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, G3/310 CSC MC 3252, Madison, WI 53792-3252, USA.
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.21). 01/2010; 254(1):138-44. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090398
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare colonic cleansing and fluid retention of double-dose magnesium citrate with those of single-dose sodium phosphate in patients undergoing computed tomographic (CT) colonography.
This retrospective HIPAA-compliant clinical study had institutional review board approval; informed consent was waived. The study included 118 consecutive patients given single-dose sodium phosphate for bowel catharsis and 115 consecutive patients at risk for phosphate nephropathy, who were instead given double-dose magnesium citrate. The bowel preparation regimen was otherwise identical. Four-point scales were used to assess residual stool and fluid in the six colonic segments, and attenuation of residual fluid was measured. An a priori power analysis was performed, and unpaired t tests with Welch correction were used to compare the two groups on stool and fluid scores and fluid attenuation.
Both cathartic regimens offered excellent colon cleansing, with no significant difference for residual stool in any of the six segments. Stool scores of 1 or 2 (ie, no residual stool or residual stool <5 mm) were recorded in 88.6% (627 of 708) of colonic segments in the sodium phosphate group and in 88.1% (608 of 690) in the magnesium citrate group. No clinically important differences were seen in residual fluid scores in any of the six segments, with the only significant difference seen in the sigmoid colon (2.17 for sodium phosphate vs 2.44 for magnesium citrate; P< 0.01). Fluid attenuation was significantly different between magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate groups (790 HU +/- 216 vs 978 HU +/- 160; P <.001).
Both sodium phosphate and magnesium citrate provided excellent colon cleansing for CT colonography. Residual stool and fluid were similar in both groups, and fluid attenuation values were closer to optimal in the magnesium citrate group. Since bowel preparation provided by both cathartics was comparable, magnesium citrate should be considered for CT colonography, particularly in patients at risk for phosphate nephropathy.

1 Follower
 · 
95 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article proposes a solution to the problem of multi-criterion filter design. In contrast to standard method it allows one to solve problems of filter design with all sorts of limitations. To solve these large constraint problems, modifying differential evolution (DE) is used as an effective way for penalty function minimization that describes required deviation. This technique has been applied to computer filter design and some results are pretty good.
    Circuits and Systems for Communications, 2002. Proceedings. ICCSC '02. 1st IEEE International Conference on; 02/2002
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer is second only to lung cancer as the leading cause of death among North Americans of both sexes. Although screening rates for colorectal cancer in the United States have increased over the past decade, these rates (in the range of 45%-60%) are still lower than the screening rates for breast cancer (approximately 80%). Optical colonoscopy has been recognized as the preferred method for colorectal cancer screening in the United States, but computed tomography colonography has recently been gaining favor. This article compares the 2 methods with respect to both advantages and disadvantages.
    Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 03/2010; 77(2):214-24. DOI:10.1002/msj.20175 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the quality of low-volume hybrid computed tomography colonography bowel preparation, using both laxatives and oral contrast, with standard polyethylene glycol lavage. The study group consisted of 300 consecutive adults (mean age, 58.3 years) who underwent colonoscopy immediately after positive computed tomography colonography. Hybrid bowel preparation for study group was <1 L in total volume, consisting of osmotic cathartic (sodium phosphate or magnesium citrate) in conjunction with oral contrast (2% barium and diatrizoate). A control group of 300 adults (mean age, 58.3 years) underwent primary colonoscopy after standard 4-liter polyethylene glycol lavage without oral contrast. The prospective preparation quality rating by the endoscopist served as the reference standard. A rating of poor/marginal was considered inadequate and adequate/good/excellent was considered diagnostic. The frequency of inadequate bowel preparation was 4.3% (13/300) in the study group vs 12.3% (37/300) for the control group (P < .001). Specifically, preparation was poor or marginal in 10 and 3 cases in the hybrid cohort, respectively, and in 29 and 8 cases in the polyethylene glycol cohort, respectively. Preparation quality was scored as excellent in 32% (96/300) in the hybrid cohort and 23.3% (70/300) in the polyethylene glycol cohort (P < .05). At colonoscopy, low-volume laxative-oral contrast hybrid preparations are effective for bowel cleansing, perhaps even more so than polyethylene glycol lavage. Beyond improvements in quality, the low-volume preparation may improve patient compliance and would allow for immediate computed tomography colonography if colonoscopy is incomplete, without the need for additional oral contrast tagging.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 08/2010; 53(8):1176-81. DOI:10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181d5d9ac · 3.20 Impact Factor
Show more