Evaluating patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate for colonoscopy

Masaaki Shimada; Noboru Hirashima; Hiroaki Iwase; Masashi Saito; Hisashi Kondo; Noboru Urata; Satoshi Unita; Takashi Kondo; Daiki Tanaka; Takuya Tsunekawa; Sumie Nakamura; Miho Nishikura; Kaori Miyazawa; Kiyoko Fukuhara; Mitsuhiro Fujishiro

doi:10.1002/deo2.59

Evaluating patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate for colonoscopy

DEN Open. 2021 Sep 28;2(1):e59. doi: 10.1002/deo2.59. eCollection 2022 Apr.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Gastroenterology National Hospital Organization, Nagoya Medical Center Aichi Japan.
² Department of Nursing National Hospital Organization, Nagoya Medical Center Aichi Japan.
³ Department of Gastroenterology Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo Tokyo Japan.
⁴ Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine Aichi Japan.

PMID: 35310719
PMCID: PMC8828216
DOI: 10.1002/deo2.59

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate (PICOPREP) for colonoscopy.

Methods: A questionnaire survey regarding the patient acceptability of bowel preparation agent PICOPREP was administered to 54 patients, and its efficacy was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS).

Results: Eighteen (33.3%) participants reported that PICOPREP is very easy to drink, 30 (55.5%) easy, four (7.4%) acceptable, one (1.9%) difficult, and one (1.9%) very difficult. The flavor was very good as reported by eight (14.8%) participants, good by 25 (46.3%), neutral by 20 (37.0%), bad by one (1.9%), and very bad by none. The number of patients who requested PICOPREP was 42 (77.7%), indicating its high acceptability. Evaluation of the OBPS score showed that the rectosigmoid colon had significantly better polyethylene glycol (PEG) scores than PICOPREP, but the entire colon did not show a significant difference between PICOPREP and PEG scores (1.09 ± 0.65 vs. 1.17 ± 0.76, p = 0.632 in the right colon; 0.48 ± 0.52 vs. 0.72 ± 0.66, p = 0.079 in the mid colon, 0.93 ± 0.49 vs. 0.63 ± 0.52, p = 0.012 in the rectosigmoid colon, and 3.28 ± 1.70 vs. 3.20 ± 1.90, p = 0.836 in the entire colon).

Conclusion: PICOPREP is considered as one of the important options due to its good patient acceptability and high efficacy similar to PEG.

Keywords: Ottawa bowel preparation scale; patient acceptability; sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate.