05. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. Analyses were performed selleck compound by using an intention-to-treat
approach. Continuous variables were represented by using mean and standard deviation (SD). Chi-square and t tests were used to compare proportions and means for normally distributed data, as appropriate. The Fisher exact test was used to evaluate for differences in cecal intubation rate. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed by adjusting the variables with a value < .10 by univariate analysis. Statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS version 19.0 for Windows (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). A 2-tailed P value < .05 was considered significant. In an 8-month period, 785 outpatients were scheduled. A total of 151 patients (19.2%) had prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. A total of 137 patients
provided informed consent, and 110 patients were enrolled and randomized to the WEC group (n = 55) and the AC group (n = 55). The other 27 patients were excluded, 24 met exclusion criteria, and 3 subsequently decided not to undergo colonoscopy. The patient flow is detailed in Figure 1. A total of 70.9% of patients in the WEC group and 67.2% in the AC group were female (P = .68). Other baseline characteristics (age, BMI, indication for the colonoscopy, and previous abdominal or pelvic surgery) between the two groups were well balanced ( Table 1). In the present study, more than two-thirds of patients underwent a diagnostic colonoscopy. Four Sorafenib cost patients in the WEC group and 10 in the AC group each reported two symptoms, such as abdominal pain, rectal bleeding or melena, or change in bowel habits. The study outcomes are summarized in Table 2. The cecal intubation rate was significantly higher in the WEC group (92.7% vs 76.4%; P = .033). Among the 17 failed cases, 3 needed to repeat bowel preparation (2 in the WEC group and 1 in the AC group) and 2 had obstructing tumors (1 in each group). The remainder were rescued with a conventional sedated colonoscopy by using air insufflation, which was the usual practice in
our endoscopic center. Ten in 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase the AC group were successful (mean operation time, 13.8 ± 6.4 minutes). Two (1 in each group) failed despite sedation (mean operation time, 54.4 ± 2.1 minutes) ( Table 3). The air method with sedation remained unsuccessful in 1 patient in the water group because of a severe colon stricture. Multivariate analysis showed that the colonoscopy method was the only independent predictor of failed colonoscopy (odds ratio 11.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-97.09; P = .025) ( Table 4). For those with successful cecal intubation, the total colonoscopy, cecal intubation, and withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups ( Table 2). Among patients who successfully completed colonoscopy, the maximum pain scores were 2.1 ± 1.8 (WEC) and 4.6 ± 1.7 (AC) (P < .001).
No related posts.