CAJ | 학술논문

目的评价比较口服磷酸钠和聚乙二醇电解质法对肠道清洁的效果及患者的耐受性和安全性.方法将115例住院需行肠道准备的患者按随机数字表随机分组分别应用磷酸钠盐口服液(NaP,试验组)和聚乙二醇(PEG,对照组)进行肠道清洁,通过患者的主观和客观感受、水电解质检测指标和结肠镜肠道清洁效果的评估,对两种肠道准备方法进行比较.结果试验组患者的耐受性评估为(13.5±0.8)分,明显高于对照组的(8.4±0.7)分(t=4.91,P<0.05);试验组未饮完率1.8%,与对照组的8.8%比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).试验组有效率96.6%,对照组89.5%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).试验组与对照组肠道准备前后血清无机磷、血钾和血钙变化百分比分别为64.49±63.83与0.32+12.41、-8.22±6.52与-2.64±12.38和-3.22±5.10与0.83±2.68,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).电解质变化在24 h内恢复正常,未发现显著性临床效应.结论与聚乙二醇电解质液相比,口服磷酸钠有较好的耐受性和安全性及肠道清洁有效性.
목적 평개비교구복린산납화취을이순전해질법대장도청길적효과급환자적내수성화안전성.방법 장115례주원수행장도준비적환자안수궤수자표수궤분조분별응용린산납염구복액(NaP,시험조)화취을이순(PEG,대조조)진행장도청길,통과환자적주관화객관감수、수전해질검측지표화결장경장도청길효과적평고,대량충장도준비방법진행비교.결과 시험조환자적내수성평고위(13.5±0.8)분,명현고우대조조적(8.4±0.7)분(t=4.91,P<0.05);시험조미음완솔1.8%,여대조조적8.8%비교,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).시험조유효솔96.6%,대조조89.5%,량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).시험조여대조조장도준비전후혈청무궤린、혈갑화혈개변화백분비분별위64.49±63.83여0.32+12.41、-8.22±6.52여-2.64±12.38화-3.22±5.10여0.83±2.68,량조차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).전해질변화재24 h내회복정상,미발현현저성림상효응.결론 여취을이순전해질액상비,구복린산납유교호적내수성화안전성급장도청길유효성.
Objective To compare the efficacy, tolerance and safety between oral sodium phosphate (NAP) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) on bowel preparation. Methods One hundred and fifteen inpatients were randomly divided into NaP group and PEG group. The questionaire was designed for scoring by patients and doctors regarding to tolerance, taste, side effects and cleaning degree etc. Results Compared with PEG group, NaP presented better tolerance, lower side effects and higher rate of adequate cleaning quality (P<0.05). NaP could cause electrolytic alterations, such as hyperphosphatemia, hypernatremia, hypocalcemia and hypopotasemia, but these changes were transient and without clinical significance. Conclusion Sodium phosphate is safe and effective for bowel preparation, and is better than polyethylene glycol in tolerance.