Split- versus single-dose preparation tolerability in a multiethnic population: decreased side effects but greater social barriers

Authors Gabriel Perreault, Adam Goodman, Sebastian Larion, Ahana Sen, Kirsten Quiles, Michael Poles, Renee Williams.


Background This study was performed to compare patient-reported tolerability and its barriers in single- vs. split-dose 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation for colonoscopy in a large multiethnic, safety-net patient population.

Methods A cross-sectional, dual-center study using a multi-language survey was used to collect patient-reported demographic, medical, socioeconomic, and tolerability data from patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify demographic and clinical factors significantly associated with patient-reported bowel preparation tolerability.

Results A total of 1023 complete surveys were included, of which 342 (33.4%) completed singledose and 681 (66.6%) split-dose bowel preparation. Thirty-nine percent of the patients were Hispanic, 50% had Medicaid or no insurance, and 34% had limited English proficiency. Patients who underwent split-dose preparation were significantly more likely to report a tolerable preparation, with less severe symptoms, than were patients who underwent single-dose preparation. Multiple logistic regression revealed that male sex and instructions in the preferred language were associated with tolerability of the single-dose preparation, while male sex and concerns about medications were associated with tolerability of the split-dose preparation.

Conclusions In a large multiethnic safety-net population, split-dose bowel preparation was significantly more tolerable and associated with less severe gastrointestinal symptoms than singledose preparation. The tolerability of split-dose bowel preparation was associated with social barriers, including concerns about interfering with other medications.

Keywords Colonoscopy, bowel preparation, single-dose, split-dose, tolerability, safety-net

Ann Gastroenterol 2018; 31 (3): 356-364

Original Articles