Polyethylene glycol powder solution versus senna for bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children

source extracted confidence: high 2026-04-09
#adolescent #cathartics #colon #colonoscopy #female

Polyethylene glycol powder solution versus senna for bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children

Terry et al., 2013 | J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr | Rct

Citation

Terry Natalie A, Chen-Lim Mei Lin, ... Mamula Petar. Polyethylene glycol powder solution versus senna for bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013-Feb;56(2):215-9. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182633d0a

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Safety and effectiveness of large-volume polyethylene glycol-based solution (PEG-ES) have been documented, but the taste and volume can be barriers to successful colonoscopy preparation. Efficacy and safety of small-volume electrolyte-free (PEG-P) preparation (Miralax) for colonoscopy preparation have been rarely studied, although presently used at many pediatric centers. The primary objective of the present study was to determine whether PEG-P results in a more efficacious and safe colonoscopy preparation as compared with senna. METHODS: The study design was prospective, randomized, and single-blinded. Patients ages 6 to 21 years were randomized to a 2-day clean-out regimen of PEG-P at a dose of 1.5 g/kg divided twice per day for 2 days versus senna 15 mL daily (ages 6-12) or 30 mL daily (ages 12-21) for 2 days. Both preparations required 1 day of clear liquids whereas senna preparation required an additional day of full liquid diet. A blinded endoscopist graded the quality of preparation with a standardized cleanliness tool (Aronchick scale). Serum chemistry panels were obtained. Patients or parents rated symptoms and ease of preparation. The anticipated number of subjects was 166; however, the interim analysis demonstrated inferiority of senna preparation. RESULTS: Thirty patients were evaluated in the present study. Of the patients in the PEG-P arm, 88% (14/16) received an excellent/good score compared with 29% (4/14), with the senna preparation (P = 0.0022). Both preparations were well-tolerated by patient-graded ease of preparation. Demographics and laboratory values did not differ significantly across the 2 groups. No serious adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: PEG-P is an effective colonoscopy preparation whereas senna preparation was insufficient. Both were well-tolerated and appear safe in a pediatric population.

Key Findings

Thirty patients were evaluated in the present study. Of the patients in the PEG-P arm, 88% (14/16) received an excellent/good score compared with 29% (4/14), with the senna preparation (P = 0.0022). Both preparations were well-tolerated by patient-graded ease of preparation. Demographics and laboratory values did not differ significantly across the 2 groups. No serious adverse events were noted.

Outcomes Measured

  • Requires manual extraction

Population

Field Value
Population See abstract
Sample Size See abstract
Age Range 6 to 21 years
Condition See abstract

MeSH Terms

  • Adolescent
  • Cathartics
  • Colon
  • Colonoscopy
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Patient Compliance
  • Pharmaceutical Solutions
  • Plant Extracts
  • Polyethylene Glycols
  • Powders
  • Senna Plant

Evidence Classification

  • Level: Rct
  • Publication Types: Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
  • Vertical: senna

Provenance

Source extracted via PubMed E-utilities API on 2026-04-12