Gastroenterol Res

Gastroenterology Research, ISSN 1918-2805 print, 1918-2813 online, Open Access

Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, Gastroenterol Res and Elmer Press Inc

Journal website http://www.gastrores.org

Original Article

Volume 11, Number 1, February 2018, pages 18-24

Aquanet Bowel Cleansing Device Versus Oral Sodium Picosulfate for Pre-Endoscopy Bowel Preparation: Propensity Score Analysis for Interventional Effectiveness Evaluation

**Table 1.** Baseline Characteristics of Participants Stratified by Bowel Preparation
Variable	Total (314)	Aquanet (157)	Sodium picosulfate (157)	P
Age	54.22 ± 17.61	58.2 ± 16.87	50.24 ± 17.48	< 0.001
Gender (female)	254 (80.9%)	143 (91.1%)	111 (70.7%)	< 0.001
Intestinal symptoms				0.017
Constipated	46 (14.6%)	15 (9.6%)	31 (19.7%)
Normal	268 (85.4%)	142 (90.4%)	126 (80.3%)

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Participants Stratified by Bowel Preparation

Variable

Total (314)

Aquanet (157)

Sodium picosulfate (157)

Age

54.22 ± 17.61

58.2 ± 16.87

50.24 ± 17.48

< 0.001

Gender (female)

254 (80.9%)

143 (91.1%)

111 (70.7%)

< 0.001

Intestinal symptoms

0.017

Constipated

46 (14.6%)

15 (9.6%)

31 (19.7%)

Normal

268 (85.4%)

142 (90.4%)

126 (80.3%)

**Table 2.** Boston Scores for Bowel Segments Stratified by Bowel Preparation
Variable	Total (314)	Aquanet (157)	Sodium picosulfate (157)	P
Rectum				0.002
1	27 (8.6%)	22 (14%)	5 (3.2%)
2	37 (11.8%)	19 (12.1%)	18 (11.5%)
3	250 (79.6%)	116 (73.9%)	134 (85.4%)
Sigmoid colon				< 0.001
0	7 (2.2%)	4 (2.5%)	3 (1.9%)
1	44 (14%)	34 (21.7%)	10 (6.4%)
2	42 (13.4%)	22 (14%)	20 (12.7%)
3	221 (70.4%)	97 (61.8%)	124 (79%)
Descending colon			r	< 0.001
1	56 (17.8%)	44 (28%)	12 (7.6%)
2	53 (16.9%)	23 (14.6%)	30 (19.1%)
3	205 (65.3%)	90 (57.3%)	115 (73.2%)
Transverse colon				< 0.001
0	1 (0.3%)	1 (0.6%)	0 (0%)
1	64 (20.4%)	48 (30.6%)	16 (10.2%)
2	52 (16.6%)	24 (15.3%)	28 (17.8%)
3	197 (62.7%)	84 (53.5%)	113 (72%)
Ascending colon				< 0.001
0	11 (3.5%)	9 (5.7%)	2 (1.3%)
1	78 (24.9%)	56 (35.7%)	22 (14.1%)
2	62 (19.8%)	25 (15.9%)	37 (23.7%)
3	162 (51.8%)	67 (42.7%)	95 (60.9%)
Cecum				< 0.001
0	12 ( 3.8 % )	10 (6.4 %)	2 (1.3%)
1	103 (32.8%)	74 (47.1%)	29 (18.5%)
2	77 (24.5%)	27 (17.2%)	50 (31.8%)
3	122 (38.9%)	46 (29.3%)	76 (48.4%)
Ileum				< 0.001
0	34 (10.8%)	19 (12.1%)	15 (9.6%)
1	40 (12.7%)	34 (21.7%)	6 (3.8%)
2	37 (11.8%)	18 (11.5%)	19 (12.1%)
3	203 (64.6%)	86 (54.8%)	117 (74.5%)
Left				< 0.001
0	7 (2.2%)	4 (2.5% )	3 (1.9%)
1	54 (17.2%)	42 (26.8%)	12 (7.6%)
2	54 (17.2%)	23 (14.6%)	31 (19.7%)
3	199 (63.4%)	88 (56.1%)	111 (70.7%)
Right				< 0.001
0	44 (14%)	27 (17.2%)	17 (10.8%)
1	83 (26.4%)	61 (38.9%)	22 (14%)
2	74 (23.6%)	23 (14.6%)	51 (32.5%)
3	113 (36%)	46 (29.3%)	67 (42.7%)
Total	6.65 ± 2.33	6.02 ± 2.51	7.28 ± 1.95	< 0.001
Total category				< 0.001
Bad (0 - 4)	67 (21.3%)	49 (31.2%)	18 (11.5%)
Good (5 - 9)	247 (78.7%)	108 (68.8%)	139 (88.5%)

Table 2. Boston Scores for Bowel Segments Stratified by Bowel Preparation

Variable

Total (314)

Aquanet (157)

Sodium picosulfate (157)

Rectum

0.002

27 (8.6%)

22 (14%)

5 (3.2%)

37 (11.8%)

19 (12.1%)

18 (11.5%)

250 (79.6%)

116 (73.9%)

134 (85.4%)

Sigmoid colon

< 0.001

7 (2.2%)

4 (2.5%)

3 (1.9%)

44 (14%)

34 (21.7%)

10 (6.4%)

42 (13.4%)

22 (14%)

20 (12.7%)

221 (70.4%)

97 (61.8%)

124 (79%)

Descending colon

< 0.001

56 (17.8%)

44 (28%)

12 (7.6%)

53 (16.9%)

23 (14.6%)

30 (19.1%)

205 (65.3%)

90 (57.3%)

115 (73.2%)

Transverse colon

< 0.001

1 (0.3%)

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

64 (20.4%)

48 (30.6%)

16 (10.2%)

52 (16.6%)

24 (15.3%)

28 (17.8%)

197 (62.7%)

84 (53.5%)

113 (72%)

Ascending colon

< 0.001

11 (3.5%)

9 (5.7%)

2 (1.3%)

78 (24.9%)

56 (35.7%)

22 (14.1%)

62 (19.8%)

25 (15.9%)

37 (23.7%)

162 (51.8%)

67 (42.7%)

95 (60.9%)

Cecum

< 0.001

12 ( 3.8 % )

10 (6.4 %)

2 (1.3%)

103 (32.8%)

74 (47.1%)

29 (18.5%)

77 (24.5%)

27 (17.2%)

50 (31.8%)

122 (38.9%)

46 (29.3%)

76 (48.4%)

Ileum

< 0.001

34 (10.8%)

19 (12.1%)

15 (9.6%)

40 (12.7%)

34 (21.7%)

6 (3.8%)

37 (11.8%)

18 (11.5%)

19 (12.1%)

203 (64.6%)

86 (54.8%)

117 (74.5%)

Left

< 0.001

7 (2.2%)

4 (2.5% )

3 (1.9%)

54 (17.2%)

42 (26.8%)

12 (7.6%)

54 (17.2%)

23 (14.6%)

31 (19.7%)

199 (63.4%)

88 (56.1%)

111 (70.7%)

Right

< 0.001

44 (14%)

27 (17.2%)

17 (10.8%)

83 (26.4%)

61 (38.9%)

22 (14%)

74 (23.6%)

23 (14.6%)

51 (32.5%)

113 (36%)

46 (29.3%)

67 (42.7%)

Total

6.65 ± 2.33

6.02 ± 2.51

7.28 ± 1.95

< 0.001

Total category

< 0.001

Bad (0 - 4)

67 (21.3%)

49 (31.2%)

18 (11.5%)

Good (5 - 9)

247 (78.7%)

108 (68.8%)

139 (88.5%)

**Table 3.** Predicted Boston Scores: Crude Scores, Scores After Propensity Matching and After Adjusting for Age
Model	Sodium picosulfate	Aquanet (bowel cleansing device)
Crude	7.28 (6.93, 7.63)	6.02 (5.52, 6.52)
Unadjusted	7.16 (6.76, 7.55)	5.92 (5.39, 6.45)
Adjusted	8.6 (7.66, 9.53)	7.54 (7, 8.08)

Table 3. Predicted Boston Scores: Crude Scores, Scores After Propensity Matching and After Adjusting for Age

Model

Sodium picosulfate

Aquanet (bowel cleansing device)

Crude

7.28 (6.93, 7.63)

6.02 (5.52, 6.52)

Unadjusted

7.16 (6.76, 7.55)

5.92 (5.39, 6.45)

Adjusted

8.6 (7.66, 9.53)

7.54 (7, 8.08)