PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1353876

Gastrointestinal decontamination. Which method is best?

C R Harris·R Kingston
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Why has ipecac syrup become less popular in emergency management of poisoning and overdose? When should gastric lavage, activated charcoal, cathartics, or a combination of methods be used? Which patients are candidates for whole-bowel irrigation with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution? Drs Harris and Kingston answer these questions and present their recommendations for each of the available management options.

Explore related subjects

CatharticsCharcoalDrug OverdoseGastric LavageHumansIpecacPoisoningJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C R Harris, R Kingston. 1992. Gastrointestinal decontamination. Which method is best?. https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.1992.11701420

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

[An apothecary apprentice crosses his tracks--about Ibsen's prescriptions].

As a youngster, Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) worked as an apothecary apprentice for six years at the apothecary in Grimstad. Here, he learnt apothecary Latin, which he later on used in his literary works. Also in his own life, he used this knowledge during his last years of life when he prescribed drugs for himself. Ibsen's last six years were characterized by disease. The National Library in Oslo has three prescriptions in which the poet prescribes two different kinds of drugs, even though they should have been prescribed by a medical doctor. One of the drugs was iodide of sodium, a well-known drug for arteriosclerosis at that time. The other drug was a laxative called Brandt's Schweizer pills. Iodide of sodium was a relatively new drug introduced to the market at the end of the 19th century. Even though there was uncertainty about the effect and mode of action, it had become an established part of medical practice. That was not the case for Brandt's Schweizer pills. They were produced by the German apothecary Richard Brandt (1828-1903) in 1877. Medical doctors warned against using them. It was a so-called arcanum, i.e. the producer kept the content secret. The use of such drugs came out of control in the 1890ies and was a serious community problem.

Cathartics↗
PubMed2006

Preoperative bowel preparation: surgical standard or past?

BACKGROUND: Preoperative bowel preparation is still routinely used prior to colorectal surgery. This concept is based on traditional and personal empiricism and usually not evidence based. The objective of the present review was to reassess this dogma against the background of the highest level of evidence published thus far. METHODS: The Medline database was searched using the search terms 'preoperative', 'bowel' and 'preparation' limited to 'randomized controlled trials' and 'meta-analyses'. Ten randomised controlled trials and seven meta-analyses comparing orthograde bowel cleansing to no preoperative bowel preparation were considered for rates of anastomotic leakages, surgical infections and other types of complications, reoperations and mortality. RESULTS: All the most recent meta-analyses showed a significant increase of anastomotic dehiscences in patients with preoperative orthograde bowel cleansing. Additionally, a trend towards higher rates of surgical infectious complications and re-operations was revealed. Mortality remained unchanged by preoperative orthograde bowel cleansing. CONCLUSION: Routine preoperative orthograde bowel cleansing is no longer justified prior to colorectal surgery in general due to increased risk of anastomotic leakages. Further investigations should focus on different types of bowel preparation in situations where preoperative bowel preparation still may have a role such as total mesorectal resection with low anastomosis and protective ileostomy.

Cathartics↗
PubMed2006

Is blinding the endoscopists to bowel preparations in randomized-controlled trials a reality?

BACKGROUND: A number of studies compared the quality, efficacy and tolerability of oral sodium phosphate (NaP) and polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions in preparation for colonoscopy. The primary aim of this study was to explore whether endoscopists can be effectively blinded to the type of bowel preparation. METHODS: We recruited 3 experienced endoscopists and 57 outpatients (18-65 years old) undergoing colonoscopy. We randomized eligible patients to receive one of the two bowel preparations. Endoscopists who performed the tests were blinded to the type of preparation, and made their best judgment on the type and quality of the bowel preparation. RESULTS: Forty-five patients completed the study. The overall correct estimation of the type of bowel preparation was 60.0% (95% CI; 45.5%, 73.0%). The cleansing quality did not differ between the two preparations. Patients found oral NaP solution much easier to take (81.8% versus 36.4%; P = 0.005) and the PEG-based group tended to have more nausea or vomiting. 47.6% of patients in the PEG group indicated they would prefer to try another bowel preparation in the future compared to 4.5% in the oral NaP group (P = 0.002). We stopped the study after an interim analysis indicating that more than 600 patients would be required to detect statistically significant differences in the primary aim. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that blinding of endoscopists in clinical trials comparing oral NaP to PEG had a relatively low likelihood of bias. The study also suggests that oral NaP is easier to take and more tolerable than PEG without impairing cleansing quality.

Cathartics↗