探讨在结肠镜检查肠道准备中应用聚乙二醇电解质散联合利那洛肽的效果。

回顾性分析2021年6月至2022年3月经保定市第一中心医院行结肠镜检查170例患者，根据肠道准备时是否服用利那洛肽将其分为观察组和对照组，每组各85例。对照组单独应用聚乙二醇电解质散肠道准备，结肠镜检查前一晚20：00口服聚乙二醇电解质(SF-PEG)溶液1 000 ml，结肠镜检查前4～6 h再次口服SF-PEG溶液2 000 ml。观察组应用聚乙二醇联合利那洛肽胶囊肠道准备，结肠镜检查前一晚20：00口服2粒利那洛肽胶囊(580 μg)，结肠镜检查前4～6h口服SF-PEG溶液2 000 ml。比较两组服药耐受性、不良反应率、肠道清洁度、盲肠插管率、息肉/腺瘤检出率的差异。

观察组肠道准备合格率为89.02%(82例)、对照组合格率为91.57%(83例)，两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组服药耐受率为92.68%，对照组为77.11%，两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组愿意再次肠道准备的患者为87.80%，对照组为65.06%，两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组恶心、腹胀及总不良反应率低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组结肠各分段波士顿评分及总评分的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组盲肠插管率为98.78%、息肉检出率为32.93%、腺瘤检出率为18.29%；对照组盲肠插管率98.80%、息肉检出率30.12%、腺瘤检出率18.07%，两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

与分次3L SF-PEG相比，2L SF-PEG联合利那洛肽胶囊取得的肠道准备效果相当，但服药耐受性更好，不良反应率更低。

To explore the effect of polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG)solutions combined with linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 170 patients who underwent colonoscopy at Baoding First Central Hospital from June 2021 to March 2022.They were divided into an observation group and a control group according to whether they took linaclotide during bowel preparation, with 85 cases in each group.The control group used PEG for intestinal preparation alone, and took 1 000 ml of polyethylene glycol electrolyte (SF-PEG) solution orally at 20: 00 the night before colonoscopy, and took 2 000 ml of SF-PEG solution orally again 4 to 6 hours before colonoscopy.The observation group received PEG combined with linaclotide capsules for intestinal preparation, and took 2 linaclotide capsules (580 μg) orally at 20: 00 the night before colonoscopy, and 2 000 ml of SF-PEG solution orally 4-6 hours before colonoscopy.The two groups were compared in terms of medication tolerance, adverse reaction rate, intestinal cleanliness, cecal intubation rate, and polyp/adenoma detection rate.

The qualified rate of intestinal preparation in the observation group was 89.02% (82 cases), and the qualified rate in the control group was 91.57% (83 cases), with no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).The medication tolerance rate in the observation group was 92.68%, and that in the control group was 77.11%, with a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05).The percentage of patients willing to undergo bowel preparation again in the observation group was 87.80%, while that in the control group was 65.06%, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05).The rates of nausea, abdominal distension and total adverse reactions in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the Boston score of each colon segment and the total score between the two groups (P>0.05). The cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate in the observation group were 98.78%, 32.93%, and 18.29%, respectively; in the control group, the cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate were 98.80%, 30.12%, and 18.07%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).

Compared with 3L SF-PEG in fractions, 2L SF-PEG combined with 2 linaclotide tablets achieved equivalent bowel preparation effects, but with better medication tolerance and lower adverse reaction rates.