A meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Key Takeaways for GI Nurses

• This meta-analysis provides evidence-based guidance on polyethylene glycol (PEG) dosing options for colonoscopy preparation, helping nurses make informed recommendations to patients and providers
• Understanding the comparative safety and efficacy profiles of 2L versus 3L PEG preparations can improve patient education and preparation protocols in endoscopy units
• Lower volume preparations may offer advantages in patient tolerance and compliance, which directly impacts procedure quality and nursing workflow efficiency
• The findings support evidence-based bowel preparation selection, potentially reducing preparation failures and the need for repeat procedures

Clinical Relevance

For endoscopy nurses, bowel preparation adequacy remains one of the most critical factors influencing colonoscopy success rates and patient outcomes. This meta-analysis addresses a fundamental question in pre-procedure planning: whether lower volume PEG preparations can maintain efficacy while potentially improving patient experience. The comparison between 2L and 3L formulations is particularly relevant for nurses who frequently field patient concerns about preparation tolerability and complete large volumes of fluid.

From an operational standpoint, preparation failures significantly impact unit efficiency, requiring procedure cancellations, rescheduling, and repeat preparations that strain resources and delay patient care. If 2L preparations demonstrate comparable efficacy to 3L formulations with improved safety profiles, this could translate to better patient compliance, fewer preparation-related adverse events, and reduced same-day procedure cancellations. Nurses play a pivotal role in preparation education and troubleshooting, making this comparative data essential for developing patient-centered preparation protocols.

The safety comparison is equally important for nursing practice, as nurses often serve as the primary contact for patients experiencing preparation-related side effects or complications. Understanding the relative risk profiles of different PEG volumes enables more informed patient counseling, particularly for elderly patients, those with comorbidities, or patients with previous preparation intolerance. This evidence can guide individualized preparation selection and help nurses anticipate and manage potential complications more effectively.

Bottom Line

This meta-analysis provides critical evidence to guide PEG preparation selection in colonoscopy, with potential implications for improving patient tolerance while maintaining preparation quality. For GI nurses, these findings support more informed patient education and preparation protocol development, potentially leading to better compliance rates, fewer procedure delays, and improved patient satisfaction without compromising colonoscopy effectiveness.