A proof-of-principle, prospective, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating improved outcomes in scheduled unsedated colonoscopy by the water method

Left-colon water exchange preserves the benefits of whole colon water exchange at reduced cecal intubation time conferring significant advantage in diagnostic colonoscopy - a prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Whole-colon water exchange (WWE) reduces insertion pain, increases cecal intubation success and adenoma detection rate, but requires longer insertion time, compared to air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy. We hypothesized that water exchange limited to the left colon (LWE) can speed up insertion with equivalent results.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled study (NCT01735266) allocated patients (18-80 years) to WWE, LWE or AI group (1:1:1). The primary outcome was cecal intubation time.

RESULTS

Three hundred subjects were randomized to the WWE (n = 100), LWE (n = 100) or AI group (n = 100). Ninety-four to ninety-five per cent of patients underwent diagnostic colonoscopy. Baseline characteristics were balanced. The median insertion time was shorter in LWE group (4.8 min (95%CI: 3.2-6.2)) than those in WWE (7.5 min (95%CI: 6.0-10.3)) and AI (6.4 min (95%CI: 4.2-9.8)) (both p < 0.001) groups. The cecal intubation rates in unsedated patients of the two water exchange methods (WWE 99%, LWE 99%) were significantly higher than that (89.8%) in AI group (p = 0.01). The final success rates were comparable among the three groups after sedation was given. Maximum pain scores and number of patients needing abdominal compression between WWE and LWE groups were comparable, both lower than those in AI group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed regarding PDR, although the PDR in right colon tended to be higher in WWE group.

CONCLUSION

By preserving the benefits of WWE and reducing insertion time, LWE is appropriate for diagnostic colonoscopy, especially in settings with tight scheduling of patients. The higher PDR in the right colon in WWE group deserves to be further investigated.

Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of water-immersion colonoscopy

Colonoscopy techniques combining or replacing air insufflation with water infusion are becoming increasingly popular. They were originally designed to reduce colonic spasms, facilitate cecal intubation, and lower patient discomfort and the need for sedation. These maneuvers straighten the rectosigmoid colon and enable the colonoscope to be inserted deeply without causing looping of the colon. Water-immersion colonoscopy minimizes colonic distension and improves visibility by introducing a small amount of water. In addition, since pain during colonoscopy indicates risk of bowel perforation and sedation masks this important warning, this method has the potential to be the favored insertion technique because it promotes patient safety without sedation. Recently, this water-immersion method has not only been used for colonoscope insertion, but has also been applied to therapy for sigmoid volvulus, removal of lesions, lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and therapeutic diagnosis of abnormal bowel morphology and irritable bowel syndrome. Although a larger sample size and prospective head-to-head-designed studies will be needed, this review focuses on the usefulness of water-immersion colonoscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic modality. A large proportion of the population is likely to undergo colonoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases, or when participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. To reduce pain, water infusion instead of traditional air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy has been proposed, thereby improving patients' acceptance of the procedure. Moreover, the water infusion method may improve early detection of precancerous neoplasms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare water infusion techniques with standard air insufflation, specifically evaluating technical quality and screening efficacy, as well as patients' acceptance of the water infusion procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1999 to February 2014) for eligible randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing water infusion (water exchange or water immersion methods) against standard air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. We performed analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 5).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 randomised controlled trials consisting of 2933 colonoscopies. Primary outcome measures were cecal intubation rate and adenoma detection; secondary outcomes were time needed to reach the cecum, pain experienced by participants during the procedure, completion of cecal intubation without sedation/analgesia, and adverse events. Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was similar between water infusion and standard air insufflation (risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03, P = 0.93). Adenoma detection rate, that is number of participants with at least one detected adenoma, was slightly improved with water infusion (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30, P = 0.007). Assuming the fraction of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy who had one or more adenomas detected was 20 per 100 with standard colonoscopy, the use of water colonoscopy may increase the fraction to 23 per 100 individuals. From our findings, it is possible that up to 68,000 more of the 1.7 million outpatient screening colonoscopies performed annually in the United States, could detect adenomas if water infusion colonoscopy was used. In addition, with water infusion participants experienced significantly less pain (mean difference in pain score on a 0 to 10 scale: -1.57, 95% CI -2.00 to -1.14, P < 0.00001) and a significantly lower proportion of participants requested on-demand sedation or analgesia, or both (risk ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.27, P < 0.00001). Qualitative analysis suggests that water infusion colonoscopy was not associated with a markedly increased rate of adverse events compared with the standard procedure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was not improved by water infusion compared with standard air insufflation colonoscopy. However, adenoma detection, assessed with two different measures (that is adenoma detection rate and number of detected adenomas per procedure), was slightly augmented by the water infusion colonoscopy. Improved adenoma detection might be due to the cleansing effects of water infusions on the mucosa. Detection of premalignant lesions during standard colonoscopy is suboptimal, and so improvements in adenoma detection by water infusion colonoscopy, although small, may help to reduce the risk of interval colorectal carcinoma. The most obvious benefit of water infusion colonoscopy was reduction of procedure-related abdominal pain, which may enhance the acceptance of screening/surveillance colonoscopy.

Water-aided colonoscopy

The successful intubation of the cecum during screening or surveillance colonoscopy is vital to ensure complete mucosal inspection of the colon on withdrawal. Even when performed by an experienced endoscopist, colonoscope insertion can sometimes be challenging. Water-aided colonoscopy can be used to assist the endoscopist in navigating colons with anatomies that may be challenging owing to severe angulation or redundancy. Water-assisted colonoscopy involves the infusion of water without air and subsequent suctioning during insertion (exchange) or withdrawal (immersion or infusion). This review discusses the technique, effectiveness, safety of water-assisted colonoscopy as well as the application in sedationless endscopy.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing real-time insertion pain during colonoscopy confirmed water exchange to be superior to water immersion in enhancing patient comfort

BACKGROUND

A recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Status Evaluation Report recommended comparative studies of water-aided colonoscopy methods to refine the optimal insertion technique.

OBJECTIVE

Air insufflation (AI), water immersion (WI), and water exchange (WE) were compared head-to-head to test the hypothesis that WE produces the least insertion pain.

DESIGN

Patient-blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trials.

SETTING

Two community hospitals in Italy.

PATIENTS

First-time diagnostic or screening colonoscopy in unsedated patients with the option of on-demand sedation.

INTERVENTION

Colonoscopy with AI, WI, or WE.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 10 = worst). To avoid interventional bias, the timing of recording was at the discretion of the nurse assistant. Adjunct measures were implemented to ensure patient perception of minimal discomfort. Recalled pain and patients' guess of insertion methods were recorded after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Results were merged for 576 randomized patients. Correct patient guesses lower than 33% confirmed adequate blinding. Significant correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.6, P < .0005) between real-time and recalled pain provided internal validation of the former as the primary outcome. Real-time pain (95% confidence interval [CI]: AI, 4.1 [3.7-4.5]; WI, 3.5 [3.0-3.9]; and WE, 2.5 [2.2-2.9] [P < .0005] was the lowest in the WE group. The proportions of patients completing unsedated colonoscopy based on the assigned methods were significantly different (WE, 74.7% vs WI, 62.4%; P = .009; vs AI, 65.3%; P = .04). WE required the least implementation of adjunct maneuvers.

LIMITATIONS

Unblinded colonoscopists.

CONCLUSION

The current findings with an internally validated primary outcome in adequately blinded patients support the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in attenuating real-time insertion pain and enhancing completion of unsedated colonoscopy.

A patient-blinded randomized, controlled trial comparing air insufflation, water immersion, and water exchange during minimally sedated colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Minimal sedation obviates patient recovery burdens, but intolerable pain limits success of cecal intubation. Painless or minimally uncomfortable insertion ensures success of cecal intubation, current patient satisfaction, and willingness to repeat future colonoscopy with minimal sedation. Water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), when separately compared with air insufflation (AI), significantly reduced insertion pain. To assess comparative effectiveness, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with head-to-head comparison of these three methods. We hypothesized that WE could produce the highest proportion of patients reporting painless insertion.

METHODS

This prospective patient-blinded trial (NCT01535326) enrolled minimally sedated (25 mg intramuscular meperidine) patients randomized to AI, WI, or WE (90 patients/group) to aid insertion. The previously validated primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting painless insertion.

RESULTS

Painless insertion was reported by 30.0% (AI), 43.3% (WI), and 61.1% (WE) of patients (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that, after adjusting for gender, body mass index, abdominal compression, position change, insertion time to cecum, and length of scope at cecum, only WE was significantly associated with painless insertion compared with AI (odds ratio (OR)=0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.03-0.24, P<0.001) or WI (OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.05-0.40, P<0.001). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right (cecum and ascending) colon was 11.1% (AI), 14.4% (WI), and 26.7% (WE) (P=0.015). The limitations included single site study with unblinded colonoscopist and assistant.

CONCLUSIONS

This head-to-head comparison of AI vs. WI vs. WE confirmed that WE was superior to WI and AI, with a significantly greater proportion of patients reporting painless insertion. The significantly higher ADR in the right colon in the WE group warrants further investigations.

Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy

Up to a quarter of polyps and adenomas are missed during colonoscopy due to poor visualization behind folds and the inner curves of flexures, and the presence of flat lesions that are difficult to detect. These numbers may however be conservative because they mainly come from back-to-back studies performed with standard colonoscopes, which are unable to visualize the entire mucosal surface. In the past several years, new endoscopic techniques have been introduced to improve the detection of polyps and adenomas. The introduction of high definition colonoscopes and visual image enhancement technologies have been suggested to lead to better recognition of flat and small lesions, but the absolute increase in diagnostic yield seems limited. Cap assisted colonoscopy and water-exchange colonoscopy are methods to facilitate cecal intubation and increase patients comfort, but show only a marginal or no benefit on polyp and adenoma detection. Retroflexion is routinely used in the rectum for the inspection of the dentate line, but withdrawal in retroflexion in the colon is in general not recommended due to the risk of perforation. In contrast, colonoscopy with the Third-Eye Retroscope^® may result in considerable lower miss rates compared to standard colonoscopy, but this technique is not practical in case of polypectomy and is more time consuming. The recently introduced Full Spectrum Endoscopy™ colonoscopes maintains the technical capabilities of standard colonoscopes and provides a much wider view of 330 degrees compared to the 170 degrees with standard colonoscopes. Remarkable lower adenoma miss rates with this new technique were recently demonstrated in the first randomized study. Nonetheless, more studies are required to determine the exact additional diagnostic yield in clinical practice. Optimizing the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance requires high definition colonoscopes with improved virtual chromoendoscopy technology that visualize the whole colon mucosa while maintaining optimal washing, suction and therapeutic capabilities, and keeping the procedural time as low and patient discomfort as optimal as possible.

Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on serum sodium and potassium levels: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Concerns over the hypothetical adverse effects of water absorption and the disturbance of serum sodium and potassium levels prompted a quality assurance evaluation of water exchange (WE) colonoscopy.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the balance of water infused and suctioned in WE colonoscopy, and to quantify the acute impact on serum levels of sodium and potassium.

METHODS

Prospectively collected quality monitoring data of patients undergoing screening and surveillance colonoscopy at the Sacramento Veterans Affairs Medical Center were analyzed. Measurements were made of volume infused and suctioned during, and blood samples drawn 10 min before the start of and 10 min after completion of WE colonoscopy. Outcome measures included volume of water infused and suctioned, and serum levels of sodium and potassium.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients (134M:6F), mean age of 59, underwent WE colonoscopy. Mean total volume of water infused was 1,839 mL. A negative balance of an average of 22 mL was documented. The mean (standard deviation) values (in meq/L) of serum levels of sodium 139.33 (2.27) and 139.28 (2.32), and potassium 3.86 (0.36) and 3.91 (0.39), before and after colonoscopy, respectively, showed no significant change.

CONCLUSION

The WE method allowed most of the water infused during colonoscopy to be recovered by suction at the completion of colonoscopy. Serum sodium and potassium levels did not change significantly within 10 min after completion. The WE method appears to be safe with minimal water retention and is devoid of acute fluctuations in serum levels of sodium and potassium.

Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled methoxyflurane versus conventional endoscopist-provided sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox, Medical Device International, Melbourne, Australia) has been used extensively in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) to manage trauma-related pain. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcome of Penthrox for colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized study.

SETTING

Three tertiary endoscopic centers.

PATIENTS

Two hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to receive either Penthrox (n = 125, 70 men, 51.4 ± 1.1 years old) or intravenous midazolam and fentanyl (M&F; n = 126, 72 men, 54.9 ± 1.1 years old) during colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Discomfort (visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y [STAI-Y] anxiety score), colonoscopy performance, adverse events, and recovery time.

RESULTS

Precolonoscopy VAS pain and STAI-Y scores were comparable between the 2 groups. There were no differences between groups in (1) pain VAS or STAI Y-1 anxiety scores during or immediately after colonoscopy, (2) procedural success rate (Penthrox: 121/125 vs M&F: 124/126), (3) hypotension during colonoscopy (7/125 vs 8/126), (4) tachycardia (5/125 vs 3/126), (5) cecal arrival time (8 ± 1 vs 8 ± 1 minutes), or (6) polyp detection rate (30/125 vs 43/126). Additional intravenous sedation was required in 10 patients (8%) who received Penthrox. Patients receiving Penthrox alone had no desaturation (oxygen saturation [SaO(2)] < 90%) events (0/115 vs 5/126; P = .03), awoke quicker (3 ± 0 vs 19 ± 1 minutes; P < .001) and were ready for discharge earlier (37 ± 1 vs 66 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) than those receiving intravenous M&F.

LIMITATIONS

Inhaled Penthrox is not yet available in the United States and Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled Penthrox is feasible and as effective as conventional sedation for colonoscopy with shorter recovery time, is not associated with respiratory depression, and does not influence the procedural success and polyp detection.

Water-aided colonoscopy

Water-aided methods for colonoscopy include the established water immersion and the recent novel modification of water exchange. Water immersion entails the use of water as an adjunct to air insufflations to facilitate insertion. Water exchange evolved from water immersion to facilitate completion of colonoscopy without discomfort in unsedated patients. Infused water is removed predominantly during insertion rather than withdrawal. A higher adenoma detection rate has been reported with water exchange. Aggregate data of randomized controlled trials suggest that water exchange may be superior to water immersion in attenuating colonoscopy discomfort and optimizing adenoma detection, particularly in the proximal colon.

Cap-assisted water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: prospective, randomized, single-center trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Water immersion insertion is able to reduce discomfort and need for sedation during colonoscopy. A cap attached to the colonoscope tip may improve insertion during air insufflation colonoscopy. According to several reports, both techniques alone may result in higher detection of neoplastic lesions. Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted water immersion compared to water immersion colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients.

METHODS

A total of 208 consecutive outpatients were randomized to either cap-assisted water immersion (Cap Water) or water immersion colonoscopy (Water). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation time was 6.9 ± 2.9 min in Cap Water and 7.4 ± 4.2 min in the Water arm (P = 0.73). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy was equal in both groups (92.9%, P = 1.00). From the endoscopist's point of view, there were non-significant trends towards lower discomfort (P = 0.06), less need for abdominal compression (P = 0.06) and lower difficulty score (P = 0.05) during Cap Water colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was similar in both arms (44% in Cap Water vs 45% in the Water group, P = 0.88). There were no complications recorded in the present study.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with water immersion without cap, cap-assisted water immersion colonoscopy was not able to shorten the cecal intubation time. However, it has the possibility of reducing patient discomfort and difficulty of colonoscope insertion. Potential impact on improved detection of neoplastic lesions has to be evaluated by further studies.

Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether water infusion colonoscopy (WIC) is a more effective diagnostic tool than standard air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC).

METHODS

All articles pertinent to a comparison of water-related methods and air insufflation to facilitate insertion of the colonoscope were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pooling results were derived by using the Review Manager Software. Outcomes were assessed using the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables and the odds ratios (OR) with 95 % CI for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies involving 2,797 patients were included. WIC was associated with a significantly higher cecal intubation rate than AIC (OR = 1.90; 95 % CI 1.21-2.99; p = 0.005). The intubation time was similar for the two types of colonoscopy, but in WIC there was a significantly lower visual analog scale score for abdominal pain than in AIC (MD = -1.30; 95 % CI -2.03 to -0.58; p < 0.001) without sacrificing the polyp detection rate (OR = 1.17; 95 % CI 0.78-1.77; p = 0.44). Statistically, the patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WIC than for AIC (OR = 1.74; 95 % CI 1.14-2.67; p < 0.01). Furthermore, in the subgroup for trainees, the WIC group achieved a higher cecal intubation rate (OR = 1.83; 95 % CI 1.15-2.93; p = 0.01) and a shorter intubation time (MD = -1.72 min; 95 % CI -3.34 to -0.11; p = 0.04) than the AIC group.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to AIC, WIC improved cecal intubation, alleviated abdominal pain, and increased patients' willingness to repeat the procedure.

Water exchange enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy. Unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is widely used for management of colorectal diseases. A history of abdominal or pelvic surgery is a well-recognized factor associated with difficult colonoscopy. Although water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) was effective in small groups of male U.S. veterans with such a history, its application in other cultural settings is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the application of WEC in such patients.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled, patient-blinded study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center in China.

PATIENTS

Outpatients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery undergoing unsedated diagnostic, screening, or surveillance colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to examination by either WEC or conventional air colonoscopy (AC).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cecal intubation rate.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were randomized to the WEC (n = 55) or AC (n = 55) group. WEC significantly increased the cecal intubation rate (92.7% vs 76.4%; P = .033). The maximum pain scores (± standard deviation) were 2.1 ± 1.8 (WEC) and 4.6 ± 1.7 (AC), respectively (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that the colonoscopy method was the only independent predictor of failed colonoscopy (odds ratio 11.44, 95% confidence interval, 1.35-97.09). A higher proportion of patients examined by WEC would be willing to have a repeat unsedated colonoscopy (90.9% vs 72.7%, P = .013).

LIMITATIONS

Single center; unblinded but experienced endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

This randomized, controlled trial confirms that the water exchange method significantly enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy in unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. The lower pain scores and higher proportion accepting repeat of the unsedated option suggest that WEC is promising. It may enhances compliance with colonoscopy in specific populations. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01485133.).

Water intubation method can reduce patients' pain and sedation rate in colonoscopy: a meta-analysis

Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown that water infusion in lieu of air insufflation reduces sedation rate and pain score and increases cecal intubation rate in colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to confirm the beneficial effects of the water intubation method over the air method. Electronic databases were searched to identify RCT reporting colonoscopy detection using the water method. The pooled data of sedation rate, pain score and other procedure-related outcomes were analyzed. Then, 15 full-text articles were selected and assessed. Nine trials with high-quality scores were enrolled into this meta-analysis including a total of 1414 participants. Pooled odds ratio (OR) of sedation rate was 0.392 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.288-0.533, P = 0.000). Pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of pain score was -1.543 (95% CI: -2.107--1.069,P = 0.000). Pooled OR of cecal intubation rate was 1.90 (95% CI: 1.29-2.82, P = 0.001). Pooled OR of polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate were 0.805 (95% CI: 0.606-1.069, P = 0.134) and 0.913 (95% CI: 0.681-1.223, P = 0.168), respectively. Pooled WMD of cecal intubation time was 0.701 (95% CI: -0.486-1.889, P = 0.247). This meta-analysis confirmed that the water method significantly reduced sedation rate and degree of pain without decreasing cecal intubation rate and disease detection rate and without requiring more cecal intubation time, suggesting that the novel water method is better than the conventional air method in colonoscopy detection.

Comparative effectiveness of water infusion vs air insufflation in colonoscopy: a meta-analysis

AIM

Colonoscopy with air insufflation is known to result in abdominal pain and discomfort. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of water infusion during colonoscopy through a meta-analysis.

METHOD

Original papers and abstracts published up to October 2011 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Database and important meeting abstracts. Clinical appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers independently. Statistical analysis was performed by meta-analysis using a fixed effects model or a random effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 872 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the water infusion group had fewer patients requiring abdominal compression or position change [risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.59, 0.91], a lower mean pain score (RR -1.10, 95% CI -1.26, -0.95), lower maximum pain score (RR -2.34, 95% CI -2.92, -1.76) and fewer patients requiring on-demand sedation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31, 0.66) than the air insufflation group during colonoscopy. There were no significant differences in caecal intubation rate, caecal intubation time, total procedure time and adenoma detection rate.

CONCLUSION

Water infusion significantly decreases patient discomfort and abdominal pain during colonoscopy without affecting operation time and intubation success rate.

Predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure in colonoscopy trainees

BACKGROUND

Successful cecal intubation (SCI) is not only a quality indicator but also an important marker in a colonoscopy trainee's progress. We conducted this study to determine factors predicting SCI in colonoscopy trainees, and to compare these factors before and after trainees achieve technical competence.

METHODS

Design of this study was a cross-sectional studies of two time series design for one year at a single center. From March 2011 to February 2012, a total 2,050 subjects who underwent colonoscopy by four first-year gastrointestinal fellows were enrolled at Christian hospital, Wonju, Republic of Korea. Four gastrointestinal fellows have filled out the colonoscopic documentation. Main outcome measurement was predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure and learning curves.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy was successfully completed to the cecum in 1,720 patients (83.9%). Success rates gradually increased as trainees performed more colonoscopies: the rate of SCI was 62% in the first 50 cases, and grew to 93% by the 250th case. Logistic regression analysis of factors affecting cecal intubation failure showed that female gender, low BMI (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²), poor bowel preparation, and past history of stomach surgery were more often associated with cecal intubation failure, particularly before the trainees achieved technical competence.

CONCLUSION

Several patient characteristics were identified that may predict difficulty of cecal intubation in colonoscopy trainees. Particularly, low BMI, inadequate bowel cleansing, and previous stomach operation were predictors of cecal intubation failure before the trainees have reached technical competency. The results could be informative so that trainees enhance the success rate regarding better colonoscopy training programs.

Carbon dioxide insufflation does not reduce pain scores during colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

CO(2) is rapidly absorbed from the colon and eliminated via the lung. Insufflation of CO(2) instead of air during colonoscopy can reduce distention-induced pain.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of CO(2) insufflation on pain during intubation and extubation and to identify predictors of pain and discomfort during colonoscope insertion.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Single tertiary medical center in Taiwan.

PATIENTS

A total of 193 patients enrolled from September 2010 through June 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscope insertion with either air or CO(2) insufflation. CO(2) was used for extubation in both groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measurement was pain, recorded on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) for left-sided colonoscope insertion and right-sided colonoscope insertion and at 1, 3, 6, and 24 hours post-procedure. Colonoscope cecal intubation time and extubation time, completeness of intubation, and loop formation were also assessed.

RESULTS

CO(2) insufflation during colonoscope intubation was used in 98 patients and air in 97 patients. The mean pain scores during intubation were low (2-3) for patients undergoing air insufflation and were not reduced further in patients receiving CO(2). A mean pain score of 0 was reported by both groups for all postprocedure time points. Multivariate analysis identified sex, loop formation of the sigmoid colon, time to reach the transverse colon, and requested sedation as factors that significantly affect VAS pain scores.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited in scope to a single medical center with experienced endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

We detected no significant benefit to the use of CO(2) insufflation compared with air insufflation during intubation for colonoscopy performed by experienced colonoscopists. The absence of postprocedure pain in both groups supports previous observations that CO(2) insufflation during extubation is effective in reducing postprocedure pain. Female sex and loop formation were identified as key factors influencing pain scores on colonoscope insertion. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

TSGHIRB-099-05-081.).

Warm water infusion during sedated colonoscopy does not decrease amount of sedation medication used

BACKGROUND

Water infusion versus air insufflation during colonoscope insertion has been suggested to reduce patient discomfort and decrease sedation medication requirements. Warm water is thought to further facilitate colonoscopy perhaps by decreasing colon spasm.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the utility of warm (35°-38°C) versus cool (20°-23°C) water infused during colonoscopic insertion by measuring patient sedation medication use and discomfort scores between the warm and cool water groups.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, double-blinded study.

SETTING

Outpatient endoscopy unit at an academic medical center.

PATIENTS

A total of 175 adults.

INTERVENTION

Elective outpatient sedated screening colonoscopies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation medication used, pain scores, cecal intubation rate, endoscopy times, satisfaction scores, and patient willingness to repeat procedures.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in sedation medication requirement during colonoscopy with the use of warm or cool water (fentanyl 83.6 ± 29.0 μg vs 87.6 ± 39.6 μg; P = .45; midazolam 3.3 ± 1.2 mg vs 3.3 ± 1.3 mg; P = .91). There was no significant difference in patient pain scores or satisfaction scores. Cecal intubation rates (100%) were similar. There was no significant difference in cecal intubation times (6 minutes 40 seconds ± 4 minutes 9 seconds vs 7 minutes 49 seconds ± 4 minutes 0 seconds; P = .06) between the warm and cool water groups. All patients were willing to repeat the colonoscopy by using the same method in both groups.

LIMITATIONS

Limited generalizability to patients undergoing screening sedated colonoscopies with good to excellent bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

Water does not need to be warmed before infusion in patients undergoing sedated colonoscopies.

Water immersion simplifies cecal intubation in patients with redundant colons and previous incomplete colonoscopies

BACKGROUND

Interest in effective ways to complete colon examinations in patients who had previously undergone failed colonoscopies has increased recently.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether water immersion decreased the need for ancillary equipment to achieve cecal intubation in patients who had previously undergone incomplete colonoscopies.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

A total of 345 consecutive patients referred to a tertiary center for the indication of a previous incomplete colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy with or without water immersion insertion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cecal intubation rates, type of equipment, and maneuvers used.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation was achieved in 332 of 345 patients (96.2%) and was similar in those with and without water immersion (170/178, 95.5% vs 162/167, 97%, P = .58). An external straightening device was used in 6 of 178 cases with water immersion (3.4%) compared with 25 of 168 cases with air insufflation (15%) (P < .0001). Among patients with a redundant colon as the sole cause of previously incomplete examinations, water immersion required an external straightener in 7% compared with 37% with air insufflation during insertion (P < .0001), and position change was required in 5% of those with water immersion compared with 22% with air insufflation (P = .01).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective review; single-center, single-endoscopist study.

CONCLUSION

Water immersion decreases the need for external straightening devices and position change maneuvers in patients with redundant colons and previously incomplete colonoscopies.

Water-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Water-aided methods for colonoscopy are distinguished by the timing of removal of infused water, predominantly during withdrawal (water immersion) or during insertion (water exchange).

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the impact of these approaches on colonoscopy pain and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Randomized, controlled trial (RCT) that compared water-aided methods and air insufflation during colonoscope insertion.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Medline, PubMed, and Google searches (January 2008-December 2011) and personal communications of manuscripts in press were considered to identify appropriate RCTs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Pain during colonoscopy and ADR. RCTs were grouped according to whether water immersion or water exchange was used. Reported pain scores and ADR were tabulated based on group assignment.

RESULTS

Pain during colonoscopy is significantly reduced by both water immersion and water exchange compared with traditional air insufflation. The reduction in pain scores was qualitatively greater with water exchange as compared with water immersion. A mixed pattern of increases and decreases in ADR was observed with water immersion. A higher ADR, especially proximal to the splenic flexure, was obtained when water exchange was implemented.

LIMITATIONS

Differences in the reports limit application of meta-analysis. The inability to blind the colonoscopists exposed the observations to uncertain bias.

CONCLUSION

Compared with air insufflation, both water immersion and water exchange significantly reduce colonoscopy pain. Water exchange may be superior to water immersion in minimizing colonoscopy discomfort and in increasing ADR. A head-to-head comparison of these 3 approaches is required.

Combination of water immersion and carbon dioxide insufflation for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-center trial

OBJECTIVE

Water immersion insertion and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, as alternative colonoscopic techniques, are able to reduce patient discomfort during and after the procedure. We assessed whether the combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation is superior in efficacy and patient comfort to other colonoscopic techniques.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized study, a total of 420 patients were randomized to either water immersion insertion and CO2 insufflation during withdrawal (water/CO2), water insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal (water/air), CO2 insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (CO2/CO2), or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (air/air). The main outcome was the success of minimal sedation colonoscopy, which was defined as reaching the cecum without switching to another insertion method and without additional sedation beyond the initial 2 mg of midazolam. Patient comfort during and after the procedure was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 404 patients were analyzed. The success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy in the water insertion arm (water/CO2 and water/air) was 97% compared with 83.3% in the gas insertion arm (CO2/CO2 and air/air; P<0.0001). Intraprocedural pain and bloating were significantly lower in the water/CO2 group than in all other groups. Patient discomfort in the water/CO2 group during 24 h after the procedure was comparable with that in the CO2/CO2 group and significantly lower than that in the air groups (water/air and air/air). No complications were recorded during the study.

CONCLUSION

The combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation appears to be an effective and safe method for minimal sedation colonoscopy. Overall patient discomfort was significantly reduced compared with that in other techniques.

Magnetic endoscope imaging (ScopeGuide) elucidates the mechanism of action of the pain-alleviating impact of water exchange colonoscopy - attenuation of loop formation

BACKGROUND

The explanation why water exchange colonoscopy produces a significant reduction of pain during colonoscopy is unknown. A recent editorial recommended use of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) to elucidate the explanation.

OBJECTIVE

In unselected patients to show that MEI documents less frequent loop formation when water exchange is used.

DESIGN

Observational, performance improvement.

SETTING

Veterans Affairs outpatient endoscopy.

PATIENTS

Routine colonoscopy cases.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy using air or water exchange method was performed as previously described. The MEI equipment (ScopeGuide, Olympus) with built-in magnetic sensors displays the configuration of the colonoscope inside the patient. During sedated colonoscopy the endoscopist was blinded to the ScopeGuide images which were recorded and subsequently reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Loop formation based on a visual guide provided by Olympus.

RESULTS

There were 41 and 32 cases in the water exchange and air group, respectively. The sigmoid N loop was most common, followed by the sigmoid alpha loop, and exaggeration of scope curvature at the splenic flexure/transverse colon. Of these, 20/32 vs. 9/41 patients (p=0.0007) had sigmoid looping, and 17/32 vs. 9/41 patients (p=0.0007) had sigmoid/splenic looping when the scope tip was in the transverse colon, in the air and water exchange group, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Colonoscopy method was not blinded and non randomized.

CONCLUSION

MEI data objectively demonstrated significantly fewer loops during water exchange colonoscopy, elucidating its mechanism of pain alleviation - attenuation of loop formation. Since MEI feedback enhances cecal intubation by trainees, the role of MEI combined water exchange in speeding up trainee learning curves deserves further evaluations.

Water exchange method for colonoscopy: learning curve of an experienced colonoscopist in a U.S. community practice setting

BACKGROUND

Water exchange colonoscopy has been reported to reduce examination discomfort and to provide salvage cleansing in unsedated or minimally sedated patients. The prolonged insertion time and perceived difficulty of insertion associated with water exchange have been cited as a barrier to its widespread use.

AIM

To assess the feasibility of learning and using the water exchange method of colonoscopy in a U.S. community practice setting.

SETTING

Quality improvement program in nonacademic community endoscopy centers.

SUBJECTS

Patients undergoing sedated diagnostic, surveillance, or screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

After direct coaching by a knowledgeable trainer, an experienced colonoscopist initiated colonoscopy using the water method. Whenever >5 min elapsed without advancing the colonoscope, conversion to air insufflation was made to ensure timely completion of the examination.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Water Method Intention-to-treat (ITT) cecal intubation rate (CIR).

RESULTS

Female patients had a significantly higher rate of past abdominal surgery and a significantly lower ITTCIR. The ITTCIR showed a progressive increase over time in both males and females to 85-90%. Mean insertion time was maintained at 9 to 10 min. The overall CIR was 99%.

CONCLUSION

Use of water exchange did not preclude cecal intubation upon conversion to usual air insufflation in sedated patients examined by an experienced colonoscopist. With practice ITTCIR increased over time in both male and female patients. Larger volumes of water exchanged were associated with higher ITTCIR and better quality scores of bowel preparation. The data suggest that learning water exchange by a busy colonoscopist in a community practice setting is feasible and outcomes conform to accepted quality standards.

Interim report of a randomized cross-over study comparing clinical performance of novice trainee endoscopists using conventional air insufflation versus warm water infusion colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The applicability of water method colonoscopy in trainee education is not known.

AIM

To compare the water method vs. usual air method in teaching novice trainee colonoscopy.

METHOD

An IRB approved prospective randomized cross-over study (NCT01482546) in a university setting with diverse patient population.

DESIGN

Three first year GI fellows consented to participate in the study. Trainees were randomized to learn with either usual air method or the water method in performing colonoscopy with a dedicated endoscopy attending during their weekly outpatient endoscopy clinics for the initial six months of training and then cross-over to the other method for the remaining six months.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing screening, surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy.

RESULTS

The interim data revealed no significant difference in age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). Trainees rated the water method colonoscopy as significantly easier to learn compared to the air method (p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The interim data demonstrate positive effects of using the water method in training novice endoscopists who reported a significant ease of learning colonoscopy using this method. Training programs could consider joining us in evaluating the use of warm water infusion in colonoscopy education.

Indigocarmine added to the water exchange method enhances adenoma detection - a RCT

PURPOSE

Chromoendoscopy with dye spray and the water method both increase adenoma detection.

HYPOTHESIS

Adding indigocarmine to the water method will enhance further the effectiveness of the latter in adenoma detection.

METHODS

Screening colonoscopy was performed with the water method (control) or with 0.008% indigocarmine added (study) by two endoscopists. Randomization was based on computer-generated codes contained in blocks of pre-arranged opaque sealed envelopes. High resolution colonoscopes were used. Upon insertion into the rectum, air was suctioned. With the air pump turned off, water was infused using a blunt needle adaptor connected to the scope channel and a foot pump to facilitate scope insertion until the cecum was reached. Residual stool causing cloudiness was suctioned followed by infusion of clear or colored water (water exchange) to facilitate scope passage with minimal distention of the colonic lumen. Upon seeing the appendix opening under water, water was suctioned and air was insufflated to facilitate inspection on scope withdrawal.

STATISTICS

Sample size calculation revealed 168 patients (84/group) needed to be randomized. Study was IRB-approved and registered (NCT01383265).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in mean age, gender distribution, BMI, and family history of colon cancer. Cecal intubation success rate was 100% in both groups. The overall adenoma detection rate was 44% (water only) versus 62% (water with indigocarmine), respectively (p=0.03). One cancer was detected in each group.

CONCLUSION

In a RCT, indigocarmine at 0.008% concentration, added to the water method, significantly enhanced further the effectiveness of the latter in detecting adenomas.

The water exchange method for colonoscopy-effect of coaching

The growing popularity of water immersion is supported by its long history as an adjunct to air insufflation; after facilitating colonoscope passage, the infused water is conveniently removed during withdrawal. Water exchange, a modification of water immersion to minimize discomfort in scheduled unsedated patients in the U.S. is new. Even though it may be superior in reducing pain and increasing adenoma detection, the paradigm shift to complete exclusion of air during insertion necessitates removal of infused water containing residual feces, a step often perceived as laborious and time-consuming. The nuances are the efficient steps to remove infused water predominantly during insertion to maintain minimal distension and deliver salvage cleansing. Mastery of the novel maneuvers with practice returns insertion time towards baseline. In this observational study the impact of direct verbal coaching on the primary outcome of intention-to-treat cecal intubation was assessed. The results showed that 14 of 19 (74%) experienced colonoscopists achieved 100% intention-to-treat cecal intubation. Initiation of the examination with water exchange did not preclude completion when conversion to the more familiar air insufflation method was deemed necessary to achieve cecal intubation (total 98%). The overall intention-to-treat cecal intubation rate was 88%, 90% in male and 87% in female. Only 2.7% of bowel preparation was rated as poor during withdrawal. The mean volume of water infused and cecal intubation time was 1558 ml and 18 min, respectively. Direct coaching appears to facilitate understanding of the nuances of the water exchange method. Studies of individual learning curves are necessary.

"Underwater" EMR without submucosal injection for large sessile colorectal polyps (with video)

BACKGROUND

Submucosal injection is widely performed before EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps to facilitate resection and decrease perforation risk. We developed a novel method of water immersion ("underwater") EMR (UEMR) that eliminates submucosal injection.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of UEMR without submucosal injection for large sessile colorectal polyps.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care referral center.

INTERVENTION

The standardized EMR technique involves full water immersion for the entire procedure and piecemeal resection with a 15-mm "duck bill" snare.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Complete resection, bleeding, perforation, postpolypectomy syndrome, residual or recurrence adenoma.

RESULTS

Sixty patients with 62 large sessile colorectal polyps underwent UEMR. The mean/median polyp size was 34/30 mm, and the mean/median resection time was 21/18 minutes. Histology revealed the following: tubular adenoma (n = 22), tubulovillous adenoma (n = 19), villous adenoma (n = 4), serrated adenoma (n = 11), and high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (n = 6). The mean/median interval until a follow-up colonoscopy in 54 patients (90%) was 20.4/15.2 weeks. One of 54 patients (2%) had an adenoma smaller than 5 mm outside of the postresection scar, consistent with a residual lesion missed on index UEMR.

COMPLICATIONS

There was no perforation or postpolypectomy syndrome. Delayed bleeding occurred in 3 patients and was managed conservatively.

LIMITATIONS

Limited follow-up; single-center, single-endoscopist, uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSIONS

The underwater resection technique enables complete removal of large sessile colorectal polyps without submucosal injection. The technique was safe in a large patient cohort, and the early recurrence rate appears low. Use of a water interface for UEMR has potential advantages that deserve further study.

Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story

Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy is the standard practice in Western countries, unsedated colonoscopy is still routinely provided in Europe and the Far East. This variation in sedation practice relies on the different cultural attitudes of both patients and endoscopists across these countries. Data from the literature consistently report that, in unsedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as warm water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high quality and well tolerated examination.

Unsedated colonoscopy: an option for some but not for all

BACKGROUND

The increasing request for colonoscopy in clinical practice, coupled with the lack of time, has led to a renewed interest in unsedated procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the acceptability of unsedated colonoscopy and to characterize the subset of patients more likely to undergo and complete the procedure without sedation and/or analgesia.

DESIGN

Prospective, population study.

SETTING

Nonacademic community hospital, 6-month observation period.

PATIENTS

Adult outpatients referred for colonoscopy were offered unsedated procedure, with the possibility of on-demand sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

Demographics, clinical features, and endoscopy outcomes were recorded. Data were analyzed by stepwise logistic regression analysis, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are given for significant variables.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Unsedated colonoscopy acceptance rate. Factors significantly associated with acceptance and completion of unsedated procedures.

RESULTS

The acceptance rate for unsedated colonoscopy was 56.2% of 964 consecutive evaluated patients. The cecal intubation rate in unsedated patients was 81.6% and increased to 97.3% with the option of on-demand sedation. At multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with the acceptance were no previous colonoscopy (OR 1.52; 95% CI, 1.10-2.11), absent/low level of anxiety (OR 3.82; 95% CI, 2.71-5.38), and no concern about the examination (OR 1.80; 95% CI, 1.17-2.77). Fear of procedure-related pain was inversely associated with acceptance (OR 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35). Factors associated to drug-free colonoscopy completion were absence of preprocedure anxiety (OR 1.87; 95% CI, 1.08-3.21) and male sex (OR 3.59; 95% CI, 2.13-6.05).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

The acceptance rate of unsedated colonoscopy is clinically relevant, and the procedure can be completed without sedation in the majority of patients. Subject-related factors may help to identify patients willing to undergo and potentially complete unsedated procedures.

An effective instillation method for water-assisted colonoscopy as performed by in-training endoscopists in terms of volume and temperature

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

There is general consensus that water instillation helps insert a colonoscope. However, the most effective method for water instillation has not yet been established, especially for endoscopists-in-training. The aim of this study was to determine volume and temperature for effective water instillation colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial that was carried out at a single center, and a total of 207 consecutive subjects who underwent colonoscopic examination for health checkup were included in the study. Water instillation of supplied water was conducted under four different conditions: 100 and 300 ml at room temperature, 300 ml at 30 °C and no use of water instillation. The following parameters were recorded and analyzed: intubation success rate, independent predictors of successful intubation and intubation time to reach the cecum.

RESULTS

The intubation success rate was not significantly different between individual groups. Independent predictors of successful intubation were younger age (P = 0.004) and later examined subjects (P = 0.016). The 300-ml warm water instillation during colonoscopy significantly reduced intubation time over the conventional method without water instillation (P = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Instillation of 300-ml warm (30 °C) water during colonoscopy can reduce cecal intubation time for in-training endoscopists without improving the intubation success rate.

A pilot study to assess feasibility of the water method to aid colonoscope insertion in community settings in the United States

BACKGROUND: The water method decreases patient discomfort and sedation requirement. Applicability in non-veteran community settings in the United States (U.S.) has not been reported. AIMS: Our aim is to perform a pilot study to establish feasibility of use the water method at 2 community sites. We tested the hypothesis that compared with air insufflation patients examined with the water method would require less sedation without adverse impact on outcomes. METHODS: Two performance improvement projects were carried out. Consecutive patients who consented to respond to a questionnaire after colonoscopy were enrolled. Project 1: The design was single-blinded (patient only); quasi-randomized - odd days (water), even days (air). Colonoscopy was performed by a staff attending. Project 2: A supervised trainee performed the reported procedures. In both, patient demographics (age, gender and body mass index), amount of sedation required during colonoscopy and procedure-related variables were recorded. The patients completed a questionnaire that enquired about discomfort during colonoscopy and willingness to repeat the procedure within 24 hours after the procedure. RESULTS: Project 1: Significantly lower doses of fentanyl and midazolam were used and a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) was demonstrated in the water group. Project 2: 100% cecal intubation rate was achieved by the supervised trainee. CONCLUSION: This is the first pilot report in the U.S. documenting feasibility of the water method as the principal modality to aid colonoscope insertion in both male and female community patients. In a head-to-head comparison, significant reduction of sedation requirement is confirmed as hypothesized. No adverse impact on outcomes was noted.

Health care providers' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy before and after a state-of-the-art lecture on the feasibility of the option

BACKGROUND/AIM

The impact of education on acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy by health care providers is unknown. To test the hypothesis that knowledge imparted by a lecture on unsedated colonoscopy is associated with its enhanced acceptance.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

At the State-of-the-Art Lecture on "Unsedated colonoscopy: Is it feasible?" presented at the 8 th Pan-Arab Conference on Gastroenterology, February, 2011, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a questionnaire survey of the audience was undertaken.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An expectation questionnaire was administered before and after the lecture. Attendees responded anonymously.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

The responses of a convenient sample of 49 attendees who provided completed responses to the questionnaire both before and after the lecture were analyzed. Data are expressed as frequency counts and means±SEM. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), ANOVA with contrasts and Chi-square analysis (Statview II Program for Macintosh computers) were used to assess the data. A P value of <0.05 is considered significant.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The mean±SEM credibility score (maximum possible score=50) was 25.8 ± 1.8 before and 33.3 ± 2.1 after the lecture, with a significant improvement in mean score of 7.5 ± 1.3 (P=0.001, paired t test). Nineteen (39%) respondents were not willing to consider unsedated colonoscopy for themselves before the lecture. This number decreased to 13 (27%) after the lecture. Before the lecture only 4 (8%) respondents were willing to consider unsedated colonoscopy for themselves. After the lecture this number increased to 8 (16%). The data suggest education of healthcare professionals regarding the feasibility of unsedated colonoscopy appears to enhance its acceptance as a credible patient care option at a Pan-Arab Gastroenterology Conference.

A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The water method facilitates colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare quality indicators in sedated veterans. DESIGN: Performance improvement. SETTING: VA endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: 368 consecutive screening patients. INTERVENTION: Air or water method assignment (high definition colonoscope) was based on the last digit of social security number. MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate; intubation and withdrawal times; sedation requirements and external pressure used. RESULTS: ADR was higher with the water method (57.1% vs. 46.1%, p=0.04). After controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation, the odds of detecting an adenoma was 81% higher with the water method (OR 1.81; 95% cI: 1.12-2.90). In the proximal colon ADR was higher with the water method (45.8% vs. 34.6%, p=0.03), including adenomas <10 mm in size (41.8% vs. 31.4%, p=0.04). The water method showed significantly longer cecal intubation time (6.9±0.3 vs. 5.3±0.3 min, p=0.0001); less external pressure used (11.9% vs. 28.3%, p=0.0001); lower need for additional sedation (17.5% vs. 27.2%, p<0.03). LIMITATIONS: Predominance of males, single unblinded endoscopist with high ADR. CONCLUSIONS: The water method is an independent factor associated with significantly higher ADR. Replication by blinded colonoscopist(s) is indicated.

Water infusion for cecal intubation increases patient tolerance, but does not improve intubation of unsedated colonoscopies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Several studies have indicated that water infusion, instead of air insufflation, enhances cecal intubation in selected patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy. We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether the water technique increases the proportion of patients that are able to complete unsedated colonoscopy.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 116 consecutive outpatients who were willing to start colonoscopy without sedation; 58 were each randomly assigned to groups given water infusion or air insufflation during the insertion phase. Sedation and analgesia were administered on demand.

RESULTS

Fewer patients requested sedation in the water group (8.6%) than in the air group (34.5%; P = .003) and their maximum pain scores were lower (2.8 ± 1.9 vs 4.2 ± 2.3 in the air group; P = .011). However, differences in percentages of patients who received complete, unsedated colonoscopy between the water group (74.1%) and air group (62.1%) did not reach statistical significance (P = .23); the percentage of successful cecal intubations was lower in the water group (82.8%) than in the air group (96.5%; P = .03) because of poor visibility. Failed procedures in the water group were completed successfully after air insufflation. The cecal intubation time was shorter in the air group (6.2 ± 3.4 min) than in the water group (8.1 ± 3.0 min; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients willing to undergo unsedated colonoscopy, water infusion improves patient tolerance for cecal intubation, compared with air insufflation. However, it does not increase the overall percentage of successful cecal intubations because suboptimal bowel preparation interferes with visibility.

Feasibility of colonoscopy with water infusion in minimally sedated patients in an Asian Community Setting

BACKGROUND: Investigators in the US described large volume water infusion with marked benefits but acknowledged the limitation of male veteran predominance in the study subjects. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of large volume water infusion in Asian patients undergoing minimal sedation diagnostic colonoscopy in a community setting. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized to receive large volume (entire colon) (Group A, n=51), limited volume (rectum and sigmoid colon) (Group B, n=51) water infusion, or air insufflation (Group C, n=51). Pain during insertion, completion rate, cecal intubation and total procedure times, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Pain and satisfaction were assessed with a 0-10 visual analog scale. RESULTS: The mean pain scores during insertion were lower in the Group A and Group B than in Group C, 3.3±2.4, 3.0±2.2 and 4.4±2.6, respectively (p=0.028 and p=0.004). The completion rates and cecal intubation times were similar among the three groups. The procedure time was significantly longer in Group A than in group C (15.3±5.9 min vs. 13.1±5.4 min, p=0.049). Overall satisfaction with the procedure was greater in Group B than in Group C only (9.7±0.5 vs. 9.4±0.8, p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic colonoscopy with large volume water infusion without air insufflation appears to be feasible in minimally sedated Asian patients in a community setting. Measures to improve the outcome further are discussed.

The water method is effective in difficult colonoscopy - it enhances cecal intubation in unsedated patients with a history of abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy in unsedated patients in the US is considered to be difficult. Success rate of cecal intubation is limited by discomfort. Colonoscopy in patients with a history of abdominal surgery is also considered to be difficult due to adhesion-related bowel angulations. The water method has been shown to significantly reduce pain during colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the water method enhances the completion of colonoscopy in unsedated patients with a history of abdominal surgery. DESIGN: The data bases of two parallel RCT were combined and analyzed. SETTING: Two Veterans Affairs endoscopy units. PATIENT AND METHODS: The water and air methods were compared in these two parallel RCT examining unsedated patients. Those with a history of abdominal surgery were selected for evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Completion of unsedated colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among patients with a history of abdominal surgery, the proportion completing unsedated colonoscopy in the water group (19 of 22) was significantly higher than that (11 of 22) in the air group (p=0.0217, Fisher's exact test). LIMITATIONS: Small number of predominantly male veterans, unblinded colonoscopists, not all types of abdominal surgery (e.g. hysterectomy, gastrectomy) predisposing to difficult colonoscopy were represented. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-principle assessment confirms that in patients with a history of abdominal surgery the water method significantly increases the proportion able to complete unsedated colonoscopy. The water method deserves to be evaluated in patients with other factors associated with difficult colonoscopy.

Evolving techniques in colonoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes recent clinical studies of colonoscopy technique and new technologies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Water immersion reduces pain and sedation doses in unsedated and lightly sedated colonoscopy. Cap-fitted colonoscopy makes insertion faster and improves detection of lesions behind folds, but the latter effect is operator-dependent. A single controlled trial showed improved detection with the Third Eye Retroscope, but the two arms of the study were not controlled for withdrawal time. Chromoendoscopy increases detection of diminutive adenomas, but adds time to the colonoscopy procedure. Electronic chromoendoscopy methods (narrow band imaging, Fujinon Intelligent ChromoEndoscopy, i-scan, and autofluorescence) have been either unsuccessful in improving detection or require more study. However, these methods and several other methods (chromoendoscopy with magnification, confocal laser microscopy, and endocytoscopy) allow accurate real time determination of polyp histology.

SUMMARY

Water immersion is a clear advance in unsedated colonoscopy. Cap-fitted colonoscopy is a promising method for both practical and effective visualization of the proximal sides of haustral folds. Electronic chromoendoscopy has been largely ineffective at improving polyp detection, but is effective (as are confocal laser microscopy and endocytoscopy) for diagnosis of polyp histology.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.

The water method for aiding colonoscope insertion: the learning curve of an experienced colonoscopist

BACKGROUND: The water method has promising features for colonoscopy but the learning curve to master the technique is unknown. AIMS: To describe the learning phase, and pitfalls of the water method and its impact on procedural outcomes by an experienced colonoscopist. DESIGN: Review of prospectively collected data in a performance improvement project SETTING: endoscopy Unit at a VA medical center PATIENTS: 200 consecutive veterans undergoing colonoscopy METHODS: An experienced colonoscopist examined 4 consecutive groups of 25 patients each using the water method to define the learning curve. Outcomes were compared to a historical cohort (n=100) examined by the same colonoscopist using usual air insufflation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intent-to-treat (ITT) cecal intubation rate. RESULTS: ITT cecal intubation rate increased from 76% (first) to 96% (fourth quartile). Cecal intubation time in the first 2 quartiles was significantly longer (8.9±1.0 and 8.2±0.8 min, respectively) than that in the historical cohort (5.8±0.4 min) but decreased and became comparable to control values in the next 2 quartiles (7.2±0.9 and 6.6±0.6 min, respectively). Overall adenoma detection rate as a group (55%), compared favorably to the historical cohort (46%). CONCLUSIONS: The water method is relatively easy to learn for an experienced colonoscopist. Mastery of the method resulted in cecal intubation rate and overall adenoma detection rate meeting quality performance standards.

Learning and teaching the water method (with videos)

The water method is an insertion technique for colonoscopy which has recently become popular owing to its demonstrated ability to decrease patient pain and sedation requirements. This review focuses on learning and teaching the water method. Data from the United States and Asia suggests that trainees at all levels of experience can safely learn and utilize the water method. Demonstrated benefits in some of the reviewed studies include lessened sedation requirements, less pain for patients and increased cecal intubation rates in minimally sedated patients. These benefits are realized without compromising safety, adenoma detection rates, or procedure times.

Removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (water exchange) is consistently associated with an increase in adenoma detection rate - review of data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of water-related methods

INTRODUCTION: Variation in outcomes in RcTs comparing water-related methods and air insufflation raises challenging questions regarding the new approach. This report reviews impact of water exchange - simultaneous infusion and removal of infused water during insertion on adenoma detection rate (ADR) defined as proportion of patients with a least one adenoma of any size. METHODS: Medline (2008-2011) searches, abstract of 2011 Digestive Disease Week (DDW) meeting and personal communications were considered to identify RcTs that compared water-related methods and air insufflation to aid insertion of colonoscope. RESULTS: Since 2008, eleven reports of RcTs (6 published, 1 submitted and 4 abstracts, n=1728) described ADR in patients randomized to be examined by air and water-related methods. The water-related methods differed in timing of removal of the infused water -predominantly during insertion (water exchange) (n=825) or predominantly during withdrawal (water immersion) (n=903). Water immersion was associated with both increases and decreases in ADR compared to respective air method patients and the net overall change (-7%) was significant. On the other hand water exchange was associated with increases in ADR consistently and the net changes (overall, 8%; proximal overall, 11%; and proximal <10 mm, 12%) were all significant. CONCLUSION: Comparative data generated the hypothesis that significantly larger increases in overall and proximal colon ADRs were associated with water exchange than water immersion or air insufflation during insertion. The hypothesis should be evaluated by RCTs to elucidate the mechanism of water exchange on adenoma detection.

A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The water method facilitates colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare quality indicators in sedated veterans. DESIGN: Performance improvement. SETTING: VA endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: 368 consecutive screening patients. INTERVENTION: Air or water method assignment (high definition colonoscope) was based on the last digit of social security number. MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate; intubation and withdrawal times; sedation requirements and external pressure used. RESULTS: ADR was higher with the water method (57.1% vs. 46.1%, p=0.04). After controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation, the odds of detecting an adenoma was 81% higher with the water method (OR 1.81; 95% cI: 1.12-2.90). In the proximal colon ADR was higher with the water method (45.8% vs. 34.6%, p=0.03), including adenomas <10 mm in size (41.8% vs. 31.4%, p=0.04). The water method showed significantly longer cecal intubation time (6.9±0.3 vs. 5.3±0.3 min, p=0.0001); less external pressure used (11.9% vs. 28.3%, p=0.0001); lower need for additional sedation (17.5% vs. 27.2%, p<0.03). LIMITATIONS: Predominance of males, single unblinded endoscopist with high ADR. CONCLUSIONS: The water method is an independent factor associated with significantly higher ADR. Replication by blinded colonoscopist(s) is indicated.

Removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (water exchange) is consistently associated with a greater reduction of pain score - review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of water method colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION: Variation in the outcomes in RcTs comparing water-related methods and air insufflation during the insertion phase of colonoscopy raises challenging questions regarding the approach. This report reviews the impact of water exchange on the variation in attenuation of pain during colonoscopy by water-related methods. METHODS: Medline (2008 to 2011) searches, abstracts of the 2011 Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and personal communications were considered to identify RcTs that compared water-related methods and air insufflation to aid insertion of the colonoscope. Results: Since 2008 nine published and one submitted RcTs and five abstracts of RcTs presented at the 2011 DDW have been identified. Thirteen RcTs (nine published, one submitted and one abstract, n=1850) described reduction of pain score during or after colonoscopy (eleven reported statistical significance); the remaining reports described lower doses of medication used, or lower proportion of patients experiencing severe pain in colonoscopy performed with water-related methods compared with air insufflation (Tables 1 and 2). The water-related methods notably differ in the timing of removal of the infused water - predominantly during insertion (water exchange) versus predominantly during withdrawal (water immersion). Use of water exchange was consistently associated with a greater attenuation of pain score in patients who did not receive full sedation (Table 3). CONCLUSION: The comparative data reveal that a greater attenuation of pain was associated with water exchange than water immersion during insertion. The intriguing results should be subjected to further evaluation by additional RcTs to elucidate the mechanism of the pain-alleviating impact of the water method.