Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy

Effectiveness of Water-Assisted Colonoscopy without Sedation in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Studies have found that water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) including water immersion colonoscopy (WIC) and water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) is superior to air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC) in terms of the cecal intubation rate. However, the application of WAC in ulcerative colitis (UC) has rarely been reported. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of WAC without sedation in patients with UC.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-two UC patients were randomly divided into the AIC group (n = 56), WIC group (n = 58), and WEC group (n = 58). The cecal intubation rate, abdominal pain score, operator difficulty, bowel cleanliness, insertion, and total time were compared.

RESULTS

The cecal intubation rate was higher in the WIC (91.4% vs. 75.0%; mean difference = 16.4%; 95% CI: 3.0-29.8%) and WEC (93.1% vs. 75.0%; mean difference = 18.1%; 95% CI: 5.0-31.2%) compared to the AIC group, while there was no difference between the WIC and WEC groups. The abdominal pain score and operator difficulty were lower in the WIC and WEC groups than in the AIC group, while there was no difference between the WIC and WEC groups. The bowel cleanliness during withdrawal was higher in the WIC and WEC groups than in the AIC group, while the WEC was superior to WIC. Compared with the AIC and WIC groups, the insertion time and total time were longer in the WEC group, and there was no difference in the AIC group and WIC group.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with AIC, WAC can increase the cecal intubation rate, reduce abdominal pain scores and improve bowel cleanliness in patients with UC.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.

RESULTS

We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.

CONCLUSION

Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

42020173906.

Nitrous oxide for pain management of first-trimester instrumental termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia and/or minimal sedation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhalation of nitrous oxide and oxygen (N₂O/O₂) is used to reduce pain that is spontaneous or induced by procedures. N₂O/O₂ could be useful in the treatment of the pain in first-trimester termination of pregnancy performed under local anaesthesia and/or minimal sedation (FTOPL).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usefulness of N₂O/O₂ to reduce pain in FTOPL.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched using keywords.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies comparing the use of N₂O/O₂ versus a placebo in the management of pain during FTOPL during the first trimester were included. Of the 199 studies identified, four were deemed eligible for this meta-analysis.

DATA COLLECTION

The extracted results were perioperative pain, immediate and delayed postoperative pain, anxiety scores, and the secondary effects (nausea, vomiting). The data were analysed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2.2.064.

MAIN RESULTS

There was a significant difference in favour of N₂O/O₂ for perioperative pain (p = 0.006; SMD = - 0.31; 95 % CI, -0.54 - -0.09). No difference was found, however, in postoperative pain, nor was there a difference in the secondary effects (nausea, vomiting) (p = 0.61). A significant decrease in postoperative anxiety scores was seen in the pooled placebo group (p = 0.049; SMD = 0.41; and 95 % CI, 0.001-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

N₂O/O₂ reduces the pain of FTOPL. N₂O/O₂ could be recommended in FTOPL.

Improving the discomfort and satisfaction of colonoscopy by distraction with smartphones: A prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is an uncomfortable procedure. Distraction is thought to reduce pain by decreasing the amount of attention a person spends on a painful stimulus. We aimed to assess the usefulness of smartphones on discomfort associated with the colonoscopy.

METHODS

We designated 360 enrolled patients according to prospective randomized controlled study into two groups, including smartphone (SP) group (Relaxation by smartphones) and Control group (No relaxation). Measured outcomes included the discomfort, satisfaction, polyp detection rate and the willingness to repeat colonoscopy were analyzed between groups.

RESULTS

The pain and distension scores of SP group patients were significantly lower than those of the Control group (2.18 ± 2.80 vs 3.55 ± 3.07, P < .001; 4.15 ± 2.35 vs 4.79 ± 2.36, P = .011, respectively). Importantly, patient-reported satisfaction scores of the SP group were significantly higher than those of the Control group (96.45 ± 7.17 vs 91.12 ± 10.49, respectively; P < .001). Moreover, although there were no statistical differences, patients using smartphones were more likely to have shorter reach cecum times (09m:11 s vs 07m:37 s, P = .116) and more polyp detection rate (13.3% vs 9.4%, P = .246). In addition, more patients using smartphones were willing to repeat colonoscopy but no statistical difference (85.0% vs 81.7%, P = .396).

CONCLUSION

Patient using smartphone is a special manner to increase satisfaction during colonoscopy with a less discomfort and is more likely to be polyp detection rate.

Feasibility of a transmucosal sublingual fentanyl tablet as a procedural pain treatment in colonoscopy patients: a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study

Since patients often experience pain and unpleasantness during a colonoscopy, the present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingually administered fentanyl tablets for pain treatment. Furthermore, since the use of intravenous drugs significantly increases colonoscopy costs, sublingual tablets could be a cost-effective alternative to intravenous sedation. We conducted a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study of 158 patients to evaluate the analgesic effect of a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl administered before a colonoscopy. Pain, sedation, nausea, and satisfaction were assessed during the colonoscopy by the patients as well as the endoscopists and nurses. Respiratory rate and peripheral arteriolar oxygen saturation were monitored throughout the procedure. There were no differences between the fentanyl and placebo groups in any of the measured variables. The median pain intensity values, as measured using a numerical rating scale, were 4.5 in the fentanyl group and 5 in the placebo group. The sedation and oxygen saturation levels and the respiratory rate did not differ between the groups. The majority of the colonoscopies were completed.Our results indicate that a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl is not beneficial compared to the placebo in the treatment of procedural pain during a colonoscopy.

The Effectiveness of Right- vs Left-lateral Starting Position in Unsedated Diagnostic Colonoscopy with Modified-water Immersion Method: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study

Objective

A colonoscopy study in sedated patients with air insufflation showed that right-lateral starting position (RLP) improved abdominal discomfort and reduced cecal intubation time. The aim of this study was to determine if RLP vs left-lateral starting position (LLP) may produce similar results in unsedated patients examined with a modified-water immersion (m-WI) method.

Methods

Consecutive patients for diagnostic colonoscopy meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized. Patients and colonoscopist were unblinded. The m-WI method entailed suction during insertion not only for fecal debris evacuation but also to facilitate passage through difficult or angulated colonic flexures. Water was infused as needed when any difficulty was encountered during insertion. A bowel visualization scale (BVS) (0=totally blurred visualization; 1=blurred lumen visualization; 2=small fecal debris with clear mucosa visualization; 3= clear visualization) was used to evaluate the interference of fecal debris with cecal intubation rate and time.

Results

A total of 142 patients (72 in RLP and 70 in LLP) were enrolled. The respective pain score, visual analog scale, (VAS) and cecal intubation rate were not significantly different. The cecal intubation time was nearly significantly different (13.4±4.5 min vs 11.7±5.4 min; p=0.054) and was significantly different in the constipation subgroup (16.0±3.5 min vs 8.6±3.8 min; p=0.001). The cecal intubation time based on BVS showed significant difference between RLP and LLP in Scale 2 (13.9±4.6 min vs 10.3±4.2 min; p=0.003) and Scale 2 and 3 combined (13.2±4.3 min vs 10.6±4.8 min; p=0.01), respectively.

Conclusion

RLP did not improve the pain score, and LLP showed better performance in unsedated m-WI colonoscopy patients (ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03489824).

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173906.

Covid-19 pandemic impact on colonoscopy service and suggestions for managing recovery

Background and aim  As the post-peak phase of the epidemic is approaching, there is an urgent need of an action plan to help resume endoscopy activity. To manage the Covid-19 pandemic-imposed backlog of postponed colonoscopy examinations, an efficient approach is needed. The practice of on-demand sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opiates will allow most patients to complete a water-aided examination with minimal or no sedation. Other methods reported to minimize patient discomfort during colonoscopy can be used, in addition to water-aided techniques. Unsedated or minimally sedated patients who do not require recovery or require a shorter one allow rapid turnaround. The practice obviates the need for assistance with deep sedation from anesthesiologists, who may be in short supply. Trainee education in water-aided colonoscopy has been demonstrated to confer benefits. This review provides some insights into the impact of Covid-19 on endoscopy services, challenges ahead, and possible solutions to help recovery of colonoscopy work and training.

Cecal intubation rates in different eras of endoscopic technological development

Introduction

Colonoscopy plays a critical role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and has been widely regarded as the gold standard. Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is one of the well-defined quality indicators used to assess colonoscopy.

Aim

To assess the impact of new technologies on the quality of colonoscopy by assessing completion rates.

Material and methods

This was a dual-center study at the 2^nd Department of Surgery at Jagiellonian University Medical College and at the Specialist Center “Medicina” in Krakow, Poland. The CIR and cecal intubation time (CIT) in three different eras of technological advancement were determined. The study enrolled 27 463 patients who underwent colonoscopy as part of a national CRC screening program. The patients were divided into three groups: group I – 3408 patients examined between 2000 and 2003 (optical endoscopes); group II – 10 405 patients examined between 2004 and 2008 (standard electronic endoscopes); and group III – 13 650 patients examined between 2009 and 2014 (modern endoscopes).

Results

There were statistically significant differences in the CIR between successive eras. The CIR in group I (2000–2003) was 69.75%, in group II (2004–2008) was 92.32%, and in group III (2009–2014) was 95.17%. The mean CIT was significantly reduced in group III.

Conclusions

Our study shows that the technological innovation of novel endoscopy devices has a great influence on the effectiveness of the CRC screening program. The new era of endoscopic technological development has the potential to reduce examination-related patient discomfort, obviate the need for sedation and increase diagnostic yields.

Endoscope-connected water pump with high flow rates improves the unsedated colonoscopy performance by water immersion method

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine if different water pump flow rates influence the insertion time of water immersion method in unsedated patients. We tested the hypothesis that high flow rate (HFR) is more effective than low flow rate (LFR) in facilitating insertion. Clinical registration number: NCT01869296.

Methods

Consecutive symptomatic patients without prior abdominal surgery were consented and enrolled. They were randomized to an HFR (10.4 mL/s) or LFR (1.7 mL/s) group. The patients were not informed about the flow rate of the water pump (single blinded). Patients underwent unsedated colonoscopy examination with standard colonoscope. Demographic and procedural parameters were recorded. Data were analyzed with Student’s t-test or Chi-square test as appropriate.

Results

A total of 132 patients (66 in HFR and 66 in LFR group) were recruited. The HFR group showed significantly shorter cecal intubation time (12.5±6.2 min in HFR vs 16.3±7.3 min in LFR, p=0.004), shorter time to pass rectosigmoid (3.6±2.2 min in HFR vs 6.2±4.6 min in LFR, p<0.001), and lower pain score (4.2±2.8 in HFR vs 5.3±2.6 in LFR, p=0.024). The cecal intubation rate was not significantly different (87.9% in HFR vs 80.3% in LFR, p=0.34), and 29 (14 in HFR and 15 in LFR) patients with signs of colon redundancy were successfully intubated to the cecum after repeated loop reduction and position changes.

Conclusion

Compared to LFR, HFR of the water infusion pump significantly reduced colonoscopy insertion time and pain score in unsedated patients. Significantly shorter time to pass the rectosigmoid appeared to play a contributory role.

Impact of responsive insertion technology (RIT) on reducing discomfort during colonoscopy: randomized clinical trial

Background

In many countries, colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening are performed without sedation due to the cost. Changes in the structure of the endoscopes are designed to facilitate the colonoscopic examination, reduce the duration of the procedure, and improve the imaging of the intestinal lumen. The variable stiffness of the endoscope and the recently introduced responsive insertion technology (RIT) are features aimed at easing colonoscope insertion and reducing the discomfort and pain during the examination. The aim of the study is to analyze whether the new RIT system can improve the practice of colonoscopy under no anesthesia with respect to the widely available variable stiffness colonoscopes.

Materials and methods

This analysis included 647 patients who underwent complete colonoscopy in the screening program. All colonoscopies were performed without sedation. Olympus series 180 and 190 endoscopes equipped with a magnetic positioning system were used. Group I included patients who were examined using endoscopes equipped with responsive insertion technology (RIT), and group II included patients who were examined using conventional variable stiffness colonoscopies. The main objective was to evaluate the cecal intubation time, the number of loops, the requirement to apply manual pressure to different areas of the abdomen and the degree of discomfort and pain expressed on a visual analogue scale (VAS). ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01688557.

Results

Group I consisted of 329 patients, and group II included 318 patients. The mean age of the patients was 58.4 years (SD ± 4.21). Both groups were compared in terms of age, sex, and BMI. The mean cecal intubation time was 209 s in group I and 224 s in group II (p < 0.05). Increased loop formation was observed upon endoscope insertion in group II (1.7 vs. 1.35) (p < 0.05) and required more manual pressure to the abdomen (2.2 vs. 1.7) (p = 0.001). In group I, less discomfort and pain, as graded on a VAS (2.3 vs. 2.6), were noted.

Conclusions

The implementation of RIT reduced of the cecal intubation time. The modified structure of the endoscope rendered the colonoscopic examination easier by reducing loop formation upon insertion with a subsequently reduced rate of auxiliary maneuvers.

Autonomic nervous responses in colorectal polypectomy: Randomized controlled trial comparing air and carbon dioxide insufflation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation devices are commonly used for endoscopic examination and treatment. In this prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT), we compared patient acceptance, cardiovascular tolerance,and autonomic nervous responses between patients receiving air insufflation and CO2 insufflation.

METHODS

We initially enrolled 170 patients and, of these, 158 patients in total were analyzed (air group, 83; CO2 group, 75). Autonomic nervous responses were evaluated by analysis of heart rate variability (HRV). Primary end point was superiority in the effects of CO2 insufflation on the autonomic nervous system by HRV analysis.

RESULTS

Visual analog scale disclosed significantly less abdominal pain and abdominal fullness with CO2. Percentage heart rate change rate at 1 h and 4 h after the procedure was also significantly lower in the CO2 group than in the air group (1 h after: P < 0.01, 4 h after: P < 0.05). Comparison based on age showed that % heart rate change was significantly lower in the younger CO2 patients (just after colonoscopy and 1 h after: P < 0.01, 4 h after: P < 0.05), but this difference was not apparent in an older group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first RCT showing that colorectal polypectomy using CO2 insufflation significantly decreases abdominal pain and abdominal fullness common in such patients with lowered stress to the autonomous nervous system. The effects using CO2 insufflation on the sympathetic nervous system also seemed to be more prominent among younger patients.

Unsedation colonoscopy can be not that painful: Evaluation of the effect of “Lamaze method of colonoscopy”

AIM: To evaluate the pain relieving effect of intervention with “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” in the process of colonoscopy.

METHODS: Five hundred and eighty-five patients underwent colonoscopy were randomly divided into three groups, Lamaze group, anesthetic group and control group. Two hundred and twenty-four patients of Lamaze group, the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” were practiced in the process of colonoscopy. The Lamaze method of colonoscopy is modified from the Lamaze method of childbirth, which helped patients to relieve pain through effective breathing control. One hundred and seventy-eight patients in anesthetic group accepted sedation colonoscopy. For 183 patients in control group, colonoscopy was performed without any intervention. The satisfactory of colon cleaning, intestinal lesions, intubation time, success ratio, pain grading and complications were recorded. All data were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences at base line of the three groups (P > 0.05). Anesthetic group shows advantage in intubation time than the other two groups (P < 0.05). Lamaze group shows no advantage in intubation time than that in control group (P > 0.05). The anesthetic group showed an apparent advantage in relieving pain (P < 0.01). Therefore, the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” performed in colonoscopy could relieve pain effectively comparing with control group (P < 0.05). The patients in anesthetic group had the highest incidence of complications (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The performance of the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” in the process of colonoscopy could relieve patients’ pain, minimize the incidence of complications, and is worthy promotion in clinical practice.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during screening unsedated colonoscopy: a randomised clinical trial

One of the methods used to reduce pain and discomfort during colonoscopy is insufflation of carbon dioxide instead of air. However, the actual benefit of carbon dioxide insufflation is not unequivocally proven. The aim of the study was to evaluate the advantages of carbon dioxide insufflation during screening colonoscopy. A total of 200 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy between 2010 and 2011 were included in the prospective, randomized study carried out in a surgical referral center. Screening unsedated colonoscopy with either air or carbon dioxide insufflation was performed; patients were randomly assigned to air or carbon dioxide group by means of computer-generated randomization lists. All examinations were performed in an ambulatory setting with standard videocolonoscopes. The main outcomes analyzed were (a) duration of the entire procedure, (b) cecal intubation time, and (c) pain severity immediately, 15, and 60 min after the procedure. Group I included 59 women and 41 men and group II included 51 women and 49 men. The duration of the procedure was circa 10 min in both groups. Pain score values immediately and 15 min after the procedure were similar in both groups (P=0.624 and 0.305, respectively). A lower pain score was observed only after 60 min in patients insufflated with carbon dioxide (1.28 vs. 1.54, P=0.008). No pain reduction was observed in women and in obese patients (BMI>30). Carbon dioxide insufflation during unsedated screening colonoscopy does not decrease the duration of the procedure and appears to reduce pain intensity at 60 min after examination to an extent without clinical significance. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01461564.

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.

Effective communication enhances the patients' endoscopy experience

BACKGROUND

Undergoing an endoscopy is a stressful experience for patients.

AIMS

To audit the endoscopy pathway to improve patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A prospective survey of endoscopy patients to identify system improvements that were then implemented.

RESULTS

The survey was performed before (N = 71) and after (N = 60) process improvements identified by the initial survey. Information provision and staff communication skills were identified for optimisation. Patient anxiety at home was significantly reduced (median 2 vs. 1, p < 0.01). Education of endoscopy staff significantly improved the quality of information provided before and after the procedure with regard to sedation (median 4 vs. 5, p < 0.01), discomfort (median 4 vs. 5, p < 0.01), complications (28 vs. 82 %, p < 0.01), findings (89 vs. 100 %, p < 0.01) and follow-up (73 vs. 90 %, p = 0.015). Gloucester Comfort Scores during endoscopy improved (median 1 vs. 0, p < 0.01) without increasing sedation levels. Patient feelings of invasion/trauma significantly decreased. Overall 95 % of patients were satisfied.

CONCLUSION

Structured information leaflets and improved staff communication skills reduce anxiety and enhance patients' experiences. They are now standard operating procedures.

Effect of music in endoscopy procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopies are common clinical examinations that are somewhat painful and even cause fear and anxiety for patients. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the effect of music on patients undergoing various endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2013, PubMed, and EMBASE databases up to July 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopies, with and without the use of music, were included. Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the impact of music on different types of endoscopic procedures.

RESULTS

Twenty-one randomized controlled trials involving 2,134 patients were included. The overall effect of music on patients undergoing a variety of endoscopic procedures significantly improved pain score (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-2.53, -0.53]), anxiety (WMD = -6.04, 95% CI [-9.61, -2.48]), heart rate (P = 0.01), arterial pressure (P < 0.05), and satisfaction score (SMD = 1.83, 95% CI [0.76, 2.91]). Duration of the procedure (P = 0.29), except for gastrointestinal endoscopy (P = 0.03), and sedative or analgesic medication dose (P = 0.23, P = 0.12, respectively) were not significantly decreased in the music group, compared with the control group. Furthermore, music had little effect for patients undergoing colposcopy and bronchoscopy in the subanalysis.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggested that music may offer benefits for patients undergoing endoscopy, except in colposcopy and bronchoscopy.

Microfluidic Thermally Activated Materials for Rapid Control of Macroscopic Compliance

Macroscopic structures that undergo rapid and reversible stiffness transitions can serve as functional polymeric materials for many applications in robotics and medical devices. Thermomechanical phase transitions can provide a suitable mechanism for transient control of mechanical properties. However, the characteristic time scale for actuation is large and dictated by the dimensions of the structure. Embedding vascular networks within bulk polymers can reduce the characteristic length scale of the material and permit rapid and reversible thermomechanical transitions. Here we report perfusable bulk materials with embedded microvascular networks that can undergo rapid and reversible stiffness transitions. Acrylate-based thermoplastic structures exhibit storage moduli with a dynamic range between E' = 1.02 ± 0.07 GPa and E' = 13.5 ± 0.7 MPa over time scales as small as 2.4 ± 0.5 s using an aqueous thermal perfusate. The spatiotemporal evolutions of temperature profiles were accurately predicted using finite element simulation and compared to experimental values. Rigid-compliant transitions were leveraged in a demonstration in which a microvascularized device was used to grasp an external object without the aid of moving parts.

Robotics in Colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in men and women in the United States. While there is a definite advantage regarding the use of colonoscopies in screening, there is still a lack of widespread acceptance of colonoscopy use in the general public. This is evident by the fact that up to 75% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer present with locally advanced disease. In order to make colonoscopy and in turn colorectal cancer screening a patient friendly and a comfortable test some changes in tool are necessary. The conventional colonoscope has not changed much since its development. There are several new advances in colorectal screening practices. One of the most promising new advances is the advent of robotic endoscopic techniques.

Is the type of insufflation a key issue in gastro-intestinal endoscopy?

Endoscopic procedures continue to play an emerging role in diagnosing and treating upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. In particular, the introduction of colonoscopy in bowel cancer screening has underlined its promising role in decreasing the incidence of colorectal cancer and reducing tumour related mortality. To achieve these goals patients need to contemplate endoscopic examinations as painless and fearless procedures. The use of carbon dioxide (CO₂) as an alternative insufflation gas in comparison to air has been considered as an essential key to improving patients' acceptance in undergoing endoscopic procedures. CO₂ is absorbed quickly through the bowel mucosa causing less luminal distension and potentially less abdominal pain. However, its exact role has not been defined completely. In particular, the beneficial use of CO₂ in upper GI endoscopy and in sedated patients is still conflicting. In the present review, we aimed to assess the current evidence for using CO₂ in endoscopy and to evaluate its potential role in the future.

The use of ancillary techniques to aid colonoscope insertion

BACKGROUND

There is more to a high-quality colonoscopy than reaching the cecum or finding adenomas. Gentle insertion involves ancillary techniques, some of which are impossible in patients receiving deep sedation. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of ancillary techniques in achieving a comfortable, complete colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 500 consecutive outpatient colonoscopies performed by a single endoscopist. During the procedure, note was taken of various ancillary techniques used to facilitate insertion: turning the patient, patient holding their breath, abdominal pressure. The success of these techniques in helping scope advancement was also noted. After the procedure the patient was asked to rate the severity of their pain and their degree of satisfaction with the examination.

RESULTS

A total of 238 women and 262 men participated in the study, and colonoscopy was complete in 96.2 and 98.5%, respectively. Overall, 97% of patients received versed alone (average dose 2 mg), and 3% received a narcotic (average dose 46 U). Average pain score was 3.9 on a scale of 1 (least pain) to 10 (worst pain), and average satisfaction with the procedure as a whole was 9.5 on a similar scale. Ancillary techniques of holding breath, directed abdominal pressure, and turning to the left, right, and prone were used in 46, 56, 17, 23, and 4% of examinations, respectively. Each technique was effective in helping insertion in over 70% of cases. Turning the patient was also used to clear stool, open the colon, or facilitate polypectomy in another 33 cases. Multiple techniques were used in 49% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of ancillary techniques to facilitate colonoscope insertion helps avoid the expense and potential side effects of deep sedation.

Mechanical analysis of insertion problems and pain during colonoscopy: why highly skill-dependent colonoscopy routines are necessary in the first place... and how they may be avoided

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy requires highly skill-dependent manoeuvres that demand a significant amount of training, and can cause considerable discomfort to patients, which increases the use of sedatives. Understanding the underlying fundamental mechanics behind insertion difficulties and pain during colonoscopy may help to simplify colonoscopy and reduce the required extent of training and reliance on sedatives.

METHODS

A literature search, anatomical studies, models of the colon and colonoscope, and bench tests were used to qualitatively analyze the fundamental mechanical causes of insertion difficulties and pain. A categorized review resulted in an overview of potential alternatives to current colonoscopes.

RESULTS

To advance a colonoscope through the colon, the colon wall, ligaments and peritoneum must be stretched, thus creating tension in the colon wall, which resists further wall deformation. This resistance forces the colonoscope to bend and follow the curves of the colon. The deformations that cause insertion difficulties and pain (necessitating the use of complex conventional manoeuvres) are the stretching of ligaments, and stretching of colon wall in the transverse and longitudinal directions, and the peritoneum.

CONCLUSIONS

Four fundamental mechanical solutions to prevent these deformations were extracted from the analysis. The current results may help in the development of new colonoscopy devices that reduce - or eliminate - the necessity of using highly skill-dependent manoeuvres, facilitate training and reduce the use of sedatives.

Differences in colonoscopy technique impact quality

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopists differ in skill, technique, and attitude in relation to the examination. These differences have a potential impact on the quality of the examination and the risk of complications. This study aimed to document differences in technique between individual colonoscopists and to explore some possible consequences to the patient and the examination.

METHODS

This prospective, comparative study analyzed 10 individual endoscopists practicing in outpatient endoscopy clinics at a major medical center. Consecutive patients presenting for elective outpatient colonoscopy were included in the study. Examinations were observed, and techniques used during scope insertion and withdrawal were recorded. The type and dose of medication, the pain score recorded by the endoscopy nurses (scale of 1-10), and the incidence of hypotension and hypoxia were noted.

RESULTS

The study involved 245 patients (129 men and 116 women) with a mean age of 59.5 years. The number of colonoscopies per examiner ranged from 12 to 31, with nine tenths of the examiners performing more than 20 colonoscopies. Completion rates ranged from 82.6 to 100 %; the withdrawal time averages ranged from 3.5 to 21.7 min; and the average number of techniques used ranged from one per four exams to three per exam. The average pain score per endoscopist ranged from 2.1 to 4.3, and the percentage of patients with either hypoxia or hypotension ranged from 11.5 to 85.0 %. A sedation/analgesia product (SAP) was derived by multiplying the mean dose of versed by the mean dose of meperidine. Regression analysis showed significant relationships between the number of techniques used and the levels of pain (R (2) = 0.395) and hypoxia/hypotension (R (2) = 0.513). The findings showed that SAP was significantly associated with hypoxia/hypotension (R (2) = 0.826) but not pain (R (2) = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ancillary techniques for colonoscope insertion minimizes pain, narcotic use, and hypoxia/hypotension. The product of benzodiazepine dose and narcotic dose is a good way of assessing sedative effect.

Gender differences when using sedative music during colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is a procedure often experienced as uncomfortable and worrying. Music has been reported to reduce discomfort during colonoscopy; however, no study in a Swedish setting has been found. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to analyze the effects of sedative music on patients' experience of anxiety, pain, relaxation, and well-being during colonoscopy. Prior to colonoscopy, adult patients (n = 120), aged 18-80 years, were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (n = 60) who listened to sedative instrumental music with 60-80 beats per minute during the colonoscopy or a control group. After the colonoscopy, both groups completed a questionnaire on anxiety, the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, and an anxiety Visual Analogue Scale. Pain, relaxation, and well-being were also measured with Visual Analogue Scales. Women in the intervention group had a lower level of anxiety during the colonoscopy than those in the control group (p = .007) and well-being was significantly higher in the intervention group, especially among men, than in the controls (p = .006 and p = .025, respectively). Men in the intervention group were more relaxed during the colonoscopy than those in the control group (p = .065). Listening to sedative music decreased anxiety among women and increased well-being among men during colonoscopy.

Application value of variable stiffness colonoscope in colonoscopy in elderly patients

AIM: To explore the application value of variable stiffness colonoscope (VSC) in colonoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS: From July 2012 to March 2013, 732 elderly patients (60-74 years) suspected to have colorectal cancer underwent colonoscopy at our hospital. They were randomly divided into two groups to receive colonoscopy using either VSC or standard adult colonoscope (SAC). Cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, abdominal pain score, position changes during colonoscopy, and additional use of sedation and/or analgesia were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: VSC was associated with higher cecal intubation rate (95.9% vs 90.7%, P < 0.05) and fewer position changes or ancillary maneuvers during colonoscopy (12.6% vs 33.3%, P < 0.01) compared to SAC. Cecal intubation time was similar between the two groups (8.2 min ± 3.5 min vs 9.4 min ± 3.2 min, P > 0.05). Although VAS score was higher in the VSC group than in the SAC group (57.4 vs 44.1), additional use of sedation and/or analgesia showed no significant difference between the two groups (4.1% vs 3.8%, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Use of VSC significantly improves cecal intubation rate and reduces position changes or ancillary maneuvers during the procedure. Cecal intubation time and additional use of sedation and/or analgesia are similar for the two types of colonoscope.

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.

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.

Does the variable-stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of the variable stiffness colonoscope compared with the standard adult colonoscope

Background

The variable-stiffness colonoscope (VSC) appears to have advantages over the standard adult colonoscope (SAC), although data are conflicting. To provide a comprehensive up-to-date review, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of the VSC and SAC.

Methods

Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the Science Citation Index, were searched to retrieve relevant trials. In addition, meeting abstracts and the reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for further relevant studies.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling a total of 2033 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant heterogeneity among these studies. The cecal intubation rate was higher with the use of VSC (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06, 8 RCTs). The VSC was also associated with fewer position changes made during colonoscopy. Time to cecal intubation was similar with VSC and SAC (WMD −0.54, 95% CI −1.40 to 0.32) but shorter in subgroup analysis with the use of VSC (WMD = −1.36, 95% CI −2.29 to −0.43). Sedation dose used with the two types of instruments showed no evidence of differences either. For all trials, only patients were blinded because of the nature of the interventions.

Conclusion

Use of the VSC significantly improved the cecal intubation rate and reduced ancillary maneuvers made during the procedure. Cecal intubation time was similar for the two colonoscope types over all trials, whereas a shortened time with the use of the adult VSC was seen in subgroup analysis.

Underutilisation of the gastroscope for total colonoscopy in adults: a survey of two European countries

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

High caecal intubation success rates have been reported with the gastroscope in adults. We surveyed the current use of the gastroscope for total colonoscopy in adults in the UK and Greece.

METHODS

A questionnaire was e-mailed to 952 members of the British Society of Gastroenterology (UK) and 478 members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology (GR), enquiring as to access to a paediatric colonoscope, use of gastroscope for total colonoscopy and estimate of caecal intubation success rate.

RESULTS

Valid replies were 17.4% from UK and 19.7% from GR. The paediatric colonoscope was available to 106/138 (77%) UK and to only 18/86 (21%) GR respondents (p = 0.0002). Of all the UK and GR respondents, 109/138 (79%) and 68/86 (79%), respectively, did not use the gastroscope for total colonoscopy. For the use of the gastroscope for total colonoscopy, 26/29 (89%) UK and 9/18 (50%) GR users did so, while a paediatric colonoscope was also available (p = 0.001), and 3/29 (10.3%) UK and 9/18 (50%) GR users did so, whilst they had no access to a paediatric colonoscope (p = 0.001). Estimated gastroscope caecal intubation success rate was 69% (SD 0.26) UK and 46% (SD 0.36) GR, p = 0.008. Only 37% UK and 28% GR respondents used the gastroscope to examine the left colon.

CONCLUSIONS

The gastroscope is underutilised for total colonoscopy in both the UK and Greece. Use of the gastroscope does not appear to be related to lack of access to a paediatric colonoscope in the UK but may be in GR. Gastroscope caecal intubation success rate justifies its use where the colonoscope fails.

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.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during withdrawal of the colonoscope improved postprocedure discomfort: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

In colonoscopy, the question of when and how to use carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation remains uncertain. Inspection for the pathological changes during colonoscopy takes place during the withdrawal of the scope. This study aimed to determine whether CO(2) insufflation only at the withdrawal of the colonoscope has an effect comparable to that of CO(2) usage throughout the course of the procedure. Symptomatic patients were randomized in three groups: (1) patients given air insufflation (A; n = 33); (2) patients given CO(2) insufflation only at the time of scope withdrawal (CW; n = 33); and (3) patients given the CO(2) insufflation (C; n = 34) for the whole course of the colonoscopy. Patients were requested to answer questionnaires about their pain score during, at the end, and 1 h after the colonoscopy by using a pain numerical scale ranging from 0 to 10. The disparities of the pain score were noted at the end of the procedure and 1 h after the procedure (p = 0.026 and p < 0.001, respectively). We further analyzed the scores between two of the three groups. Both CW (vs. A; procedure end: p = 0.012, 1 h after: p = 0.001) and C (vs. A; procedure end: p = 0.072, 1 h after: p < 0.001) showed less postprocedure pain when compared with the group A. The pain score between CW and C were similar at each time segment (procedure end: p = 0.555, 1 h after: p = 0.491). CO(2) insufflation merely at the withdrawal of the colonoscope improved postprocedural abdominal discomfort and the effect was not inferior to that of full course CO(2) insufflation.

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.

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.

Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with alfentanyl versus fentanyl for colonoscopy: a randomized double blind study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether sedo-analgesia with alfentanyl/fentanyl, using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump, may have positive outcomes in terms of safety, postprocedural workload, and expectations of the colonoscopist, nurse, and patients in elective colonoscopy.

PATIENTS

One hundred American Society of Anesthesiology physical status I and II adult patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in a double-blind trial to receive either alfentanyl (n=50) or fentanyl (n=50) by PCA, and incremental doses of midazolam.

MEASUREMENTS

Patient expectations were assessed using hemodynamic variables, willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy in the same way, adverse events, discomfort scores, and patient/operator/nurse satisfaction associated with sedo-analgesia.

RESULT

All patients in both groups had adequate sedo-analgesia with high satisfaction and willingness scores. There were no serious adverse effects and except for a few events, no required medication. The total sedation times were shorter in the alfentanyl group compared with the fentanyl group.

CONCLUSIONS

PCA and sedation with alfentanyl and fentanyl for colonoscopy are safe, feasible, and acceptable to most patients. However, shorter sedation times make alfentanyl more attractive for postprocedural workload.

A hypothesis-generating review of the water method for difficult colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Several factors such as significant procedure-related discomfort, excessive intubation time or failed cecal intubation have been associated with difficult colonoscopy. An update of these factors and colonoscopy techniques reported to be efficacious in enhancing completion of cecal intubation in difficult colonoscopy patients is provided in this review.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Medline search (January 2006 to July 2010) was conducted using the following search terms: colonoscopy, difficult, abdominal pain, and discomfort.

RESULTS

Reviewed data are tabulated for presentation. Several water-related techniques have been described separately as adjuncts to usual air insufflation to minimize discomfort, reduce intubation time and improve success rate of cecal intubation. A combination of these techniques was subjected to trial-and-error modifications followed by randomized controlled comparisons. Progressive improvement in colonoscopy outcomes that paralleled stepwise incorporation of exclusion of air insufflation, removal of residual colonic air by suction and removal of residual feces by water exchange during the insertion phase has been described.

CONCLUSIONS

The water method is potentially important for improving results of colonoscopy (cecal intubation) especially in unsedated patients. The unsedated option may lower costs. The success of the water method in difficult cases should be evaluated in randomized controlled trials. The call should be considered and explored by endoscopists interested in improving the quality of colonoscopy. A multicenter study to optimize the number of cases will be most desirable. In pragmatic terms, the use of the water method in difficult (unsedated) colonoscopy in the United States did receive recent editorial endorsement.

Magnifying gastroscopy using a soft black hood for difficult colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Various methods are reported as aids to cecal intubation for cases in which colonoscopy is difficult. This study aimed to investigate prospectively whether a gastroscope with magnification function, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and a soft black hood can aid insertion in cases of difficult colonoscopy and facilitate both accurate diagnosis and safe treatment.

METHODS

This prospective study recruited 177 patients. All were examined with a magnifying gastroscope. A commercially available soft black hood was attached to the gastroscope during insertion and magnification. Difficult colonoscopy was anticipated before colonoscopy in cases of patients with at least one of the following factors: low BMI (<20 kg/m(2)), adhesion due to previous surgery, or previous colonoscopy that could not reach to the cecum. The success rate and duration of cecal intubation then were assessed. All detected lesions were evaluated by magnifying NBI and then classified as non-neoplastic or neoplastic for endoscopic diagnosis. Subsequently, all the lesions were removed and examined histologically for comparison.

RESULTS

The overall success rate of cecal intubation was 100% (177/177), and the mean time taken to reach the cecum was 5.9 min. A total of 156 lesions were detected endoscopically, and the overall diagnostic accuracy of NBI with magnification was 98.7%. No associated complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Magnifying gastroscopy using a soft black hood and NBI is useful for cecal intubation in cases wherein colonoscopy is difficult, facilitating accurate diagnosis and safe treatment.

DDW 2011 cutting edge colonoscopy techniques - state of the art lecture master class - warm water infusion/CO(2) insufflation for colonoscopy

Pain limits the success of cecal intubation in unsedated patient. Carbon dioxide infusion instead of air insufflation and water infusion as an adjunction to air insufflation have both been investigated as modalities to minimize pain associated with colonoscopy. Multiple RCT support an effect of carbon dioxide in reducing pain after colonoscopy. A modern method of water infusion as the sole modality for aiding colonoscope insertion has been shown to reduce pain during and after colonoscopy. Favorable effects in reducing discomfort have been documented in both sedated and unsedated patients. Because of the need to perform water exchange in the patients with suboptimal bowel perparation, a serendipitous consequence of salvage cleansing is evident with application of the water method. The associated increase in adenoma detection especially in the proximal colon is most intriguing. The hypothesis that the water method during insertion combined with carbon dioxide insufflation during withdrawal will optimally decrease colonoscopy pain should be evaluated. The implications of increased adenoma detection by the water method also deserve to be studied.

A randomized, controlled trial to confirm the beneficial effects of the water method on U.S. veterans undergoing colonoscopy with the option of on-demand sedation

BACKGROUND

Sedation for colonoscopy discomfort imposes a recovery-time burden on patients. The water method permitted 52% of patients accepting on-demand sedation to complete colonoscopy without sedation. On-site and at-home recovery times were not reported.

OBJECTIVE

To confirm the beneficial effect of the water method and document the patient recovery-time burden.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled trial, with single-blinded, intent-to-treat analysis.

SETTING

Veterans Affairs outpatient endoscopy unit.

PATIENTS

This study involved veterans accepting on-demand sedation for screening and surveillance colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Air versus water method for colonoscope insertion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of patients completing colonoscopy without sedation, cecal intubation rate, medication requirement, maximum discomfort (0 = none, 10 = severe), procedure-related and patient-related outcomes.

RESULTS

One hundred veterans were randomized to the air (n = 50) or water (n = 50) method. The proportions of patients who could complete colonoscopy without sedation in the water group (78%) and the air group (54%) were significantly different (P = .011, Fisher exact test), but the cecal intubation rate was similar (100% in both groups). Secondary analysis (data as Mean [SD]) shows that the water method produced a reduction in medication requirement: fentanyl, 12.5 (26.8) μg versus 24.0 (30.7) μg; midazolam, 0.5 (1.1) mg versus 0.94 (1.20) mg; maximum discomfort, 2.3 (1.7) versus 4.9 (2.0); recovery time on site, 8.4 (6.8) versus 12.3 (9.4) minutes; and recovery time at home, 4.5 (9.2) versus 10.9 (14.0) hours (P = .049; P = .06; P = .0012; P = .0199; and P = .0048, respectively, t test).

LIMITATIONS

Single Veterans Affairs site, predominantly male population, unblinded examiners.

CONCLUSION

This randomized, controlled trial confirms the reported beneficial effects of the water method. The combination of the water method with on-demand sedation minimizes the patient recovery-time burden. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00920751.).

Retrospective analysis showing the water method increased adenoma detection rate - a hypothesis generating observation

BACKGROUND: A water method developed to attenuate discomfort during colonoscopy enhanced cecal intubation in unsedated patients. Serendipitously a numerically increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) was noted. OBJECTIVE: To explore databases of sedated patients examined by the air and water methods to identify hypothesis-generating findings. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: VA endoscopy center. PATIENTS: creening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: From 1/2000-6/2006 the air method was used - judicious air insufflation to permit visualization of the lumen to aid colonoscope insertion and water spray for washing mucosal surfaces. From 6/2006-11/2009 the water method was adopted - warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation and suction removal of residual air to aid colonoscope insertion. During colonoscope withdrawal adequate air was insufflated to distend the colonic lumen for inspection, biopsy and polypectomy in a similar fashion in both periods. Main outcome measurements: ADR. RESULTS: The air (n=683) vs. water (n=495) method comparisons revealed significant differences in overall ADR 26.8% (183 of 683) vs. 34.9% (173 of 495) and ADR of adenomas >9 mm, 7.2% vs. 13.7%, respectively (both P<0.05, Fisher's exact test). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized data susceptible to bias by unmeasured parameters unrelated to the methods. CONCLUSION: Confirmation of the serendipitous observation of an impact of the water method on ADR provides impetus to call for randomized controlled trials to test hypotheses related to the water method as an approach to improving adenoma detection. Because of recent concerns over missed lesions during colonoscopy, the provocative hypothesis-generating observations warrant presentation.

Significant hypercapnia either in CO(2)-insufflated or air-insufflated colonoscopy under deep sedation

BACKGROUND

previous reports showed that CO(2)-insufflated colonoscopy is safe and less discomfortable. However, hypercapnia remains a vital concernment if deep sedation is necessary for difficult colonoscopy with prolonged CO(2) insufflation. This observational study is to measure bodily CO(2) subjected to colonoscopy facilitated by CO(2)- and air- or air-insufflation in conscious-sedation, deep-sedation and awake patients.

OBJECTIVE

to investigate if CO(2)-insufflated colonoscopy could increase the risk of hypercapnia in awake, conscious-sedation and deep-sedation patients.

METHODS

104 patients in our health center undergoing sequential esophagogastroscopy and colonoscopy screening were included. At patients' request, incremental intravenous sedatives were given in order that the air-insufflated esophagogastroscopy could be carried out without the molestation of gag and cough reflexes. The sedation levels were re-evaluated before proceeding colonoscopy and the patients were divided into conscious-sedation (respond purposefully to verbal commands) and deep-sedation groups and randomly allocated for air or CO(2) insufflation. Transcutaneous capnography (TcCO(2)) was recorded every minute throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

RESULTS

the baseline TcCO(2) in the air- (50.9 ± 5.7 mmHg) and CO(2)-insufflated (53.1 ± 6.5 mmHg) groups under deep sedation was significantly higher than the groups under conscious-sedation and the awake groups (p < 0.01). In both air- and CO(2)-insufflation groups there were also a statistically significant (p < 0.01) correlation in TcCO(2) between the start, the peak and the end of colonoscopy. TcCO(2) did not significantly change throughout the colonoscopy in awake and conscious-sedation groups, either with air or CO(2) insufflation. With deep sedation, TcCO(2) significantly increased and peaked around the time when the scope touching the cecum, and then returned to original state with suction and withdrawl of the colonoscope without significant interaction of CO(2) insufflation and deep sedation.

CONCLUSION

the TcCO(2) during colonoscopy was correlated to the data before inserting colonoscope but significantly different within awake, conscious-sedation and deep-sedation groups. TcCO(2) did not change significantly either with CO(2) insufflation or air insufflations in awake and conscious-sedation groups. However, in deep-sedation groups with significantly higher baseline TcCO(2), further increase of TcCO(2) were significant without interaction with CO(2) insufflation. We concluded that when patients need deep sedation for colonoscopic procedures facilitated by gas insufflation, hypercapnia is still considerably present, not only with CO(2) insufflation but also with air insufflation colonoscopy.

Music for colonoscopy: A single-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Several methods have been reported to minimize patient discomfort during colonoscopy, none are currently recommended by clinical practice guidelines. We performed a single-blind randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of music for colonoscopy.

METHODS

109 patients were randomized to music-delivering or mute headphones before and during colonoscopy. Physicians were blinded to the trial. Sedation was given on demand. Primary outcome was pain measured on linear analogue scale from 0 to 10. Secondary endpoints were the difficulty of the procedure, need of sedation, overall patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure.

RESULTS

Mean pain score was 5.9±2.2 in the control group vs. 3.8±1.9 in the music group (p<0.00001); correspondingly overall satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure were significantly improved by music and the difficulty perceived by physicians was significantly reduced. Total administered midazolam was 36mg in the control group vs. 13 in the music group (p<0.007), pethidine was 860mg vs. 465mg (p=0.07) and patients requiring sedation were 22 vs. 9, respectively (p=0.003). A multivariable analysis to adjust treatment effect for potential confounding factors confirmed the significant beneficial effect of music.

CONCLUSIONS

Music significantly reduces discomfort and should be routinely offered to patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Polymer Rigidity Control for Endoscopic Shaft-Guide ‘Plastolock’ — A Feasibility Study

Flexible endoscopes are used for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the human body for their ability to be advanced through tortuous trajectories. However, this very same property causes difficulties as well. For example, during surgery, a rigid shaft would be more beneficial since it provides more stability and it allows for better surgical accuracy. In order to keep the flexibility and to obtain the rigidity when needed, a shaft-guide with controllable rigidity could be used. In this article, we introduce the plastolock shaft-guide concept, which uses thermoplastics that are reversibly switched from rigid to compliant by changing their temperatures from 5°C to 43°C. These materials are used to make a shaft that can be rendered flexible to follow the flexible endoscope and rigid to guide it. To find polymers that are suitable for the plastolock concept, an extensive database and internet search was performed. The results suggest that many suitable materials are available or can be custom synthesized to meet the requirements. The thermoplastic polymer Purasorb® PLC 7015 was obtained and a dynamic mechanical analysis showed that it is suitable for the plastolock concept. A simple production test indicated that this material is suitable for prototyping by molding. Overall, the results in this article show that the plastolock concept can offer simple, scalable solutions for medical situations that desire stiffness at one instance and flexibility at another.

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

BACKGROUND

An observational study in veterans showed that a novel water method (water infusion in lieu of air insufflation) enhanced cecal intubation and willingness to undergo a repeat scheduled unsedated colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To confirm these beneficial effects and significant attenuation of discomfort in a randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

DESIGN

Prospective RCT, intent-to-treat analysis.

SETTING

Veterans Affairs ambulatory care facility.

PATIENTS

Veterans undergoing scheduled unsedated colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

During insertion, the water and traditional air methods were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Discomfort and procedure-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-two veterans were randomized to the air (n = 40) or water (n = 42) method. Cecal intubation (78% vs 98%) and willingness to repeat (78% vs 93%) were significantly better with the water method (P < .05; Fisher exact test). The mean (standard deviation) of maximum discomfort (0 = none, 10 = most severe) during colonoscopy was 5.5 (3.0) versus 3.6 (2.1) P = .002 (Student t test), and the median overall discomfort after colonoscopy was 3 versus 2, P = .052 (Mann-Whitney U test), respectively. The method, but not patient characteristics, was a predictor of discomfort (t = -1.998, P = .049, R(2) = 0.074). The odds ratio for failed cecal intubation was 2.09 (95% CI, 1.49-2.93) for the air group. Fair/poor previous experience increased the risk of failed cecal intubation in the air group only. The water method numerically increased adenoma yield.

LIMITATIONS

Single site, small number of elderly men, unblinded examiner, possibility of unblinded subjects, restricted generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCT data confirmed that the water method significantly enhanced cecal intubation and willingness to undergo a repeat colonoscopy. The decrease in maximum discomfort was significant; the decrease in overall discomfort approached significance. The method, but not patient characteristics, was a predictor of discomfort. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00747084).

[A case of synchronous colonic laterally spreading tumors treated by sequential endoscopic submucosal dissection performed on two consecutive days]

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an useful therapeutic technique for large gastrointestinal epithelial tumors that it provides an en bloc resection. Although there is some controversy about the role of ESD for colorectal lesions, for large lesions in the distal rectum, ESD has the advantage of preserving anal function. However, the large amount of insufflating gas used during the procedure can cause severe abdominal pain and discomfort. Moreover, high intra-luminal pressure caused by a by large amount of gas can cause a micro-perforation. There is no consensus as to whether ESD is the optimal treatment for synchronous large colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) that cannot be removed en-bloc by conventional endoscopic mucosal resection. Here, a case with two neighboring synchronous large LSTs, one located in the rectum and the other in the distal sigmoid colon, were sequentially removed by separate ESD procedures performed on two consecutive days in a patient who could not tolerate a long procedure.