Water-Assisted Colonoscopy

Clinical value of sigmoid colon water exchange colonoscopy: a prospective randomized clinical trial

This prospective randomized controlled trial investigated the clinical value of sigmoid colon water exchange (SWE) colonoscopy by comparing it with air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy in terms of the patient's pain score, insertion time, and screening quality. Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy without sedation were randomized into an AI group (n = 267) or an SWE group (n = 255). Patient characteristics, history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, maximum pain score, insertion time, cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, and the need for maneuvers were recorded. There was no significant between-group difference in insertion time, cecal intubation rate, assisted maneuvers (abdominal pressure, changing patients' position), or polyp detection rate (P > 0.05). The mean maximum pain score was significantly lower in the SWE group than in the AI group. (3.57 ± 2.01 vs. 4.69 ± 1.83, P < 0.001). For patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery and those who were overweight (body mass index > 24), the maximum pain scores were lower in the SWE group than in the AI group (3.67 ± 1.95 vs. 4.88 ± 1.80, P < 0.001; 3.40 ± 1.96 vs. 4.79 ± 1.97, P < 0.001, respectively). SWE colonoscopy can significantly reduce abdominal pain with non-inferior screening quality and does not increase insertion time.Trial registration number: ChiCTR2200059057 (date April 23, 2022).

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.

Colonoscopy quality improvement after initial training: A cross-sectional study of intensive short-term training

Background and study aims High-quality is crucial for the effectiveness of colonoscopy and can be achieved by high-quality training and verified with assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) for colonoscopy such as cecum intubation rate (CIR), adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adequate polyp resection. Typically, trainees achieve adequate CIR after 275 procedures, but little is known about learning curves for KPIs after initial training. Methods This cross-sectional study includes work-up colonoscopies after a positive screening test with fecal occult blood testing (FIT) or sigmoidoscopy, performed by either trainees after 300 training colonoscopies or by consultants. Outcome measures were KPIs. We assessed inter-endoscopist variation in trainees and learning curves for trainees as a group. We also compared KPIs for trainees and consultants as a group.  Results Data from 6,655 colonoscopies performed by 21 trainees and 921 colonoscopies performed by 17 consultants were included. Most trainees achieved target standards for main KPIs. With time, trainees shortened cecum intubation time and withdrawal time without decreasing their ADR, reduced the proportion of painful colonoscopies, and increased the adequate polyp resection rate (all P  < 0.01). Compared to consultants, trainees had higher CIR (97.7 % vs. 96.3 %, P  = 0.02), ADR after positive FIT (57.6 % vs. 50.3 %, P  < 0.01), and proximal ADR after sigmoidoscopy screening (41.1 % vs. 29.8 %; P  < 0.01), higher adequate polyp resection rate (94.9 % vs. 93.1 %, P  = 0.01) and fewer serious adverse events (0.65 % vs. 1.41 %, P  = 0.02). Conclusions Trainees performed high-quality colonoscopies and achieved international target standards. Several KPIs continuously improved after initial training. Trainees outperformed consultants on several KPIs.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Colon capsule retention in a patient with large bowel stenosis due to diverticulosis - a case report

Capsule retention is a rare complication to capsule endoscopy. It is often asymptomatic and resolves itself spontaneously. In some cases, endoscopy or surgery is necessary to remove the capsule. Cases of capsule retention in the colon are not reported very often and precautions in subsequent investigations must be considered. We present a case of a 74-year-old woman who underwent colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) due to a positive fecal immunochemical test. The CCE was incomplete, and the patient was referred to conventional colonoscopy, which was complicated by perforation of the large bowel during the procedure. This lead to a CT scan showing the capsule proximal to a stenotic colon segment which was subsequently surgically removed. In patients who report lack of capsule excretion and stenosis is not verified, colonoscopy can be carried out, but with caution.

When to Perform a Colonoscopy in Diverticular Disease and Why: A Personalized Approach

Colonoscopy is a crucial diagnostic tool in managing diverticular disease (DD). Diverticulosis can often be an unexpected diagnosis when colonoscopy is performed in asymptomatic subjects, generally for colorectal cancer screening, or it could reveal an endoscopic picture compatible with DD, including acute diverticulitis, in patients suffering from abdominal pain or rectal bleeding. However, alongside its role in the differential diagnosis of colonic diseases, particularly with colon cancer after an episode of acute diverticulitis or segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis, the most promising use of colonoscopy in patients with DD is represented by its prognostic role when the DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) classification is applied. Finally, colonoscopy plays a crucial role in managing diverticular bleeding, and it could sometimes be used to resolve other complications, particularly as a bridge to surgery. This article aims to summarize “when” to safely perform a colonoscopy in the different DD settings and “why”.

Minimal water exchange by the air-water valve versus left colon water exchange in unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Water exchange colonoscopy is the least painful method for unsedated colonoscopies. Simplified left colon water exchange (LWE) reduces the cecal intubation time but it is difficult to avoid the use of an additional pump. Minimal water exchange (MWE) is an improved novel method that eliminates the need for pumps, but it is not clear whether MWE has the same efficiency as LWE.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted in a tertiary hospital. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 to the LWE group or MWE group. The primary outcome was recalled insertion pain measured by a 4-point verbal rating scale. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation time, volume of water used, and patient willingness to repeat unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

226 patients were included (LWE n = 113, MWE n = 113). The MWE method showed noninferior moderate/severe pain rates compared with the LWE method (10.6 % vs. 9.7 %), with a difference of 0.9 percentage points (99 % confidence interval [CI] -9.5 to 11.3; threshold, 15 %). ADR, cecal intubation time, and willingness to repeat unsedated colonoscopy were not significantly different between the two groups, but the mean volume of water used was significantly less with MWE than with LWE (163.7 mL vs. 407.2 mL; 99 %CI -298.28 to -188.69).

CONCLUSION

Compared with LWE, MWE demonstrated a noninferior outcome for insertion pain, and comparable cecal intubation time and ADR, but reduced the volume of water used and eliminated the need for a water pump.

Practical considerations for colorectal cancer screening in older adults

Recent guidelines recommend that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening after age 75 be considered on an individualized basis, and discourage screening for people over 85 due to competing causes of mortality. Given the heterogeneity in the health of older individuals, and lack of data within current guidelines for personalized CRC screening approaches, there remains a need for a clearer framework to inform clinical decision-making. A revision of the current approach to CRC screening in older adults is even more compelling given the improvements in CRC treatment, post-treatment survival, and increasing life expectancy in the population. In this review, we aim to examine the personalization of CRC screening cessation based on specific factors influencing life and health expectancy such as comorbidity, frailty, and cognitive status. We will also review screening modalities and endoscopic technique for minimizing risk, the risks of screening unique to older adults, and CRC treatment outcomes in older patients, in order to provide important information to aid CRC screening decisions for this age group. This review article offers a unique approach to this topic from both the gastroenterologist and geriatrician perspective by reviewing the use of specific clinical assessment tools, and addressing technical aspects of screening colonoscopy and periprocedural management to mitigate screening-related complications.

Feasibility of salvage colonoscopy by water exchange for failed air-insufflated patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A complete colonoscopy is crucial for screening colorectal diseases and colorectal cancer. However, a failure rate of up to 43% still exists. Several studies have indicated that the water exchange method can enhance the cecal intubation rate while reducing discomfort of the patient. Water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) might be a salvage treatment for the patients who failed from air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC). We aimed to assess the feasibility of WEC as a salvage measure following the failure of conventional AIC.

METHODS

Patients willing to undergo unsedated colonoscopy at a tertiary-care referral center in China were randomly assigned 1:1 to WEC or AIC group for salvage after the initial AIC attempt failed. Patients were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was cecal intubation rate, the secondary outcomes included time to the cecum, maximum pain scores, and technical difficulty level.

RESULTS

Recruited 104 patients were randomized to the WEC (n = 52) or AIC (n = 52) group. WEC significantly increased the cecal intubation rate (92.3% vs 73.1%; p = .02). The maximum pain scores and technical difficulty level in the WEC group were significantly lower than the AIC group during salvage procedure (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized, controlled trial confirms that the WEC significantly enhanced cecal intubation rate in difficult colonoscopy in unsedated patients after the failure of standard AIC. The increased cecal intubation rate, lower pain scores and technical difficulty level suggest WEC is a good alternative for incomplete unsedated colonoscopy. Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100051483.

Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of water-assisted colonoscopy is well established, the role of water immersion sigmoidoscopy (WIS) remains unclear. We compared WIS with carbon dioxide insufflation sigmoidoscopy (CO₂S) on patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a single-center quality improvement program about patients undergoing unsedated screening sigmoidoscopy (WIS and CO₂S) between May 2019 and January 2020. Outcomes studied included the following: Rates of severe pain <17% (score of ≥7 on a numeric rating scale of 0-10, and on a Likert scale), willingness to repeat the procedure without sedation, adequate bowel cleanliness >75% (proportion of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score: 2-3) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

In total, 234 patients (111 WIS; 123 CO₂S) were included. All patients were aged 58 years and 58.9% were female; baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of severe pain (WIS: 16.5%, CO₂S: 13.8%; P = 0.586), willingness to repeat the unsedated procedure (WIS: 82.3%, CO₂S: 84.5%; P = 0.713), adequate bowel cleanliness (WIS: 78.4%, CO₂S: 78%, P = 0.999) or ADR (WIS: 25.2%, CO₂S: 16.3%; P = 0.106) between groups. However, average procedure times were longer with WIS (9.06 min) compared to CO₂S (6.45 min; P < 0.001). Overall, 29.6% of women reported that they would repeat sigmoidoscopy only if sedated.

CONCLUSIONS

WIS does not ameliorate tolerance to and quality of sigmoidoscopy screening measured by several scores. When offered a choice, the women's willingness to repeat WIS or CO₂S without sedation was poor and raises concern on the opportunity of screening sigmoidoscopy without sedation in these subjects.

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age.

METHODS

Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Colonoscopy-related colonic ischemia

Colonoscopy is a risk factor for colon ischemia. The colon is susceptible to ischemia due to its minor blood flow compared to other abdominal organs; the etiology of colon ischemia after colonoscopy is multifactorial. The causative mechanisms include splanchnic circulation impairment, bowel preparation, drugs used for sedation, bowel wall ischemia due to insufflation/barotrauma, and introduction of the endoscope. Gastroenterologists must be aware of this condition and its risk factors for risk minimization, early diagnosis, and proper treatment.

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR.

METHODS

Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements.

RESULTS

In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Comparing endoscopic interventions to improve serrated adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Serrated lesions (sessile serrated adenomas/polyps and traditional serrated adenomas) owing to their subtle appearance and proximal location have a high miss rate. The objective of this study is to compare all the available endoscopic interventions for improving serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR) through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the available literature (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and WoS) from inception to 29 November 2019 to identify all the relevant randomized controlled trials. A total of 28 trials with 22 830 patients were included. The studies compared the efficacy of add-on devices (endocap, endocuff, endocuff vision, G-EYE, endorings, AmplifEYE), electronic chromoendoscopy (linked-color imaging, blue laser imaging, narrow band imaging), dye-based chromoendoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) and water-based techniques (WBT) with each other or high-definition colonoscopy. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P-values were calculated.

RESULTS

Direct meta-analysis demonstrated superiority for WBT (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.01-1.98), add-on devices (RR: 1.53, CI: 1.13-2.08), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.93, CI: 1.12-3.32) and endocuff vision (RR: 1.87, CI: 1.13-3.11) compared to high-definition colonoscopy. The results were consistent on network meta-analysis with chromoendoscopy as an additional modality for improving SADR (RR: 1.74, CI: 1.03-2.93).

CONCLUSION

In a network meta-analysis, add-on devices (particularly endocuff vision), narrow band imaging, WBT and chromoendoscopy were comparable to each other and improved SADR compared to high-definition colonoscopy.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

Underwater polypectomy without submucosal injection for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in size-a multicenter retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Underwater polypectomy (UWP) of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal lesions is well described, but reports of UWP for lesions ≤ 20 mm in size, which account for > 95% of polyps encountered in routine clinical practice, are limited. We assessed the feasibility of UWP in routine practice across various sites for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in size.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study was performed on pooled data from nine colonoscopists at 3 U.S., 1 Taiwanese and 2 Italian sites. Outcomes related to UWP on lesions ≤ 20 mm in size were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 117 patients, UWP netted 169 lesions. Polypectomy by hot (HSP, 54%) or cold (CSP, 41%) snare, and cold forceps (CFP, 5%) were performed successfully without endoscopic evidence of residual neoplasia or immediate clinically significant adverse events. The majority (74.6%) were tubular adenomas; 60.9% were from the proximal colon. Histopathologic margins were positive in 4 and unavailable in 26 CSP and 24 HSP specimens. The remainder had negative resection margins on pathologic reports.

CONCLUSION

UWP for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in routine practice across multiple sites confirms the feasibility and acceptability of this technique. Improvement of resection outcomes by UWP in routine practice deserves further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

Diagnostic application of water exchange colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Few well-designed studies have investigated water exchange colonoscopy (WE). We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility of WE based on high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the impacts of WE, water immersion colonoscopy (WI), and gas-insufflation colonoscopy.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang Data for RCTs on WE. We analyzed the results using fixed- or random-effect models according to the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.

Results

Thirteen studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The colonoscopic techniques included WE as the study group, and WI and air- or CO₂-insufflation colonoscopy as control groups. WE was significantly superior to the control procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, and cecal intubation rate according to odds ratios. WE was also significantly better in terms of maximal pain score and patient satisfaction score according to mean difference.

Conclusions

WE can remarkably improve the adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, patient satisfaction, and cecal intubation rate, as well as reducing the maximal pain score in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on endoscopy room efficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Separate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed water exchange (WE) colonoscopy outperformed other techniques in minimizing insertion pain and optimizing adenoma detection rate. Longer insertion time required for removal of infused water, residual air, and feces might have hampered its wider adoption. We evaluate the impact of WE compared with air or carbon dioxide insufflation (GAS) on room turnaround efficiency measured by cecal intubation, withdrawal, and total procedure times.

METHODS

With a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, we identified RCTs (published before March 18, 2018) that compared WE with GAS. We focused on parameters of turnaround efficiency and patient-centered outcomes.

RESULTS

We analyzed 8371 subjects from 17 studies. Demographics and indications were comparable. Mean cecal intubation time (± standard deviation) was WE 12.5 ± 6.1 minutes versus GAS 11.1 ± 7.0 minutes, with a mean difference of 1.4 ± 3.4 minutes. Six studies showed significant differences in insertion time, with mean cecal intubation times of 11.6 ± 5.1 minutes for WE versus 7.7 ± 5.2 minutes for GAS, with a mean difference of 3.9 ± 1.1 minutes. Mean withdrawal time was similar. Mean total procedure time was WE 26.0 ± 9.7 versus GAS 24.2 ± 9.6, with a mean difference of 1.8 ± 6.2 minutes. All mean procedure times were significantly different. Patient-centered outcomes revealed that patients examined with WE had significantly lower real-time insertion pain score, less need for sedation, and higher willingness to repeat the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on parameters of procedural time, the impact of WE colonoscopy on endoscopy room turnaround yields an increase in total procedure time of about 2 minutes and is associated with significant improvement in specific patient-centered outcomes.

Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO₂) insufflation colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO₂ and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication).

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO₂ (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.

Is water exchange superior to water immersion for colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/Aims

Recently, water exchange (WE) instead of water immersion (WI) for colonoscopy has been proposed to decrease pain and improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to assess whether WE is superior to WI based on the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Materials and Methods

We searched studies from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Only RCTs were eligible for our study. The pooled risk ratios (RRs), pooled mean difference (MD), and pooled 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model based on heterogeneity.

Results

Five RCTs consisting of 2229 colonoscopies were included in this study. WE was associated with a significantly higher ADR than WI (RR = 1.18; CI = 1.05-1.32; P = 0.004), especially in right colon (RR = 1.31; CI = 1.07-1.61; P = 0.01). Compared with WI, WE was confirmed with lower pain score, higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, but more infused water during insertion. There was no statistical difference between WE and WI in cecal intubation rate and the number of patients who had willingness to repeat the examination. Furthermore, both total procedure time and cecal intubation time in WE were significantly longer than that in WI (MD = 2.66; CI = 1.42-3.90; P < 0.0001; vs MD = 4.58; CI = 4.01-5.15; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in improving ADR, attenuating insertion pain and providing better bowel cleansing, but inferior in time and consumption of infused water consumption during insertion.

Is water exchange superior to water immersion in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies? Results from a Bayesian network meta-analysis

AIM

Water-assisted colonoscopy (water exchange [WE] and water immersion [WI]) has been shown to improve the adenoma detection rate. However, few studies have compared these two methods head-to-head. Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis to integrate both direct and indirect evidence comparing the effectiveness of these two procedures.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for original papers and abstracts published up to March 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data in accordance with the eligibility criteria were included in this study. We performed a Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (n = 11464 patients) including 6 direct and 23 indirect comparisons were included in this network meta-analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in the efficacy of adenoma detection when WE was compared with WI (risk ratio [RR]: 1.2, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.1-1.3), air insufflation (AI; RR: 1.3, 95% CrI: 1.1-1.4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (RR: 1.2, 95% CrI: 1.1-1.5). The different methods were ranked in order from the most to least effective in adenoma detection as follows: WE, WI, AI, and CO2. Moreover, although there were no significant differences in pain scores, willingness to repeat, caecal intubation rate, or total procedure time between WI and WE colonoscopy, WE required a longer caecal intubation time than WI.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis supposes that WE may be superior to WI in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies without affecting other technical features or patient acceptance.

Do we really need an anesthesiologist for routine colonoscopy in American Society of Anesthesiologist 1 and 2 patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In an era where healthcare costs are being heavily scrutinized, every expenditure is reviewed for medical necessity. Multiple national gastroenterology societies have issued statements regarding whether an anesthesiologist is necessary for routine colonoscopies in American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) 1 and 2 patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large percentage of patients are undergoing screening colonoscopy without any sedation at all, which would not require an independent practitioner to administer medications. Advances in technique and technology are making colonoscopies less stimulating. Advantages to administering sedation, including propofol, have been seen even when not administered under the direction of an anesthesiologist and complications seem to be rare. The additional cost of having monitored anesthesia care appears to be a driving factor in whether a patient receives it or not.

SUMMARY

A large multiinstitutional randomized control trial would be necessary to rule out potential confounders and to determine whether there is a safety benefit or detriment to having anesthesiologist-directed care in the setting of routine colonoscopies in ASA 1 and 2 patients. Further discussion would be necessary regarding what the monetary value of that effect is if a small difference were to be detected.

Pediatric Colonoscopy: The Changing Patterns and Single Institutional Experience Over a Decade

The safety and effectiveness of pediatric colonoscopy for lower gastrointestinal tract diseases have been established in Korea for about 30 years. Both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies have had many advances in terms of operator skill and experience and are now being performed by most pediatric gastroenterologists. Pediatric colonoscopy is different in many aspects from that of adults, such as expected diagnoses, patient management, bowel preparation, selection criteria for sedation, and instrument selection. In this review, the author presents practical information on pediatric colonoscopy, the author's experiences, and the changes in colonoscopy practices over a decade in a tertiary hospital in Korea.

Can Water Exchange Improve Patient Tolerance in Unsedated Colonoscopy A Prospective Comparative Study

Background & Aims

Unsedated colonoscopy can be painful, poorly tolerated by patients, and associated with unsatisfactory technical performance. Previous studies report an advantage of water exchange over conventional air insufflation in reducing pain during unsedated colonoscopy. Our goal was to analyze the impact of water exchange colonoscopy on the level of maximum pain reported by patients submitted to unsedated colonoscopy, compared to conventional air insufflation.

Methods

We performed a single-center, patient-blinded, prospective randomized comparative study, where patients were either allocated to the water group, in which the method of colonoscopy used was water exchange, or the standard air group, in which the examination was accomplished with air insufflation.

Results

A total of 141 patients were randomized, 70 to the water and 71 to the air group. The maximum level of pain reported by patients during unsedated colonoscopy, measured by a numeric scale of pain (0-10), was significantly lower in the water group (3.39 ± 2.32), compared to the air group (4.94 ± 2.10), p < 0.001. The rate of painless colonoscopy was significantly higher in the water group (12.9 vs. 1.4%, p = 0.009). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding indications for the procedure, quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, number of position changes, adenoma detection rate, and postprocedural complications. Only the number of abdominal compressions was significantly different, showing that water exchange decreases the number of compressions needed during colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Water exchange was a safe and equally effective alternative to conventional unsedated colonoscopy, associated with less intraprocedural pain without impairing key performance measures.