Involvement of trainees in routine unsedated colonoscopy: review of a pilot experience

Variability in cecal intubation rate by calculation method: a call for standardization of key performance indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) is a widely accepted key performance indicator (KPI) in colonoscopy but lacks a universal calculation method. We aimed to assess whether differences in CIR calculation methods could have an impact on perceived trainee outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of CIR calculation methods was conducted on major societal guidelines (United Kingdom, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ASGE]) and trainee-inclusive studies. Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between June 2011 and 2016 were identified from the United Kingdom e-portfolio and selected as a validation cohort. For each trainee, both the crude and unassisted CIR were calculated for 50 post-certification procedures using definitions from the 3 international guidelines. The resulting CIRs, and the proportions of endoscopists failing to meet the minimum standard of CIR ≥90%, were then compared across these definitions.

RESULTS

Across the 3 guidelines and 37 eligible studies identified, differences in CIR calculation methodology were demonstrated. These related to adjustment criteria (18 studies) and whether unassisted CIR was stipulated (18 studies). In the validation cohort of 733 trainees (36,650 procedures), the median crude CIR ranged from 96% (ESGE) to 98% (ASGE) (P < .001) and whether unassisted CIR was specified (ESGE, 94%; ASGE, 96%; P < .001). The proportion of trainees failing to achieve CIR ≥90% varied significantly across the different definitions, from 4.9% for the crude ASGE definition to 18.6% for the unassisted ESGE definition (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CIR calculation methods vary among guidelines and research studies; this has an impact on trainee performance measures. With CIR used as an example, this study highlights the need for standardized definitions and calculations of KPIs in endoscopy.

Sedated vs unsedated colonoscopy: A prospective study

AIM: To compare sedated to unsedated colonoscopy in terms of duration, pain and the patient’s willingness to repeat the procedure.

METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopies over a 2-year period were invited to participate. All patients who were to undergo our endoscopy unit were offered sedation with standard intravenous sedatives and analgesics, or an unsedated colonoscopy was attempted. Demographic details were recorded. The patient anxiety level prior to the procedure, time to reach the cecum, total discharge time, patient and endoscopist pain assessments, satisfaction after the examination and the patient’s willingness to return for the same procedure in the future were recorded.

RESULTS: Among the 403 observed patients, more males were observed in the unsedated group (66.2% vs 55.2%, P = 0.04). Additionally, the unsedated group patients were less anxious prior to the procedure (5.1 vs 6.0, P < 0.01). The colonoscopy completion rates were comparable between the 2 groups (85.9% vs 84.2%, P = 0.66). The time to reach the cecum was also comparable (12.2 min vs 11.8 min); however, the total discharge times were shorter in the unsedated group (20.7 min vs 83.0 min, P < 0.01). Moreover, the average patient pain score (3.4 vs 5.7, P < 0.01) was lower in the sedated group, while the satisfaction score (8.8 vs 7.8, P < 0.01) was significantly higher. There was no significant difference, however, between the groups in terms of willingness to repeat the procedure if another was required in the future (83.3% vs 77.3%, P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION: Unsedated colonoscopy is feasible in willing patients. The option saves the endoscopy units up to one hour per patient and does not affect the patient willingness to return to the same physician again for additional colonoscopies if a repeated procedure is needed.

Effect of propofol anesthesia on force application during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Sedation is frequently used during colonoscopy to control patient discomfort and pain. Propofol is associated with a deeper level of sedation than is a combination of a narcotic and sedative hypnotic and, therefore, may be associated with an increase in force applied to the colonoscope to advance and withdraw the instrument.

OBJECTIVE

To compare force application to the colonoscope insertion tube during propofol anesthesia and moderate sedation.

DESIGN

An observational cohort study of 13 expert and 12 trainee endoscopists performing colonoscopy in 114 patients. Forces were measured by using the colonoscopy force monitor, which is a wireless, handheld device that attaches to the insertion tube of the colonoscope.

SETTING

Community ambulatory surgery center and academic gastroenterology training programs.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing routine screening or diagnostic colonoscopy with complete segment force recordings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Axial and radial forces and examination time.

RESULTS

Axial and radial forces increase and examination time decreases significantly when propofol is used as the method of anesthesia.

LIMITATIONS

Small study, observational design, nonrandomized distribution of sedation type and experience level, different instrument type and effect of prototype device on insertion tube manipulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation is associated with a decrease in examination time and an increase in axial and radial forces used to advance the 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-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

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

Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for large bowel disease. With the increase in demand, pressure is on clinics to shorten lengths of time per procedure in addition to maintaining high levels of patient safety. Analgesia has always been the mainstay of adequate pain relief, but it leads to prolonged recovery and lengths of hospital stay, in addition to increased risk of cardio-respiratory side effects. N2O/O2 mixtures have been used for its effective analgesic effect and short half life and provides an alternative method of sedation for colonoscopy procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the overall effectiveness of nitrous oxide mixtures to other types of pain relief used during colonoscopy procedures to provide adequate pain/discomfort relief.The secondary objective was to compare between nitrous oxide and other types of pain relief with respect to hospitalisation/recovery time, side effects, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, and colonoscopy completion rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966- present), EMBASE (1980 - present), and the Internet (Google Scholar).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared nitrous oxide to placebo or active comparators for patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. Patients with known underlying causes of pain/discomfort were excluded. 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised trials were included. Each trial compared a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture to a placebo or sedation +- other analgesic drugs on patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. The results of these studies were analysed and discussed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of 547 patients included.There were 257 patients randomised to receive the N2O/O2 mixture (7 studies), while 225 patients received some form of sedation with or without other analgesia (6 studies), and 65 patients received a placebo (3 studies).Four studies showed that N2O/O2 is as good in controlling pain/discomfort as conventional methods, while one showed sedation was better and another study showed N2O/O2 was better.Six of the studies showed that N2O/O2 groups had quicker recovery times and shorter lengths of hospital stays while one study showed that there was no difference between the two groups.Two studies showed that N2O/O2 was safer while one reported that sedation was safer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nitrous oxide is as efficient and safer than various pain relief methods used during colonoscopy procedures, but further trials are necessary.

Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for large bowel disease. With the increase in demand, pressure is on clinics to shorten lengths of time per procedure in addition to maintaining high levels of patient safety. Analgesia has always been the mainstay of adequate pain relief, but it leads to prolonged recovery and lengths of hospital stay, in addition to increased risk of cardio-respiratory side effects. N2O/O2 mixtures have been used for its effective analgesic effect and short half life and provides an alternative method of sedation for colonoscopy procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the overall effectiveness of nitrous oxide mixtures to other types of pain relief used during colonoscopy procedures to provide adequate pain/discomfort relief.The secondary objective was to compare between nitrous oxide and other types of pain relief with respect to hospitalisation/recovery time, side effects, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, and colonoscopy completion rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966- present), EMBASE (1980 - present), and the Internet (Google Scholar).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared nitrous oxide to placebo or active comparators for patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. Patients with known underlying causes of pain/discomfort were excluded. 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised trials were included. Each trial compared a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture to a placebo or sedation +- other analgesic drugs on patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. The results of these studies were analysed and discussed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of 547 patients included.There were 257 patients randomised to receive the N2O/O2 mixture (7 studies), while 225 patients received some form of sedation with or without other analgesia (6 studies), and 65 patients received a placebo (3 studies).Four studies showed that N2O/O2 is as good in controlling pain/discomfort as conventional methods, while one showed sedation was better and another study showed N2O/O2 was better.Six of the studies showed that N2O/O2 groups had quicker recovery times and shorter lengths of hospital stays while one study showed that there was no difference between the two groups.Two studies showed that N2O/O2 was safer while one reported that sedation was safer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nitrous oxide is as efficient and safer than various pain relief methods used during colonoscopy procedures, but further trials are necessary.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.).

Unsedated colonoscopy: is it feasible?

Unsedated colonoscopy has been an evolving subject ever since its initial description four decades ago. Failure in unsedated diagnostic cases due to patient pain led to the introduction of sedation. Extension to screening cases, albeit logical, created a sedation-related barrier to colonoscopy screening. In recent years a water method has been developed to combat the pain during unsedated colonoscopy in the US. In randomized controlled trials the water method decreases pain, increases cecal intubation success, and enhances the proportion of patients who complete unsedated colonoscopy. The salvage cleansing of suboptimal bowel preparation by the water method serendipitously may have increased the detection of adenoma in both unsedated and sedated patients. The state-of-the-art lecture concludes that unsedated colonoscopy is feasible. The hypothesis is that recent advances, such as the development of the water method, may contribute to reviving unsedated colonoscopy as a potentially attractive option for colon cancer screening and deserves to be tested.

Is there a place for sedationless colonoscopy?

Usedated colonoscopy is routinely available in many parts of the world. In the US, only educated professionals appear to be knowledgeable enough to request the unsedated option. Colonoscopists have also been willing to perform unsedated colonoscopy when a patient presents without an escort after undergoing bowel purge preparation. While the actual side-effects of sedation are minimal, the escort requirement and time burden of sedation are barriers to the uptake of screening colonoscopy in the US. The recent trend of deep sedation with propofol for screening colonoscopy increases the efficiency of the colonoscopists at significant costs (e.g. anesthetist reimbursement). The options of as needed and on demand sedation permit patients to complete colonoscopy without sedation. The latter appears to be potentially less coercive. Nurses with experience in the unsedated options recognize the benefit of the quick turn-around of the examination room and shortened occupancy of the recovery area. Discharge planning can be optimized due to absence of amnesia. Patients completing unsedated colonoscopy have given their endorsement of the options. Pain and discomfort continue to limit the success rate of cecal intubation to about 80%. A recently described water method (warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation combined with removal of all residual colonic air by suction and residual feces by water exchange) has the potential of decreasing procedural discomfort and enhancing cecal intubation in unsedated colonoscopy. The availability of the novel water method assures colonoscopists that high success rate of cecal intubation can be achieved in the unsedated patients.

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).

Sedation-risk-free colonoscopy for minimizing the burden of colorectal cancer screening

Unsedated colonoscopy is available worldwide, but is not a routine option in the United States (US). We conducted a literature review supplemented by our experience and expert commentaries to provide data to support the use of unsedated colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Medline data from 1966 to 2009 were searched to identify relevant articles on the subject. Data were summarized and co-authors provided critiques as well as accounts of unsedated colonoscopy for screening and surveillance. Diagnostic colonoscopy was initially developed as an unsedated procedure. Procedure-related discomfort led to wide adoption of sedation in the US, although unsedated colonoscopy remains the usual practice elsewhere. The increased use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in healthy, asymptomatic individuals suggests a reassessment of the burden of sedation in colonoscopy for screening is appropriate in the US for lowering costs and minimizing complications for patients. A water method developed to minimize discomfort has shown promise to enhance outcomes of unsedated colonoscopy. The use of scheduled, unsedated colonoscopy in the US appears to be feasible for colorectal cancer screening. Studies to assess its applicability in diverse practice settings deserve to be conducted and supported.

A prospective evaluation of the feasibility of primary screening with unsedated colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the most effective screening tool for colorectal cancer. In Taiwan, colonoscopy is used much less than sigmoidoscopy for screening because sedation significantly increases the cost and is not readily available, and unsedated colonoscopy is considered to be poorly tolerated. However, unsedated colonoscopy has been shown to be well accepted and may improve the cost-effectiveness and access to colonoscopic screening.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the feasibility of unsedated colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy for primary screening and to analyze factors associated with acceptance of the procedures and need for sedation.

DESIGN

Single center, prospective.

SETTING

National Taiwan University Medical Center. POPULATION AND INTERVENTIONS: A consecutive series of 261 subjects without history of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy who underwent unsedated colonoscopy (n = 176) or sigmoidoscopy (n = 85) for primary screening.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Pain scores, acceptance, and need for sedation.

RESULTS

No significant differences in pain, acceptance, and need for sedation were found between the colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy groups. Only 9.6% in the colonoscopy group and 10.1% in the sigmoidoscopy group considered sedation necessary. Multivariate analyses revealed that the examinee's sex and the endoscopist, but not the type of endoscopic examination, were associated with the severity of pain and need for sedation.

LIMITATIONS

Nonrandomized study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsedated colonoscopy for primary screening is well accepted in nine tenths of examinees who accept this option and is similar to sigmoidoscopy in pain, acceptance, and need for sedation. Primary screening with unsedated colonoscopy is feasible, as with sigmoidoscopy.

Pilot feasibility study of the method of water infusion without air insufflation in sedated colonoscopy

One study in sedated patients demonstrated a reduction in pain score but not midazolam dosage when warm water infusion was used to manage colonic spasm. We describe pilot data with a modified warm water infusion technique. We tested the hypothesis that patients receiving even only half of the usual dose of sedation medications would have acceptable cecal intubation and tolerate the procedure well, based on retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Group 1 included 32 consecutive patients who received full-dose and group 2 included 43 consecutive patients who received half-dose premedication. Insertion of colonoscope was aided by warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation. Pain scores during insertion, cecal intubation rate, and total amount of medications were monitored. The novel technique permitted equal cecal intubation rate at reduced total dose of medications. Pain scores were not significantly different. The uncontrolled nonrandomized observational nature of the data is one limitation. The nonsignificant difference in pain scores may be affected by a type II error. These pilot data suggest that insertion is feasible without air when water infusion is used. The novel technique may be a useful adjunct for minimizing the dosage of sedation medications without adversely affecting cecal intubation. Further study is needed to compare air insufflation and water infusion with regard to patient tolerance and success, particularly in the presence of an on-demand sedation policy.

A randomized, controlled comparison of warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation versus air insufflation for aiding colonoscopy insertion in sedated patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening and surveillance

BACKGROUND

Pilot studies using a novel water method to perform screening colonoscopy allowed patients to complete colonoscopy without sedation medications and also significantly increased the cecal intubation success rate.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a randomized, controlled trial comparing air insufflation (conventional method) and water infusion in lieu of air insufflation (study method) colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients.

HYPOTHESIS

Compared with the conventional method, patients examined by the study method had lower pain scores and required less medication but had a similar cecal intubation rate and willingness to undergo colonoscopy in the future.

SETTING

Outpatient colonoscopy in a single Veterans Affairs hospital.

METHODS

After informed consent and standard bowel preparation, patients received premedications administered as 0.5-increments of fentanyl (25 microg) and 0.5-increments of Versed (midazolam) (1 mg) plus 50 mg of diphenhydramine. The conventional and the study methods for colonoscopy were implemented as previously described. Additional pain medications were administered at the patients' request.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Increments of medications, pain scores, cecal intubation, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Increments of medications used before reaching the cecum (1.6 +/- 0.2 vs 2.4 +/- 0.2, P < .0027), total increments used (1.8 +/- 0.2 vs 2.5 +/- 0.2, P < .014), and the maximum pain scores (1.3 +/- 0.3 vs 4.1 +/- 0.6, P < .0002) were significantly lower with the water method. Cecal intubation rate (100%) and willingness to undergo a repeat colonoscopy (96%) were similar.

LIMITATIONS

Single Veterans Affairs hospital, older male population.

CONCLUSION

Water infusion in lieu of air insufflation is superior to air insufflation during colonoscopy in the minimally sedated patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00785889).

Impact of a novel water method on scheduled unsedated colonoscopy in U.S. veterans

BACKGROUND

Intermittent warm-water infusion in lieu of air insufflation permitted 52% of patients who accepted sedation on demand to complete colonoscopy without sedation.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that the water method enhances cecal intubation and increases the proportion of patients who report willingness to repeat a scheduled unsedated colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Observational study.

PATIENTS

Two consecutive groups of veterans.

INTERVENTIONS

From June 2005 to May 2006, the usual air insufflation method was used to aid colonoscope insertion. From June 2006 to October 2007, the water method was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Cecal intubation; report of willingness to repeat unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Sixty-two and 63 veterans were examined by the air method and the water method, respectively. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the cecal intubation rate with the water method (97% [61/63]) was significantly higher than that with the air method (76% [47/62]). The proportion of patients who reported willingness to repeat unsedated colonoscopy was significantly higher with the water method (90% [57/63]) compared with the air method (69% [43/62]).

LIMITATIONS

Single site, nonrandomized, unblinded, small number of elderly male veterans.

CONCLUSION

The effects of the water method in the group for scheduled unsedated colonoscopy were sufficiently provocative to warrant calling for their confirmation by a randomized controlled trial.

Promoting informed choice of unsedated colonoscopy: patient-centered care for a subgroup of US Veterans

BACKGROUND

In the United States, colonoscopy is usually performed under sedation. In practice, 2.3-7% actually requested unsedated colonoscopy and 1.4% received it because of no escorts. Efforts to increase usage would likely require increased patient counseling and education.

AIM

We tested the hypothesis that knowledge conveyed by education-a key attribute of patient-centered care-is associated with acceptance of the "non-usual" option.

METHODS

After patients underwent discussions and expressed acceptance of sedated colonoscopy, the pros and cons of and local experience with unsedated colonoscopy were added. The patients who changed from accepting sedated to unsedated colonoscopy and outcomes of their examinations were recorded.

RESULTS

From January to November 2006, 49 of 176 consecutive patients (28%) changed their choice from sedated to unsedated colonoscopy after being informed of the latter. Forty-eight had satisfactory bowel preparation. Cecal intubation rate was 93.7% (45 of 48). Thirty-six reported good experience and 43, likely to repeat. Cecal intubation, withdrawal, and discharge times were 23.0 +/- 1.4 min, 15.0 +/- 1.0 min, and 5.0 +/- 0.5 min, respectively (n = 45). Ability to communicate with the colonoscopist during and after the examination was the most frequently ranked reason for choosing unsedated colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Our uncontrolled, non-randomized, single-site observational data revealed that for selected veterans, acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy coincides with knowledge of the option dispensed by patient counseling and education.

Unsedated colonoscopy introduced to ensure access is acceptable to a subgroup of veterans

BACKGROUND

Nurses for monitoring and recovery are required for sedated colonoscopy. A nursing shortage necessitated discontinuation of sedated colonoscopy at a VA academic training program.

AIM

Elements of a case series that documented acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy are reviewed to raise awareness of the feasibility of this option.

METHOD

The pros and cons of sedation and no sedation were summarized. After discussion, patients who chose the unsedated option were scheduled for examination locally while those who desired sedation were scheduled at another VA site. Colonoscopy was performed by supervised trainees.

RESULTS

From September 2002 to June 2005 scheduled unsedated colonoscopy was accepted by 145 of 483 veterans. Cecal intubation was achieved in 81%. Thus, of the cohort 30% had local access to and 24% completed unsedated colonoscopy. Implementation of unsedated colonoscopy obviated the need for two registered nurses previously required for sedated colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Unsedated colonoscopy offered as an option to ensure access was acceptable to a subgroup of our veteran patients. Implementation required less nursing resources. Techniques to enhance the cecal intubation rate of unsedated colonoscopy performed by supervised trainees deserves to be assessed in future studies.