The case of unsedated screening colonoscopy in the United States

A novel intubation discomfort score to predict painful unsedated colonoscopy

Pain during colonoscopy is a critical quality indicator and often a limiting factor for unsedated colonoscopy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with pain during colonoscopy and establish a model for predicting a painful colonoscopy.Patients aged 18 to 80 who underwent unsedated colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 2 tertiary endoscopic centers in China. The primary outcome was the rate of painful colonoscopy and then we identify high-risk factors associated with painful colonoscopy. A prediction model with an intubation discomfort score (IDS) was developed and validated.Totally 607 patients participated in this study, including 345 in the training cohort and 262 in the validation cohort. Body mass index (BMI) of <18.5 kg/m2 (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.09-4.37), constipation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.25-4.80), and anticipating moderate or severe pain (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.12-3.79) were identified as independent predictive factors for painful colonoscopy and used to develop the IDS (all P < .05). Patients with IDS ≥1 had increased insertion time [9.32(6.2-13.7)] minutes vs 6.87(5.1-10.4) minutes, P = .038) and decreased cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 99.6%, P = .044). Abdominal compression (48.4% vs 19.9%, P < .001) and position change (59.7% vs 32.1%, P < .001) were more frequently required in the group of patients with IDS ≥1. These results were externally validated in a validation cohort.The intubation discomfort score developed in this study was useful for predicting pain during colonoscopy, with IDS ≥1 indicating painful colonoscopy.

Endoscopy in the elderly: risks, benefits, and yield of common endoscopic procedures

There has been limited research examining the risks, benefits, and use of common endoscopic procedures in the elderly. Furthermore, gastroenterology training programs do not routinely incorporate elderly concerns when dealing with common gastrointestinal issues. There exists a broad array of endoscopic procedures with varying inherent risks that must be weighed with each elderly patient in mind. This article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of the most common procedures and indications for endoscopy including upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and deep enteroscopy.

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

BACKGROUND/AIM

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

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

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

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

The water method significantly enhances detection of diminutive lesions (adenoma and hyperplastic polyp combined) in the proximal colon in screening colonoscopy - data derived from two RCT in US veterans

PURPOSE: Emerging data indicate a colonoscopist-controlled method is needed to avoid missing proximal colon pre-malignant lesions. Screening colonoscopy does not prevent all proximal colon cancers. Even diminutive lesions in the proximal colon harbor dysplasia. In addition to adenomas (presumptive cancer precursors), recent proposals to reevaluate proximal colon hyperplastic polyps as serrated polyps which could be pre-malignant or harbingers of interval neoplasia dramatize the importance of attending to these lesions. The finding that the water method increased yield of proximal diminutive adenomas prompted assessment of the hypothesis that the water method increases yield of all proximal diminutive lesions (adenoma and hyperplastic polyp) in screening cases. METHODS: Two RCT assessed the water method with primary outcome of completion of unsedated colonoscopy when the option of scheduled, unsedated or sedation on demand was used. Diminutive (<10 mm) lesions proximal to the splenic flexure were tracked. RESULTS: In screening cases, 31% and 6% of the water and air group had at least one proximal diminutive lesion (p=0.0012). Regression analysis revealed withdrawal time, method and volume of water used were significant predictors of proximal diminutive lesions. Effect of the water method on detection of proximal diminutive lesions was independent of age, body mass index, endoscopist, sedation, cecal intubation rate, bowel cleanliness score on withdrawal and total procedure time. LIMITATION: Male subject predominance, analysis of secondary outcomes of pooled RCT data. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis that the water method effectively enhances proximal diminutive lesion detection in screening colonoscopy in diverse clinical settings should be tested.

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.

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).

Pain relief by applying transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a noninvasive alternative to traditional pain treatments. TENS has been studied in the past as a pain reduction modality in colonoscopy with limited success. Reviews and meta-analysis have shown that the inconclusive results of TENS may be due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and the difficulty in defining precise output parameters. The objective of this double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial was to investigate the pain-relieving effect of a new application of TENS in unsedated screening colonoscopy. Ninety patients undergoing unsedated screening colonoscopy were randomly allocated to one of three groups: a control group (n=30), a group to receive active TENS (n=30), or a group to receive placebo TENS (n=30). A visual analogue scale (VAS) and a five-point Likert scale were used to assess pain 5 min into the procedure and at the end of the procedure. The patient's bloating sensation during colonoscopy and the effect on the duration of the procedure were also evaluated. Throughout the procedure, the active TENS group experienced a VAS pain score reduction ≥50% compared to the placebo TENS group (P<0.001) and the control group (P<0.001). On the five-point Likert scale, there was also a significant reduction in pain score in the active TENS group compared to the placebo TENS and control groups (P=0.009). No significant differences were found between the study groups as to the bloating sensation and the duration of the procedure. We conclude that TENS can be used as a pain relief therapy in unsedated screening colonoscopy.

Clinical application of sedated gastrocolonoscopy versus conventional gastrocolonoscopy: an analysis of 1 800 cases

AIM: To compare the clinical costs, safety and comfortableness as well as the satisfaction degree among examinees and examiners between sedated gastrocolonoscopy and conventional gastrocolonoscopy.

METHODS: One thousand and eight hundred patients undergoing gastrocolonoscopy and 11 physicians conducting such examinations at either Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University or Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command from March 2009 to September 2009 were enrolled to fill out a questionnaire. Of all patients, 1 000 underwent conventional gastrocolonoscopy, and 800 underwent sedation gastrocolonoscopy.

RESULTS: The two groups of patients had significant differences in occupation, educational background, income level and the source of costs (all P < 0.01). There was no statistical difference in the number of patients intolerant of the examinations between the two groups (P > 0.05). Significant differences were also noted in the comfortableness and safety between the two groups (P < 0.01). Although there was no significant difference in patient's satisfaction degree between the two groups (P > 0.05), the physicians believed that conventional gastrocolonoscopy was safer than sedated gastrocolonoscopy.

CONCLUSION: Conventional gastrocolonoscopy is economic, effective and safe, and is accepted by the majority of patients. Though sedated gastrocolonoscopy is more comfortable and less painful, it has a higher price and risk. Therefore, sedated gastrocolonoscopy is suitable for patients who are unwilling to or cannot undergo conventional endoscopy. Patients who previously underwent colonoscopy prefer to accept sedated examination.

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.