1
|
Cadoni S, Ishaq S, Hassan C, Falt P, Fuccio L, Siau K, Leung JW, Anderson J, Binmoeller KF, Radaelli F, Rutter MD, Sugimoto S, Muhammad H, Bhandari P, Draganov PV, de Groen P, Wang AY, Yen AW, Hamerski C, Thorlacius H, Neumann H, Ramirez F, Mulder CJJ, Albéniz E, Amato A, Arai M, Bak A, Barret M, Bayupurnama P, Cheung R, Ching HL, Cohen H, Dolwani S, Friedland S, Harada H, Hsieh YH, Hayee B, Kuwai T, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V, Liggi M, Mizukami T, Mura D, Nylander D, Olafsson S, Paggi S, Pan Y, Parra-Blanco A, Ransford R, Rodriguez-Sanchez J, Senturk H, Suzuki N, Tseng CW, Uchima H, Uedo N, Leung FW. Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93:1411-1420.e18. [PMID: 33069706 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 10/08/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Cadoni
- CTO Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Iglesias, Italy
| | - Sauid Ishaq
- Russell Hall, Dept. of Gastroenterology, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rome, Italy
| | - Přemysl Falt
- University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic; Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
| | - Lorenzo Fuccio
- S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Bologna, Italy
| | - Keith Siau
- JAG Clinical Fellow, JAG, Royal College of Physicians, London, United Kingdom
| | - Joseph W Leung
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sacramento VA Medical Center and University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - John Anderson
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
| | - Kenneth F Binmoeller
- California Pacific Medical Center, Interventional Endoscopy Services, San Francisco, California, United States
| | | | - Matt D Rutter
- University Hospital North Tees NHS, Department of Gastroenterology, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom; Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
| | - Shinya Sugimoto
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Pradeep Bhandari
- Portsmouth University Hospital, Dept. of Gastroenterology, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
| | | | - Piet de Groen
- University of Minnesota, Division of Gastroenterology, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
| | - Andrew Y Wang
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
| | - Andrew W Yen
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sacramento VA Medical Center and University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - Chris Hamerski
- California Pacific Medical Center, Interventional Endoscopy Services, San Francisco, California, United States
| | - Henrik Thorlacius
- Lund University Surgery, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Helmut Neumann
- University Medical Center, Interventional Endoscopy Center, Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Mainz, Germany
| | | | - Chris J J Mulder
- VU University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eduardo Albéniz
- Gastroenterology Department, Endoscopy Unit, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Arnaldo Amato
- Ospedale Valduce, Gastroenterology Unit, Como, Italy
| | - Makoto Arai
- Chiba University, Gastroenterology Department, Chiba, Japan
| | - Adrian Bak
- University of British Columbia, Department of Medicine, Kelowna, Canada
| | | | - Putut Bayupurnama
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| | - Ramsey Cheung
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, VA Palo Alto, California, United States
| | - Hey-Long Ching
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Gastroenterology Department, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Hartley Cohen
- Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles Health Care System, Los Angeles, United States; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, United States
| | - Sunil Dolwani
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Shai Friedland
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, VA Palo Alto, California, United States
| | - Hideaki Harada
- Department of Gastroenterology, New Tokyo Hospital, Gastroenterology, Matsudo, Chiba, Japan
| | - Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Dalin Township, Taiwan
| | - Bu Hayee
- King's College Hospital NHS foundation Trust, Gastroenterology Department, London, United Kingdom
| | - Toshio Kuwai
- NHO Kure Medical Center and Chugoku Cancer Center, Gastroenterology Department, Kure, Japan
| | | | - Mauro Liggi
- ASSL Carbonia, Sirai Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Carbonia, Italy
| | - Takeshi Mizukami
- NHO Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Endoscopy Center, Yokosuka, Japan
| | - Donatella Mura
- ASSL Carbonia, Sirai Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Carbonia, Italy
| | - David Nylander
- Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, Gastroenterology Department, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Snorri Olafsson
- Telemark Hospital, Gastroenterology Department, Skien, Norway
| | - Silvia Paggi
- Ospedale Valduce, Gastroenterology Unit, Como, Italy
| | - Yanglin Pan
- Xijing Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, Xian, Republic of China
| | - Adolfo Parra-Blanco
- NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Department of Gastroenterology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Rupert Ransford
- Endoscopy Department Hereford County Hospital, Hereford, United Kingdom
| | | | - Hakan Senturk
- Bezmialem Vakif University Medicine Faculty, Department of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Noriko Suzuki
- Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Chih-Wei Tseng
- Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Dalin Township, Taiwan
| | - Hugo Uchima
- Hospital Germans Triasi i Pujol, Teknon Medical Center, Gastroenterology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Noriya Uedo
- Osaka International Cancer Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka, Japan
| | - Felix W Leung
- Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles Health Care System, Los Angeles, United States; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tseng CW, Koo M, Hsieh YH. Cecal intubation time between the use of one-channel and two-channel water exchange colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35:1562-1569. [PMID: 32203986 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Accepted: 03/16/2020] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Water exchange (WE) colonoscopy is the least painful insertion technique with high adenoma detection rate but requires a longer intubation time. In the published literature, some investigators used the instrument channel for both infusing and suctioning of water (one channel), while others use colonoscopes with an integrated water-jet channel specifically designed for infusing water (two channel). The aim of this study was to compare cecal intubation time between one-channel and two-channel WE. METHODS A total 120 patients undergoing colonoscopy from May 2017 to April 2019 at a regional hospital in southern Taiwan were randomized to either a two-channel group (n = 60) or a one-channel group (n = 60). The primary outcome was cecal intubation time. RESULTS The mean cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the two-channel group compared with the one-channel group (14.0 ± 4.0 vs 17.4 ± 6.7 min, P < 0.001). The two-channel group required less water infused during insertion (564.8 ± 232.4 vs 1213.3 ± 467.5 mL, P < 0.001) but achieved a significantly higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (8.4 ± 0.8 vs 7.5 ± 1.1, P < 0.001) than did the one-channel group. The adenoma detection rate was comparable in the two groups (50.0% vs 48.3%, P = 0.855). CONCLUSIONS In comparison with the one-channel WE, two-channel WE showed a shorter cecal intubation time, required less amount of water during insertion, and provided a better salvage cleansing effect. (NCT03279705).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chih-Wei Tseng
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan
| | - Malcolm Koo
- Graduate Institute of Long-term Care, Tzu Chi University of Science and Technology, Hualien City, Hualien, Taiwan.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University, Hualien City, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
GOALS To assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients. BACKGROUNDS Low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are linked to increased risk of interval cancer and related deaths. Compared with air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy, the method of water exchange (WE) significantly decreased insertion pain and increased ADR in unsedated patients. Deep sedation with propofol has been increasingly used in colonoscopy. One report suggested that WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients, but the factors associated with adenoma detection were not analyzed. STUDY Post hoc multiple logistic regression analyses were performed based on pooled data from 2 randomized controlled trials to assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients. RESULTS Propofol-sedated patients (n=510) were randomized to AI and WE. The baseline characteristics were comparable. Multiple logistic regression analyses show that age, withdrawal time, indications (screening vs. diagnostic), and WE were significantly and independently associated with higher ADR. WE had fewer patients with inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of <6. Despite a significantly shorter inspection time, WE had significantly higher overall ADR than AI, especially in those with adequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥6. Right colon ADR (17.5% vs. 10.5%), flat ADR (32.3% vs. 19.4%), combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR (13.1% vs. 7.4%) of WE were significantly higher than those of AI. CONCLUSIONS WE enhanced quality of colonoscopy in propofol-sedated patients by significantly improving colon cleanliness and overall ADR. Colonoscopists with patients under propofol sedation might consider evaluating WE method for performance improvement.
Collapse
|
4
|
Water Exchange Insertion Colonoscopy-How You Can Do It Too. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114:703-704. [PMID: 30829676 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
5
|
Cadoni S, Hassan C, Frazzoni L, Ishaq S, Leung FW. Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on endoscopy room efficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89:159-167.e13. [PMID: 30048649 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.07.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2018] [Accepted: 07/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Cadoni
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Iglesias, Italy
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Leonardo Frazzoni
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Sauid Ishaq
- Department of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom; Department of Health and Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Felix W Leung
- Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hills, California, USA; David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shi X, Tian D, Ye X, Wu Q, Pan Y, Yang Z, Fan D. Is water exchange superior to water immersion in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies? Results from a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2018; 9:30679-30693. [PMID: 30093978 PMCID: PMC6078142 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2018] [Accepted: 05/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Shi
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Dan Tian
- Office of Educational Administration, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Xiaofei Ye
- Department of Health Statistics, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Qiong Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Yanglin Pan
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Zhiping Yang
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Daiming Fan
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
The impact of water-aided methods on pain reduction and adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. ADVANCES IN DIGESTIVE MEDICINE 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/aid2.13067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
|
8
|
Chaubal A, Pandey V, Patel R, Poddar P, Phadke A, Ingle M, Sawant P. Difficult colonoscopy: air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation? Intest Res 2018; 16:299-305. [PMID: 29743844 PMCID: PMC5934604 DOI: 10.5217/ir.2018.16.2.299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2017] [Revised: 05/26/2017] [Accepted: 06/26/2017] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background/Aims This study aimed to compare tolerance to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation in patients with anticipated difficult colonoscopy (young, thin, obese individuals, and patients with prior abdominal surgery or irradiation). Methods Patients with body mass index (BMI) less than 18 kg/m2 or more than 30 kg/m2, or who had undergone previous abdominal or pelvic surgeries were randomized to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation during colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation with mild pain (less than 5 on visual analogue scale [VAS]), without use of sedation. Results The primary end point was achieved in 32.7%, 43.8%, and 84.9% of cases with air, carbon dioxide and water insufflation (P<0.001). The mean pain scores were 5.17, 4.72, and 3.93 on the VAS for air, carbon dioxide, and water insufflation (P<0.001). The cecal intubation rate or procedure time did not differ significantly between the 3 groups. Conclusions Water insufflation was superior to air or carbon dioxide for pain tolerance. This was seen in the subgroups with BMI <18 kg/m2 and the post-surgical group, but not in the group with BMI >30 kg/m2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alisha Chaubal
- Department of Gastroenterology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - Vikas Pandey
- Department of Gastroenterology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - Ruchir Patel
- Department of Gastroenterology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - Prateik Poddar
- Department of Gastroenterology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - Aniruddha Phadke
- Department of Gastroenterology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - Meghraj Ingle
- Department of Gastroenterology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India
| | - Prabha Sawant
- Department of Gastroenterology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, India
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Trindade AJ, Lichtenstein DR, Aslanian HR, Bhutani MS, Goodman A, Melson J, Navaneethan U, Pannala R, Parsi MA, Sethi A, Sullivan S, Thosani N, Trikudanathan G, Watson RR, Maple JT. Devices and methods to improve colonoscopy completion (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87:625-634. [PMID: 29454445 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2017] [Accepted: 12/22/2017] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
10
|
ARI A, BÜYÜKAŞIK K. Zorlu Kolonoskopi Uygulamalasında Su Yardımlı Kolonoskopi Yöntemi. MUSTAFA KEMAL ÜNIVERSITESI TIP DERGISI 2018. [DOI: 10.17944/mkutfd.375837] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|
11
|
Abstract
The correlation between a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval cancers (ICs) has made ADR one of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy. Data from nation-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs showed that there is room for improvement in ADR in order to reduce ICs in Taiwan. Measures with and without adjunct tools have been shown to have the potential to increase ADR, with the latter being more convenient to apply without additional cost. Optimal withdrawal techniques coupled with sufficient withdrawal time, training endoscopists with emphasis on recognition of subtle characteristics of flat lesions, dynamic position changes during the withdrawal phase, removing small polyps found during insertion, and retroflexion in the right colon have all been associated with increased ADR. In particular, water exchange (WE), which is characterized using water in lieu of air and suction removal of infused water during insertion, appears to meet the needs of colonoscopy patients in Taiwan. Analyses of both primary and secondary outcome variables of recently published studies have consistently shown that WE yields higher ADR than traditional air insufflation, even in propofol-sedated patients. Colonoscopists participating in the nationwide CRC screening program in Taiwan should consider applying one or more of the above measures to improve ADR and hopefully reduce ICs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Felix W Leung
- Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hill, CA, USA.,Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Sato K, Ito S, Kitagawa T, Hirahata K, Hihara D, Tominaga K, Yasuda I, Maetani I. A prospective randomized study of the use of an ultrathin colonoscope versus a pediatric colonoscope in sedation-optional colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 2017; 31:5150-5158. [PMID: 28488178 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5581-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2016] [Accepted: 05/02/2017] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ultrathin colonoscopes (UTC) reportedly produce less pain during colonoscopy than standard colonoscopes. The aim of this study was to assess the tolerability of an UTC compared with that of a pediatric colonoscope. METHODS A total of 270 adult patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were randomized, with 134 allocated to the UTC group and 136 to the pediatric colonoscope group. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale. For all procedures, sedation was administered only if requested. Overall pain, rate and time of cecal and terminal ileum intubation, number of patients requesting sedation, adenoma detection rates (ADR), and rate of complications were measured and analyzed. RESULTS Among all patients, the medians of maximum pain and overall pain were significantly lower in the UTC group than in the pediatric colonoscope group (23 vs. 38, P < 0.001; 12 vs. 22, P = 0.0003, respectively). Significantly fewer patients requested sedation in the UTC group than in the pediatric colonoscope group (1.4 vs. 6.6%; P = 0.0269). No significant differences were seen in either the rate and time of successful cecal and terminal ileum intubation, or in other procedure-related outcomes, including ADR. CONCLUSIONS Compared with a pediatric colonoscope, the UTC was associated with reduced overall and maximum pain during colonoscopy, with no difference in ADR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koichiro Sato
- Department of Gastroenterology, Mizonokuchi Hospital, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 213-8507, Japan.
| | - Sayo Ito
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, 2-17-6 Ohashi, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8515, Japan
| | - Tomoyuki Kitagawa
- Department of Gastroenterology, Dokkyo Medical University Koshigaya Hospital, 2-1-50 Minamikoshigaya, Koshigaya-Shi, Saitama Prefecture, Japan
| | | | - Daisuke Hihara
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, 2-17-6 Ohashi, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8515, Japan
| | - Kenji Tominaga
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, 2-17-6 Ohashi, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8515, Japan
| | - Ichiro Yasuda
- Department of Gastroenterology, Mizonokuchi Hospital, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 3-8-3 Mizonokuchi, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 213-8507, Japan
| | - Iruru Maetani
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, 2-17-6 Ohashi, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8515, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
|
14
|
Rondonotti E, Andrealli A, Amato A, Paggi S, Conti CB, Spinzi G, Radaelli F. Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 10:1349-1358. [PMID: 27701933 DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2016.1245143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most robust colonoscopy quality metric and clinical studies have adopted it as the ideal method to assess the impact of technical interventions. Areas covered: We reviewed papers focusing on the impact of colonoscopy technical issues on ADR, including withdrawal time and technique, second evaluation of the right colon, patient positional changes, gastrointestinal assistant participation during colonoscopy, water-aided technique, optimization of bowel preparation and antispasmodic administration. Expert commentary: Overall, technical interventions are inexpensive, available worldwide and easy to implement. Some of them, such as the adoption of split dose regimen and slow scope withdrawal to allow a careful inspection, have been demonstrated to significantly improve ADR. Emerging data support the use of water-exchange colonoscopy. According to published studies, other technical interventions seem to provide only marginal benefit to ADR. Unfortunately, the available evidence has methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, the inclusion of expert endoscopists only and the evaluation of single technical interventions. Additionally, larger studies are needed to clarify whether these interventions might have a higher benefit on low adenoma detectors and whether the implementation of a bundle of them, instead of a single technical maneuver, might have a greater impact on ADR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Arnaldo Amato
- a Gastroenterology Unit , Ospedale Valduce , Como , Italy
| | - Silvia Paggi
- a Gastroenterology Unit , Ospedale Valduce , Como , Italy
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Kim HG. Painless Colonoscopy: Available Techniques and Instruments. Clin Endosc 2016; 49:444-448. [PMID: 27744665 PMCID: PMC5066405 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2016.132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2016] [Revised: 09/19/2016] [Accepted: 09/19/2016] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
During colonoscopy, air insufflation to distend the lumen and facilitate careful inspection and scope insertion can induce pain and cause discomfort. Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation can decrease abdominal pain and discomfort during and after colonoscopy. The advantage of CO2 insufflation is the rapid absorption of the gas across the intestine. Another painless option is water-assisted colonoscopy. Two methods for water-assisted colonoscopy are available: water immersion and water exchange. In a recent direct comparison, the water exchange method was superior to water immersion, CO2 insufflation, and air insufflation with respect to pain during colonoscopy, although it still had the disadvantage of being a time-consuming procedure. Cap-assisted colonoscopy is a simple technique involving the use of a small transparent cap attached to the tip of the scope. Three studies showed an advantage of this technique in terms of reduced patient discomfort compared with the conventional method. Three robotic colonoscopy systems (Endotics System [Era Endoscopy], NeoGuide [NeoGuide Systems Inc.], and Invendoscope [Invendo Medical]) have been introduced to evaluate pain reduction during colonoscopy, but none has been widely adopted and used in practice. In this review, clinical trials of several techniques and new devices for painless colonoscopy are described and summarized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyun Gun Kim
- Institute for Digestive Research, Soon Chun Hyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Wieten E, Spaander MCW, Kuipers EJ. Accrediting for screening-related colonoscopy services: What is required of the endoscopist and of the endoscopy service? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30:487-95. [PMID: 27345653 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpg.2016.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2016] [Revised: 04/19/2016] [Accepted: 04/28/2016] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely implemented to reduce CRC incidence and related mortality. The impact of screening as well as the balance between screening burden and benefits strongly depends on the quality of colonoscopy. Besides quality, safety of the endoscopic procedure and patient satisfaction are important outcome parameters for a screening program. Therefore the requirements for both CRC screening endoscopy services and endoscopists focus on technical aspects, patient safety, and patient experience. Stringent quality assurance by means of routine monitoring of quality indicators for the performance of endoscopists and endoscopy units is recommended. This allows setting minimum standards, targeted interventions, and enhancement of the overall quality of population screening. This reviews deals with guidelines and quality standards for colorectal cancer screening, with focus on both endoscopist and endoscopy services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Els Wieten
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Manon C W Spaander
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Ernst J Kuipers
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Complications during colonoscopy: prevention, diagnosis, and management. Tech Coloproctol 2015; 19:505-13. [PMID: 26162284 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-015-1344-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2015] [Accepted: 06/07/2015] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Colonoscopy is largely performed in daily clinical practice for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Although infrequent, different complications may occur during the examination, mostly related to the operative procedures. These complications range from asymptomatic and self-limiting to serious, requiring a prompt medical, endoscopic or surgical intervention. In this review, the complications that may occur during colonoscopy are discussed, with a particular focus on prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches.
Collapse
|
18
|
Wang X, Luo H, Xiang Y, Leung FW, Wang L, Zhang L, Liu Z, Wu K, Fan D, Pan Y, Guo X. Left-colon water exchange preserves the benefits of whole colon water exchange at reduced cecal intubation time conferring significant advantage in diagnostic colonoscopy - a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 2015; 50:916-23. [PMID: 25639787 DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2015.1010569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Whole-colon water exchange (WWE) reduces insertion pain, increases cecal intubation success and adenoma detection rate, but requires longer insertion time, compared to air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy. We hypothesized that water exchange limited to the left colon (LWE) can speed up insertion with equivalent results. METHODS This prospective, randomized controlled study (NCT01735266) allocated patients (18-80 years) to WWE, LWE or AI group (1:1:1). The primary outcome was cecal intubation time. RESULTS Three hundred subjects were randomized to the WWE (n = 100), LWE (n = 100) or AI group (n = 100). Ninety-four to ninety-five per cent of patients underwent diagnostic colonoscopy. Baseline characteristics were balanced. The median insertion time was shorter in LWE group (4.8 min (95%CI: 3.2-6.2)) than those in WWE (7.5 min (95%CI: 6.0-10.3)) and AI (6.4 min (95%CI: 4.2-9.8)) (both p < 0.001) groups. The cecal intubation rates in unsedated patients of the two water exchange methods (WWE 99%, LWE 99%) were significantly higher than that (89.8%) in AI group (p = 0.01). The final success rates were comparable among the three groups after sedation was given. Maximum pain scores and number of patients needing abdominal compression between WWE and LWE groups were comparable, both lower than those in AI group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed regarding PDR, although the PDR in right colon tended to be higher in WWE group. CONCLUSION By preserving the benefits of WWE and reducing insertion time, LWE is appropriate for diagnostic colonoscopy, especially in settings with tight scheduling of patients. The higher PDR in the right colon in WWE group deserves to be further investigated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiangping Wang
- Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University , Xi'an , China
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Sugimoto S, Mizukami T. Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of water-immersion colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:6451-6459. [PMID: 26074684 PMCID: PMC4458756 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i21.6451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2015] [Revised: 03/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/28/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Colonoscopy techniques combining or replacing air insufflation with water infusion are becoming increasingly popular. They were originally designed to reduce colonic spasms, facilitate cecal intubation, and lower patient discomfort and the need for sedation. These maneuvers straighten the rectosigmoid colon and enable the colonoscope to be inserted deeply without causing looping of the colon. Water-immersion colonoscopy minimizes colonic distension and improves visibility by introducing a small amount of water. In addition, since pain during colonoscopy indicates risk of bowel perforation and sedation masks this important warning, this method has the potential to be the favored insertion technique because it promotes patient safety without sedation. Recently, this water-immersion method has not only been used for colonoscope insertion, but has also been applied to therapy for sigmoid volvulus, removal of lesions, lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and therapeutic diagnosis of abnormal bowel morphology and irritable bowel syndrome. Although a larger sample size and prospective head-to-head-designed studies will be needed, this review focuses on the usefulness of water-immersion colonoscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.
Collapse
|
20
|
Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F, Otte J, Rabenstein T, Zolk O. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD009863. [PMID: 26011829 PMCID: PMC11257032 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009863.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic modality. A large proportion of the population is likely to undergo colonoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases, or when participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. To reduce pain, water infusion instead of traditional air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy has been proposed, thereby improving patients' acceptance of the procedure. Moreover, the water infusion method may improve early detection of precancerous neoplasms. OBJECTIVES To compare water infusion techniques with standard air insufflation, specifically evaluating technical quality and screening efficacy, as well as patients' acceptance of the water infusion procedure. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1999 to February 2014) for eligible randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials comparing water infusion (water exchange or water immersion methods) against standard air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. We performed analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 5). MAIN RESULTS We included 16 randomised controlled trials consisting of 2933 colonoscopies. Primary outcome measures were cecal intubation rate and adenoma detection; secondary outcomes were time needed to reach the cecum, pain experienced by participants during the procedure, completion of cecal intubation without sedation/analgesia, and adverse events. Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was similar between water infusion and standard air insufflation (risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03, P = 0.93). Adenoma detection rate, that is number of participants with at least one detected adenoma, was slightly improved with water infusion (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30, P = 0.007). Assuming the fraction of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy who had one or more adenomas detected was 20 per 100 with standard colonoscopy, the use of water colonoscopy may increase the fraction to 23 per 100 individuals. From our findings, it is possible that up to 68,000 more of the 1.7 million outpatient screening colonoscopies performed annually in the United States, could detect adenomas if water infusion colonoscopy was used. In addition, with water infusion participants experienced significantly less pain (mean difference in pain score on a 0 to 10 scale: -1.57, 95% CI -2.00 to -1.14, P < 0.00001) and a significantly lower proportion of participants requested on-demand sedation or analgesia, or both (risk ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.27, P < 0.00001). Qualitative analysis suggests that water infusion colonoscopy was not associated with a markedly increased rate of adverse events compared with the standard procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was not improved by water infusion compared with standard air insufflation colonoscopy. However, adenoma detection, assessed with two different measures (that is adenoma detection rate and number of detected adenomas per procedure), was slightly augmented by the water infusion colonoscopy. Improved adenoma detection might be due to the cleansing effects of water infusions on the mucosa. Detection of premalignant lesions during standard colonoscopy is suboptimal, and so improvements in adenoma detection by water infusion colonoscopy, although small, may help to reduce the risk of interval colorectal carcinoma. The most obvious benefit of water infusion colonoscopy was reduction of procedure-related abdominal pain, which may enhance the acceptance of screening/surveillance colonoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susanne Hafner
- University Hospital UlmInstitute of Pharmacology of Natural Products & Clinical PharmacologyHelmholtzstrasse 20UlmBaden‐WürttembergGermany89081
| | - Karsten Zolk
- Westpfalz HospitalDepartment of Internal Medicine ‐ AngiologyIm Flur 1KuselWestphaliaGermany66869
| | - Franco Radaelli
- Valduce HospitalGastrenterology UnitVia Dante 11ComoItaly22100
| | - Jörg Otte
- Friedrich‐Alexander‐UniversitätInstitute of Pharmacology and ToxicologyErlangenGermany
| | - Thomas Rabenstein
- Diakonissen Stiftungs KrankenhausDepartment of MedicineHilgardstrasse 26SpeyerRhineland PalatinateGermany67346
| | - Oliver Zolk
- University Hospital UlmInstitute of Pharmacology of Natural Products and Clinical PharmacologyHelmholtzstrasse 20UlmBaden‐WürttembergGermany89081
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
The successful intubation of the cecum during screening or surveillance colonoscopy is vital to ensure complete mucosal inspection of the colon on withdrawal. Even when performed by an experienced endoscopist, colonoscope insertion can sometimes be challenging. Water-aided colonoscopy can be used to assist the endoscopist in navigating colons with anatomies that may be challenging owing to severe angulation or redundancy. Water-assisted colonoscopy involves the infusion of water without air and subsequent suctioning during insertion (exchange) or withdrawal (immersion or infusion). This review discusses the technique, effectiveness, safety of water-assisted colonoscopy as well as the application in sedationless endscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph C Anderson
- Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Department of Medicine, 215 North Main Street, White River Junction, VT 05009, USA; The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Medical, Department of Medicine, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Zullig LL, Williams CD, Fortune-Britt AG. Lung and colorectal cancer treatment and outcomes in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Cancer Manag Res 2015; 7:19-35. [PMID: 25609998 PMCID: PMC4298347 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s75463] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Lung cancer (LC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) are the second- and third-most commonly diagnosed cancers in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. While many studies have evaluated the treatment quality and outcomes of various aspects of VA LC and CRC care, there are no known reviews synthesizing this information across studies. The purpose of this literature review was to describe LC and CRC treatment (ie, surgical and nonsurgical) and outcomes (eg, mortality, psychosocial, and other) in the VA health care system as reported in the existing peer-reviewed scientific literature. We identified potential articles through a search of published literature using the PubMed electronic database. Our search strategy identified articles containing Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords addressing veterans or veterans' health and LC and/or CRC. We limited articles to those published in the previous 11 years (January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2013). A total of 230 articles were retrieved through the search. After applying the selection criteria, we included 74 studies (34 LC, 47 CRC, and seven both LC and CRC). VA provides a full array of treatments, often with better outcomes than other health care systems. More work is needed to assess patient-reported outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leah L Zullig
- Center for Health Services Research and Development in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA ; Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Christina D Williams
- Medical Service, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA ; Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Alice G Fortune-Britt
- Center for Health Services Research and Development in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA ; Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
A patient-blinded randomized, controlled trial comparing air insufflation, water immersion, and water exchange during minimally sedated colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109:1390-400. [PMID: 24890443 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2014] [Accepted: 03/18/2014] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Minimal sedation obviates patient recovery burdens, but intolerable pain limits success of cecal intubation. Painless or minimally uncomfortable insertion ensures success of cecal intubation, current patient satisfaction, and willingness to repeat future colonoscopy with minimal sedation. Water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), when separately compared with air insufflation (AI), significantly reduced insertion pain. To assess comparative effectiveness, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with head-to-head comparison of these three methods. We hypothesized that WE could produce the highest proportion of patients reporting painless insertion. METHODS This prospective patient-blinded trial (NCT01535326) enrolled minimally sedated (25 mg intramuscular meperidine) patients randomized to AI, WI, or WE (90 patients/group) to aid insertion. The previously validated primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting painless insertion. RESULTS Painless insertion was reported by 30.0% (AI), 43.3% (WI), and 61.1% (WE) of patients (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that, after adjusting for gender, body mass index, abdominal compression, position change, insertion time to cecum, and length of scope at cecum, only WE was significantly associated with painless insertion compared with AI (odds ratio (OR)=0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.03-0.24, P<0.001) or WI (OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.05-0.40, P<0.001). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right (cecum and ascending) colon was 11.1% (AI), 14.4% (WI), and 26.7% (WE) (P=0.015). The limitations included single site study with unblinded colonoscopist and assistant. CONCLUSIONS This head-to-head comparison of AI vs. WI vs. WE confirmed that WE was superior to WI and AI, with a significantly greater proportion of patients reporting painless insertion. The significantly higher ADR in the right colon in the WE group warrants further investigations.
Collapse
|
24
|
Tae CH, Kang KJ, Min BH, Ahn JH, Kim S, Lee JH, Rhee PL, Kim JJ. Paradoxical reaction to midazolam in patients undergoing endoscopy under sedation: Incidence, risk factors and the effect of flumazenil. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46:710-5. [PMID: 24893689 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2014.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2014] [Revised: 04/14/2014] [Accepted: 04/20/2014] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The incidence, risk factors and management strategy of paradoxical reaction to midazolam during endoscopy are yet to be clarified. METHODS This single center prospective study included 4140 adult patients (2263 males, mean age of 57.7 ± 12.6) undergoing endoscopy under sedation with midazolam and pethidine between September 2011 and December 2011. The characteristics of patients with and without paradoxical reaction were compared. For patients who experienced paradoxical reaction and received flumazenil, their endoscopic images were reviewed to assess whether European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines were met as quality indicator of endoscopy. RESULTS The incidence of paradoxical reaction was 1.4%. In multivariate analyses, male gender, unsuccessful sedation in previous endoscopy, upper endoscopy, higher dose of midazolam, and lower dose of pethidine were identified as independent risk factors for paradoxical reaction. Despite paradoxical reaction, endoscopic procedures were successfully completed in 93.3% of cases when flumazenil was administered. The rates of meeting quality indicator of endoscopy were 92.3% in patients receiving flumazenil for paradoxical reaction and 97.6% in patients without paradoxical reaction. CONCLUSIONS For patients with risk factors for paradoxical reaction, active use of pethidine with a dose reduction of midazolam might be helpful to prevent the occurrence of paradoxical reaction. Administration of flumazenil might be positively considered in cases of paradoxical reaction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chung Hyun Tae
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ki Joo Kang
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Byung-Hoon Min
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| | - Joong Hyun Ahn
- Biostatistics Team, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Seonwoo Kim
- Biostatistics Team, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jun Haeng Lee
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Poong-Lyul Rhee
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jae J Kim
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Korman LY, Haddad NG, Metz DC, Brandt LJ, Benjamin SB, Lazerow SK, Miller HL, Mete M, Patel M, Egorov V. Effect of propofol anesthesia on force application during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79:657-62. [PMID: 24472761 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2013] [Accepted: 12/02/2013] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louis Y Korman
- Chevy Chase Clinical Research, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA
| | - Nadim G Haddad
- Division of Gastroenterology, Georgetown University Hospital, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - David C Metz
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hospital University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Lawrence J Brandt
- Division of Gastroenterology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein School of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - Stanley B Benjamin
- Division of Gastroenterology, Georgetown University Hospital, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Susan K Lazerow
- Gastroenterology Division, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Hannah L Miller
- Gastroenterology Division, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Mihriye Mete
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Leung JW, Siao-Salera R, Abramyan O, Mann SK, Ward G, Yen A, Gutierrez R, Leung FW. Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on serum sodium and potassium levels: an observational study. Dig Dis Sci 2014; 59:653-7. [PMID: 24254340 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-013-2934-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2013] [Accepted: 10/24/2013] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Concerns over the hypothetical adverse effects of water absorption and the disturbance of serum sodium and potassium levels prompted a quality assurance evaluation of water exchange (WE) colonoscopy. AIM The purpose of this study was to evaluate the balance of water infused and suctioned in WE colonoscopy, and to quantify the acute impact on serum levels of sodium and potassium. METHODS Prospectively collected quality monitoring data of patients undergoing screening and surveillance colonoscopy at the Sacramento Veterans Affairs Medical Center were analyzed. Measurements were made of volume infused and suctioned during, and blood samples drawn 10 min before the start of and 10 min after completion of WE colonoscopy. Outcome measures included volume of water infused and suctioned, and serum levels of sodium and potassium. RESULTS A total of 140 patients (134M:6F), mean age of 59, underwent WE colonoscopy. Mean total volume of water infused was 1,839 mL. A negative balance of an average of 22 mL was documented. The mean (standard deviation) values (in meq/L) of serum levels of sodium 139.33 (2.27) and 139.28 (2.32), and potassium 3.86 (0.36) and 3.91 (0.39), before and after colonoscopy, respectively, showed no significant change. CONCLUSION The WE method allowed most of the water infused during colonoscopy to be recovered by suction at the completion of colonoscopy. Serum sodium and potassium levels did not change significantly within 10 min after completion. The WE method appears to be safe with minimal water retention and is devoid of acute fluctuations in serum levels of sodium and potassium.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph W Leung
- Section of Gastroenterology, 111G, Sacramento VA Medical Center, VANCHCS, 10535 Hospital Way, Mather, CA, 95655, USA,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled methoxyflurane versus conventional endoscopist-provided sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78:892-901. [PMID: 23810328 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2013] [Accepted: 05/13/2013] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox, Medical Device International, Melbourne, Australia) has been used extensively in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) to manage trauma-related pain. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcome of Penthrox for colonoscopy. DESIGN Prospective randomized study. SETTING Three tertiary endoscopic centers. PATIENTS Two hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to receive either Penthrox (n = 125, 70 men, 51.4 ± 1.1 years old) or intravenous midazolam and fentanyl (M&F; n = 126, 72 men, 54.9 ± 1.1 years old) during colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT Discomfort (visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y [STAI-Y] anxiety score), colonoscopy performance, adverse events, and recovery time. RESULTS Precolonoscopy VAS pain and STAI-Y scores were comparable between the 2 groups. There were no differences between groups in (1) pain VAS or STAI Y-1 anxiety scores during or immediately after colonoscopy, (2) procedural success rate (Penthrox: 121/125 vs M&F: 124/126), (3) hypotension during colonoscopy (7/125 vs 8/126), (4) tachycardia (5/125 vs 3/126), (5) cecal arrival time (8 ± 1 vs 8 ± 1 minutes), or (6) polyp detection rate (30/125 vs 43/126). Additional intravenous sedation was required in 10 patients (8%) who received Penthrox. Patients receiving Penthrox alone had no desaturation (oxygen saturation [SaO(2)] < 90%) events (0/115 vs 5/126; P = .03), awoke quicker (3 ± 0 vs 19 ± 1 minutes; P < .001) and were ready for discharge earlier (37 ± 1 vs 66 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) than those receiving intravenous M&F. LIMITATIONS Inhaled Penthrox is not yet available in the United States and Europe. CONCLUSIONS Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled Penthrox is feasible and as effective as conventional sedation for colonoscopy with shorter recovery time, is not associated with respiratory depression, and does not influence the procedural success and polyp detection.
Collapse
|
28
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix W Leung
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 111G, 16111 Plummer Street, North Hill, CA 91343, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 2013; 17:487-96. [PMID: 23652813 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-013-1023-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2012] [Accepted: 04/18/2013] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether water infusion colonoscopy (WIC) is a more effective diagnostic tool than standard air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC). METHODS All articles pertinent to a comparison of water-related methods and air insufflation to facilitate insertion of the colonoscope were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pooling results were derived by using the Review Manager Software. Outcomes were assessed using the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables and the odds ratios (OR) with 95 % CI for dichotomous variables. RESULTS Eighteen studies involving 2,797 patients were included. WIC was associated with a significantly higher cecal intubation rate than AIC (OR = 1.90; 95 % CI 1.21-2.99; p = 0.005). The intubation time was similar for the two types of colonoscopy, but in WIC there was a significantly lower visual analog scale score for abdominal pain than in AIC (MD = -1.30; 95 % CI -2.03 to -0.58; p < 0.001) without sacrificing the polyp detection rate (OR = 1.17; 95 % CI 0.78-1.77; p = 0.44). Statistically, the patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WIC than for AIC (OR = 1.74; 95 % CI 1.14-2.67; p < 0.01). Furthermore, in the subgroup for trainees, the WIC group achieved a higher cecal intubation rate (OR = 1.83; 95 % CI 1.15-2.93; p = 0.01) and a shorter intubation time (MD = -1.72 min; 95 % CI -3.34 to -0.11; p = 0.04) than the AIC group. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to AIC, WIC improved cecal intubation, alleviated abdominal pain, and increased patients' willingness to repeat the procedure.
Collapse
|
30
|
Luo H, Zhang L, Liu X, Leung FW, Liu Z, Wang X, Xue L, Wu K, Fan D, Pan Y, Guo X. Water exchange enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy. Unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77:767-73. [PMID: 23394837 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.12.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2012] [Accepted: 12/09/2012] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is widely used for management of colorectal diseases. A history of abdominal or pelvic surgery is a well-recognized factor associated with difficult colonoscopy. Although water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) was effective in small groups of male U.S. veterans with such a history, its application in other cultural settings is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To investigate the application of WEC in such patients. DESIGN Prospective, randomized, controlled, patient-blinded study. SETTING Tertiary-care referral center in China. PATIENTS Outpatients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery undergoing unsedated diagnostic, screening, or surveillance colonoscopy. INTERVENTION Patients were randomized to examination by either WEC or conventional air colonoscopy (AC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Cecal intubation rate. RESULTS A total of 110 patients were randomized to the WEC (n = 55) or AC (n = 55) group. WEC significantly increased the cecal intubation rate (92.7% vs 76.4%; P = .033). The maximum pain scores (± standard deviation) were 2.1 ± 1.8 (WEC) and 4.6 ± 1.7 (AC), respectively (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that the colonoscopy method was the only independent predictor of failed colonoscopy (odds ratio 11.44, 95% confidence interval, 1.35-97.09). A higher proportion of patients examined by WEC would be willing to have a repeat unsedated colonoscopy (90.9% vs 72.7%, P = .013). LIMITATIONS Single center; unblinded but experienced endoscopists. CONCLUSION This randomized, controlled trial confirms that the water exchange method significantly enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy in unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. The lower pain scores and higher proportion accepting repeat of the unsedated option suggest that WEC is promising. It may enhances compliance with colonoscopy in specific populations. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01485133.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui Luo
- Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Lin S, Zhu W, Xiao K, Su P, Liu Y, Chen P, Bai Y. Water intubation method can reduce patients' pain and sedation rate in colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2013; 25:231-40. [PMID: 23368955 DOI: 10.1111/den.12018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2012] [Accepted: 11/06/2012] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown that water infusion in lieu of air insufflation reduces sedation rate and pain score and increases cecal intubation rate in colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to confirm the beneficial effects of the water intubation method over the air method. Electronic databases were searched to identify RCT reporting colonoscopy detection using the water method. The pooled data of sedation rate, pain score and other procedure-related outcomes were analyzed. Then, 15 full-text articles were selected and assessed. Nine trials with high-quality scores were enrolled into this meta-analysis including a total of 1414 participants. Pooled odds ratio (OR) of sedation rate was 0.392 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.288-0.533, P = 0.000). Pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of pain score was -1.543 (95% CI: -2.107--1.069,P = 0.000). Pooled OR of cecal intubation rate was 1.90 (95% CI: 1.29-2.82, P = 0.001). Pooled OR of polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate were 0.805 (95% CI: 0.606-1.069, P = 0.134) and 0.913 (95% CI: 0.681-1.223, P = 0.168), respectively. Pooled WMD of cecal intubation time was 0.701 (95% CI: -0.486-1.889, P = 0.247). This meta-analysis confirmed that the water method significantly reduced sedation rate and degree of pain without decreasing cecal intubation rate and disease detection rate and without requiring more cecal intubation time, suggesting that the novel water method is better than the conventional air method in colonoscopy detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siheng Lin
- Department of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou Avenue, Guangzhou 510515, China
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Maple JT, Banerjee S, Barth BA, Bhat YM, Desilets DJ, Gottlieb KT, Pfau PR, Pleskow DK, Siddiqui UD, Tokar JL, Wang A, Song LMWK, Rodriguez SA. Methods of luminal distention for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77:519-25. [PMID: 23415258 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.09.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2012] [Accepted: 09/20/2012] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
33
|
Carbon dioxide insufflation or warm-water infusion versus standard air insufflation for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56:511-8. [PMID: 23478620 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0b013e318279addd] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The increasing demand for colonoscopy has renewed the interest for unsedated procedures. Alternative techniques, such as carbon dioxide insufflation and warm-water infusion, have been advocated to improve patient tolerance for colonoscopy in comparison with air insufflation. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of carbon dioxide insufflation and warm-water irrigation over air insufflation in unsedated patients. DESIGN This study was a randomized, controlled trial. SETTING This study was conducted at a nonacademic single center. PATIENTS Consecutive outpatients agreeing to start colonoscopy without premedication were included. INTERVENTIONS Patients were assigned to either carbon dioxide insufflation, warm-water irrigation, or air insufflation colonoscopy insertion phase. Sedation/analgesia were administered on patient request if significant pain or discomfort occurred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measured was the percentage of patients requiring sedation/analgesia. Pain and tolerance scores were assessed at discharge by using a 100-mm visual analog scale. RESULTS Three hundred forty-one subjects (115 in the carbon dioxide, 113 in the warm-water, and 113 in the air group) were enrolled. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the proportion of patients requesting sedation/analgesia during colonoscopy was 15.5% in the carbon dioxide group, 13.2% in the warm-water group, and 25.6% in the air group (p = 0.04 carbon dioxide vs air; p = 0.03 warm water vs air). Median (interquartile range) scores for pain were 30 (10-50), 28 (15-50), and 46 (22-62) in the carbon dioxide, warm-water, and air groups (carbon dioxide vs air, p < 0.01; warm water vs air, p < 0.01); corresponding figures for tolerance were 20 (5-30), 19 (5-36), and 28 (10-50) (carbon dioxide vs air, p < 0.01; warm water vs air, p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS This investigation was limited because it was a single-center study and the endoscopists were not blinded to randomization. CONCLUSIONS Carbon dioxide insufflation was associated with a decrease in the proportion of patients requesting on-demand sedation, improved patient tolerance, and decreased colonoscopy-related pain in comparison with air insufflation. The findings regarding warm-water irrigation confirmed the previously reported advantages, so that warm-water irrigation and carbon dioxide insufflation could represent competitive strategies for colonoscopy in unsedated patients.
Collapse
|
34
|
Jun WU, Bing HU. Comparative effectiveness of water infusion vs air insufflation in colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 2013; 15:404-9. [PMID: 22889295 DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03194.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM Colonoscopy with air insufflation is known to result in abdominal pain and discomfort. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of water infusion during colonoscopy through a meta-analysis. METHOD Original papers and abstracts published up to October 2011 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Database and important meeting abstracts. Clinical appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers independently. Statistical analysis was performed by meta-analysis using a fixed effects model or a random effects model. RESULTS Seven studies involving 872 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the water infusion group had fewer patients requiring abdominal compression or position change [risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.59, 0.91], a lower mean pain score (RR -1.10, 95% CI -1.26, -0.95), lower maximum pain score (RR -2.34, 95% CI -2.92, -1.76) and fewer patients requiring on-demand sedation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31, 0.66) than the air insufflation group during colonoscopy. There were no significant differences in caecal intubation rate, caecal intubation time, total procedure time and adenoma detection rate. CONCLUSION Water infusion significantly decreases patient discomfort and abdominal pain during colonoscopy without affecting operation time and intubation success rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W U Jun
- Department of Endoscopy, Eastern Hepatobiliary Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Park HJ, Hong JH, Kim HS, Kim BR, Park SY, Jo KW, Kim JW. Predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure in colonoscopy trainees. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION 2013; 13:5. [PMID: 23331720 PMCID: PMC3560110 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2012] [Accepted: 12/31/2012] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Successful cecal intubation (SCI) is not only a quality indicator but also an important marker in a colonoscopy trainee's progress. We conducted this study to determine factors predicting SCI in colonoscopy trainees, and to compare these factors before and after trainees achieve technical competence. METHODS Design of this study was a cross-sectional studies of two time series design for one year at a single center. From March 2011 to February 2012, a total 2,050 subjects who underwent colonoscopy by four first-year gastrointestinal fellows were enrolled at Christian hospital, Wonju, Republic of Korea. Four gastrointestinal fellows have filled out the colonoscopic documentation. Main outcome measurement was predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure and learning curves. RESULTS Colonoscopy was successfully completed to the cecum in 1,720 patients (83.9%). Success rates gradually increased as trainees performed more colonoscopies: the rate of SCI was 62% in the first 50 cases, and grew to 93% by the 250th case. Logistic regression analysis of factors affecting cecal intubation failure showed that female gender, low BMI (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²), poor bowel preparation, and past history of stomach surgery were more often associated with cecal intubation failure, particularly before the trainees achieved technical competence. CONCLUSION Several patient characteristics were identified that may predict difficulty of cecal intubation in colonoscopy trainees. Particularly, low BMI, inadequate bowel cleansing, and previous stomach operation were predictors of cecal intubation failure before the trainees have reached technical competency. The results could be informative so that trainees enhance the success rate regarding better colonoscopy training programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hong-Jun Park
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin-Heon Hong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyun-Soo Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
- Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of Lifelong Health, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, 162, Ilsan-dong, Wonju, Gangwon-do 220-701, Korea
| | - Bo-Ra Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - So-Yeon Park
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Ki-Won Jo
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Jae-Woo Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Lee BY, Katon R, Herzig D, Fennerty MB. Warm water infusion during sedated colonoscopy does not decrease amount of sedation medication used. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76:1182-7. [PMID: 23021168 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2012] [Accepted: 08/01/2012] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Water infusion versus air insufflation during colonoscope insertion has been suggested to reduce patient discomfort and decrease sedation medication requirements. Warm water is thought to further facilitate colonoscopy perhaps by decreasing colon spasm. OBJECTIVE To compare the utility of warm (35°-38°C) versus cool (20°-23°C) water infused during colonoscopic insertion by measuring patient sedation medication use and discomfort scores between the warm and cool water groups. DESIGN Randomized, controlled, double-blinded study. SETTING Outpatient endoscopy unit at an academic medical center. PATIENTS A total of 175 adults. INTERVENTION Elective outpatient sedated screening colonoscopies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Sedation medication used, pain scores, cecal intubation rate, endoscopy times, satisfaction scores, and patient willingness to repeat procedures. RESULTS There was no significant difference in sedation medication requirement during colonoscopy with the use of warm or cool water (fentanyl 83.6 ± 29.0 μg vs 87.6 ± 39.6 μg; P = .45; midazolam 3.3 ± 1.2 mg vs 3.3 ± 1.3 mg; P = .91). There was no significant difference in patient pain scores or satisfaction scores. Cecal intubation rates (100%) were similar. There was no significant difference in cecal intubation times (6 minutes 40 seconds ± 4 minutes 9 seconds vs 7 minutes 49 seconds ± 4 minutes 0 seconds; P = .06) between the warm and cool water groups. All patients were willing to repeat the colonoscopy by using the same method in both groups. LIMITATIONS Limited generalizability to patients undergoing screening sedated colonoscopies with good to excellent bowel preparation. CONCLUSION Water does not need to be warmed before infusion in patients undergoing sedated colonoscopies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brent Y Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Korman LY, Brandt LJ, Metz DC, Haddad NG, Benjamin SB, Lazerow SK, Miller HL, Greenwald DA, Desale S, Patel M, Sarvazyan A. Segmental increases in force application during colonoscope insertion: quantitative analysis using force monitoring technology. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76:867-72. [PMID: 22840291 PMCID: PMC3530197 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2012] [Accepted: 05/23/2012] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is a frequently performed procedure that requires extensive training and a high skill level. OBJECTIVE Quantification of forces applied to the external portion of the colonoscope insertion tube during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. DESIGN Observational cohort study of 7 expert and 9 trainee endoscopists for analysis of colonic segment force application in 49 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 Academic gastroenterology training programs. PATIENTS Patients undergoing routine screening or diagnostic colonoscopy with complete segment force recordings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Axial and radial force and examination time. RESULTS Both axial and radial force increased significantly as the colonoscope was advanced from the rectum to the cecum. Analysis of variance demonstrated highly significant operator-independent differences between segments of the colon (zones) in all axial and radial forces except average torque. Expert and trainee endoscopists differed only in the magnitude of counterclockwise force, average push/pull force rate used, and examination time. LIMITATIONS Small study, observational design, effect of prototype device on insertion tube manipulation. CONCLUSION Axial and radial forces used to advance the colonoscope increase through the segments of the colon and are operator independent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lawrence J. Brandt
- Division of Gastroenterology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein School of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | - David C. Metz
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hospital University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Nadim G. Haddad
- Division of Gastroenterology, Georgetown University Hospital, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC
| | - Stanley B. Benjamin
- Division of Gastroenterology, Georgetown University Hospital, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington DC
| | - Susan K. Lazerow
- Gastroenterology Division, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - Hannah L. Miller
- Gastroenterology Division, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC
| | - David A. Greenwald
- Division of Gastroenterology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein School of Medicine, Bronx, New York
| | - Sameer Desale
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Water immersion simplifies cecal intubation in patients with redundant colons and previous incomplete colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76:812-7. [PMID: 22901988 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2012] [Accepted: 05/23/2012] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Interest in effective ways to complete colon examinations in patients who had previously undergone failed colonoscopies has increased recently. OBJECTIVE To determine whether water immersion decreased the need for ancillary equipment to achieve cecal intubation in patients who had previously undergone incomplete colonoscopies. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Tertiary academic center. PATIENTS A total of 345 consecutive patients referred to a tertiary center for the indication of a previous incomplete colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS Colonoscopy with or without water immersion insertion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Cecal intubation rates, type of equipment, and maneuvers used. RESULTS Cecal intubation was achieved in 332 of 345 patients (96.2%) and was similar in those with and without water immersion (170/178, 95.5% vs 162/167, 97%, P = .58). An external straightening device was used in 6 of 178 cases with water immersion (3.4%) compared with 25 of 168 cases with air insufflation (15%) (P < .0001). Among patients with a redundant colon as the sole cause of previously incomplete examinations, water immersion required an external straightener in 7% compared with 37% with air insufflation during insertion (P < .0001), and position change was required in 5% of those with water immersion compared with 22% with air insufflation (P = .01). LIMITATIONS Retrospective review; single-center, single-endoscopist study. CONCLUSION Water immersion decreases the need for external straightening devices and position change maneuvers in patients with redundant colons and previously incomplete colonoscopies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krishna C Vemulapalli
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Leung FW, Amato A, Ell C, Friedland S, Harker JO, Hsieh YH, Leung JW, Mann SK, Paggi S, Pohl J, Radaelli F, Ramirez FC, Siao-Salera R, Terruzzi V. Water-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76:657-66. [PMID: 22898423 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.04.467] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2011] [Accepted: 04/25/2012] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix W Leung
- Research and Medical Services, Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hills, Los Angeles, California 91343, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Leung JW, Thai A, Yen A, Ward G, Abramyan O, Lee J, Smith B, Leung F. Magnetic endoscope imaging (ScopeGuide) elucidates the mechanism of action of the pain-alleviating impact of water exchange colonoscopy - attenuation of loop formation. JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY 2012; 2:142-146. [PMID: 23805397 DOI: 10.4161/jig.23738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2012] [Revised: 10/15/2012] [Accepted: 10/15/2012] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The explanation why water exchange colonoscopy produces a significant reduction of pain during colonoscopy is unknown. A recent editorial recommended use of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) to elucidate the explanation. OBJECTIVE In unselected patients to show that MEI documents less frequent loop formation when water exchange is used. DESIGN Observational, performance improvement. SETTING Veterans Affairs outpatient endoscopy. PATIENTS Routine colonoscopy cases. INTERVENTIONS Colonoscopy using air or water exchange method was performed as previously described. The MEI equipment (ScopeGuide, Olympus) with built-in magnetic sensors displays the configuration of the colonoscope inside the patient. During sedated colonoscopy the endoscopist was blinded to the ScopeGuide images which were recorded and subsequently reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Loop formation based on a visual guide provided by Olympus. RESULTS There were 41 and 32 cases in the water exchange and air group, respectively. The sigmoid N loop was most common, followed by the sigmoid alpha loop, and exaggeration of scope curvature at the splenic flexure/transverse colon. Of these, 20/32 vs. 9/41 patients (p=0.0007) had sigmoid looping, and 17/32 vs. 9/41 patients (p=0.0007) had sigmoid/splenic looping when the scope tip was in the transverse colon, in the air and water exchange group, respectively. LIMITATIONS Colonoscopy method was not blinded and non randomized. CONCLUSION MEI data objectively demonstrated significantly fewer loops during water exchange colonoscopy, elucidating its mechanism of pain alleviation - attenuation of loop formation. Since MEI feedback enhances cecal intubation by trainees, the role of MEI combined water exchange in speeding up trainee learning curves deserves further evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph W Leung
- Gastroenterology, Sacramento VA Medical Center, Mather, CA ; Gastroenterology, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Leung J, Mann S, Siao-Salera R, Ngo C, McCreery R, Canete W, Leung F. Indigocarmine added to the water exchange method enhances adenoma detection - a RCT. JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY 2012; 2:106-111. [PMID: 23805387 DOI: 10.4161/jig.23728] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2012] [Revised: 05/06/2012] [Accepted: 05/09/2012] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Chromoendoscopy with dye spray and the water method both increase adenoma detection. HYPOTHESIS Adding indigocarmine to the water method will enhance further the effectiveness of the latter in adenoma detection. METHODS Screening colonoscopy was performed with the water method (control) or with 0.008% indigocarmine added (study) by two endoscopists. Randomization was based on computer-generated codes contained in blocks of pre-arranged opaque sealed envelopes. High resolution colonoscopes were used. Upon insertion into the rectum, air was suctioned. With the air pump turned off, water was infused using a blunt needle adaptor connected to the scope channel and a foot pump to facilitate scope insertion until the cecum was reached. Residual stool causing cloudiness was suctioned followed by infusion of clear or colored water (water exchange) to facilitate scope passage with minimal distention of the colonic lumen. Upon seeing the appendix opening under water, water was suctioned and air was insufflated to facilitate inspection on scope withdrawal. STATISTICS Sample size calculation revealed 168 patients (84/group) needed to be randomized. Study was IRB-approved and registered (NCT01383265). RESULTS There were no significant differences in mean age, gender distribution, BMI, and family history of colon cancer. Cecal intubation success rate was 100% in both groups. The overall adenoma detection rate was 44% (water only) versus 62% (water with indigocarmine), respectively (p=0.03). One cancer was detected in each group. CONCLUSION In a RCT, indigocarmine at 0.008% concentration, added to the water method, significantly enhanced further the effectiveness of the latter in detecting adenomas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph Leung
- Gastroenterology, Sacramento VA Medical Center, Sacramento ; Gastroenterology, UC Davis Medical Center
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Leung F, Cheung R, Fan R, Fischer L, Friedland S, Ho S, Hsieh Y, Hung I, Li M, Matsui S, McQuaid K, Ohning G, Ojuri A, Sato T, Shergill A, Shoham M, Simons T, Walter M, Yen A. The water exchange method for colonoscopy-effect of coaching. JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY 2012; 2:122-125. [PMID: 23805391 DOI: 10.4161/jig.23732] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2012] [Revised: 06/05/2012] [Accepted: 06/07/2012] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fw Leung
- Gastroenterology, Sepulveda ACC, VAGLAHS, North Hills, CA, United States ; Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Terruzzi V, Paggi S, Amato A, Radaelli F. Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 4:137-41. [PMID: 22523614 PMCID: PMC3329613 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v4.i4.137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2011] [Revised: 08/18/2011] [Accepted: 03/01/2012] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy is the standard practice in Western countries, unsedated colonoscopy is still routinely provided in Europe and the Far East. This variation in sedation practice relies on the different cultural attitudes of both patients and endoscopists across these countries. Data from the literature consistently report that, in unsedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as warm water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high quality and well tolerated examination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vittorio Terruzzi
- Vittorio Terruzzi, Silvia Paggi, Arnaldo Amato, Franco Radaelli, Division of Gastroenterology, Valduce Hospital, I-22100 Como, Italy
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Luo DJY, Hui AJ, Yan KKL, Ng SC, Wong VWS, Chan FKL, Cheong JPK, Lam PPY, Tse YK, Lau JYW. A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75:484-90. [PMID: 21963069 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2011] [Accepted: 07/14/2011] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Complete colonoscopy examination cannot be performed in as many as 10% of cases. The new 9.2-mm ultrathin colonoscope (UTC) with an extra bending section may improve procedure tolerance and allow improvement in colonoscopy completion rate compared with a 12.9-mm standard colonoscope (SC). OBJECTIVE To compare the performance of the 9.2-mm UTC with that of the 12.9-mm SC. DESIGN Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING Academic endoscopic unit. PATIENTS Subjects 18 years and older undergoing their first colonoscopy. INTERVENTION Subjects were randomized to either the UTC or SC group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS First and rescue successful cecal intubation rates, subject satisfaction scores, and sedation requirements were compared. RESULTS A total of 1121 patients (56% women, mean age 53.6 years) were randomized to the UTC group (n = 551) or the SC group (n = 570). There was no statistically significant difference in the first successful cecal intubation rate between the UTC and SC groups (98.9% vs 97.4%, P = .057). The mean (standard deviation) dose of midazolam and pethidine used was significantly lower in the UTC group (2.65 [0.65] mg vs 2.82 [0.85] mg, P < .001 and 27.6 [7.4] mg vs 29.7 [9.6] mg, P < .001, respectively). The mean (standard deviation) patient satisfaction score was similar between groups (6.99 [2.89] vs 7.04 [3.06], P = .762). Of the 21 patients (1.9%) with an incomplete initial colonoscopy (6 in the UTC group and 15 in the SC group), all 6 in the UTC group had their procedure completed with an SC. Eleven of 15 patients in the SC group had their procedures completed with a UTC in the same session. LIMITATIONS Low failure rate may mask any difference between the 2 colonoscopes as a rescue instrument. CONCLUSIONS The 9.2-mm UTC has performance characteristics similar to those of an SC in Chinese subjects undergoing their first colonoscopy performed by experienced and trainee endoscopists. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01142167.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Derek J Y Luo
- Institute of Digestive Disease, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Awazu S, Araki R, Awazu T. A method of linear passage through the sigmoid colon in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75:702-4. [PMID: 22341126 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2011] [Accepted: 11/04/2011] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
46
|
An effective instillation method for water-assisted colonoscopy as performed by in-training endoscopists in terms of volume and temperature. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:142-7. [PMID: 21811829 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-011-1842-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2011] [Accepted: 07/15/2011] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS There is general consensus that water instillation helps insert a colonoscope. However, the most effective method for water instillation has not yet been established, especially for endoscopists-in-training. The aim of this study was to determine volume and temperature for effective water instillation colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial that was carried out at a single center, and a total of 207 consecutive subjects who underwent colonoscopic examination for health checkup were included in the study. Water instillation of supplied water was conducted under four different conditions: 100 and 300 ml at room temperature, 300 ml at 30 °C and no use of water instillation. The following parameters were recorded and analyzed: intubation success rate, independent predictors of successful intubation and intubation time to reach the cecum. RESULTS The intubation success rate was not significantly different between individual groups. Independent predictors of successful intubation were younger age (P = 0.004) and later examined subjects (P = 0.016). The 300-ml warm water instillation during colonoscopy significantly reduced intubation time over the conventional method without water instillation (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS Instillation of 300-ml warm (30 °C) water during colonoscopy can reduce cecal intubation time for in-training endoscopists without improving the intubation success rate.
Collapse
|
47
|
Portocarrero DJ, Che K, Olafsson S, Walter MH, Jackson CS, Leung FW, Malamud A. A pilot study to assess feasibility of the water method to aid colonoscope insertion in community settings in the United States. JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY 2012; 2:20-22. [PMID: 22586546 DOI: 10.4161/jig.20130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2011] [Revised: 12/16/2011] [Accepted: 12/18/2011] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Donald J Portocarrero
- Gastroenterology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, United States
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Ramirez FC, Leung FW. A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY 2011. [PMID: 22163084 DOI: +10.4161/jig.1.3.18512] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The water method facilitates colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare quality indicators in sedated veterans. DESIGN: Performance improvement. SETTING: VA endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: 368 consecutive screening patients. INTERVENTION: Air or water method assignment (high definition colonoscope) was based on the last digit of social security number. MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate; intubation and withdrawal times; sedation requirements and external pressure used. RESULTS: ADR was higher with the water method (57.1% vs. 46.1%, p=0.04). After controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation, the odds of detecting an adenoma was 81% higher with the water method (OR 1.81; 95% cI: 1.12-2.90). In the proximal colon ADR was higher with the water method (45.8% vs. 34.6%, p=0.03), including adenomas <10 mm in size (41.8% vs. 31.4%, p=0.04). The water method showed significantly longer cecal intubation time (6.9±0.3 vs. 5.3±0.3 min, p=0.0001); less external pressure used (11.9% vs. 28.3%, p=0.0001); lower need for additional sedation (17.5% vs. 27.2%, p<0.03). LIMITATIONS: Predominance of males, single unblinded endoscopist with high ADR. CONCLUSIONS: The water method is an independent factor associated with significantly higher ADR. Replication by blinded colonoscopist(s) is indicated.
Collapse
|
49
|
Leung FW. Water exchange may be superior to water immersion for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9:1012-4. [PMID: 21946120 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2011] [Revised: 08/29/2011] [Accepted: 09/04/2011] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
50
|
Water infusion for cecal intubation increases patient tolerance, but does not improve intubation of unsedated colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9:1039-43.e1. [PMID: 21749850 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.06.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2011] [Revised: 06/23/2011] [Accepted: 06/30/2011] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Several studies have indicated that water infusion, instead of air insufflation, enhances cecal intubation in selected patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy. We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether the water technique increases the proportion of patients that are able to complete unsedated colonoscopy. METHODS We analyzed data from 116 consecutive outpatients who were willing to start colonoscopy without sedation; 58 were each randomly assigned to groups given water infusion or air insufflation during the insertion phase. Sedation and analgesia were administered on demand. RESULTS Fewer patients requested sedation in the water group (8.6%) than in the air group (34.5%; P = .003) and their maximum pain scores were lower (2.8 ± 1.9 vs 4.2 ± 2.3 in the air group; P = .011). However, differences in percentages of patients who received complete, unsedated colonoscopy between the water group (74.1%) and air group (62.1%) did not reach statistical significance (P = .23); the percentage of successful cecal intubations was lower in the water group (82.8%) than in the air group (96.5%; P = .03) because of poor visibility. Failed procedures in the water group were completed successfully after air insufflation. The cecal intubation time was shorter in the air group (6.2 ± 3.4 min) than in the water group (8.1 ± 3.0 min; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS In patients willing to undergo unsedated colonoscopy, water infusion improves patient tolerance for cecal intubation, compared with air insufflation. However, it does not increase the overall percentage of successful cecal intubations because suboptimal bowel preparation interferes with visibility.
Collapse
|