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

ENDOANGEL versus water exchange for the detection of colorectal adenomas

Background

Recently, the ENDOANGEL (EN) system, a computer-assisted detection technique, and water exchange (WE) assisted colonoscopy have both been shown to increase the colorectal adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the ADR between EN- and WE-assisted colonoscopy.

Design

This was a retrospective study.

Methods

Data from patients who underwent either EN- or WE-assisted colonoscopy between October 2021 and August 2022 were analysed consecutively. The primary outcome measure was the ADR.

Results

The ADR was found to be similar between the EN and WE groups, with 80 out of 199 (40.2%) patients in the EN group compared to 78 out of 174 (44.8%) patients in the WE group [1.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80-1.83]. In the analysis using stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting after adjustment for confounding factors, both colonoscopy methods had similar performance in terms of ADR (1.41; 95% CI, 0.88-2.27).

Conclusion

EN was found to be comparable to WE in terms of ADR during colonoscopy, and both methods may be effectively used in clinical practice.

Outcome of Water Exchange and Air Insufflation Colonoscopy Performed by Supervised Trainee and Their Assessment of the Training Experience

GOALS

The hypotheses that supervised trainees would provide a more favorable assessment of the learning experience and could achieve superior results with water exchange (WE) compared with air insufflation were tested.

BACKGROUND

WE decreased pain, increased cecal intubation rate (CIR), and polyp detection rate (PDR).

STUDY

In a prospective pilot observational study, the trainees were taught WE in unsedated and WE and air insufflation in alternating order in sedated veterans. Trainee scores and procedural outcomes were tracked.

RESULTS

83 air insufflation and 119 WE cases were included. Trainee evaluations of the respective methods were scored based on a 5-point scale [1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree, with lower scores being more favorable]. Evaluation scores [mean (SD)] were as follows: my colonoscopy experience was better than expected: WE 2.02 (1.00) versus air insufflation 2.43 (1.19), P =0.0087; I was confident with my technical skills using this method: WE 2.76 (0.91) versus air insufflation 2.85 (0.87), P =0.4822. Insertion time was 40 (21) min for WE and 30 (20) min for air insufflation ( P =0.0008). CIR were 95% (WE, unsedated); 99% (WE, overall), and 89% (air insufflation, overall). WE showed significantly higher CIR (99% vs. 89%, P =0.0031) and PDR (54% vs. 32%, P =0.0447).

CONCLUSIONS

The long air insufflation insertion time indicated the trainees were inexperienced. The significantly longer WE insertion time confirmed that learning WE required extra time. This pilot study revealed that supervised trainees reported more favorable learning experience with WE and equivalent confidence in technical skills scores. They completed both unsedated and sedated colonoscopy in over 89% of cases achieved significantly higher CIR and PDR with WE than air insufflation. It appeared that trainee education in WE might be an acceptable alternative to augment air insufflation to meet the challenges of training posed by traditional air insufflation colonoscopy.

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

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

Modified underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for intermediate-sized sessile colorectal polyps

Introduction

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is effective for treating intermediate-sized colorectal polyps. However, it is sometimes difficult to obtain visibility in underwater conditions.

Methods

This prospective, observational, single-center study included consecutive patients with intermediate-sized (10-20 mm) sessile colorectal polyps. Modified UEMR method was used to initially snare the lesion without injection or water infusion. Thereafter, water was infused until the lesion was submerged, then it was resected using electrocautery. We also evaluated the rates of complete resection and procedure-related complications.

Results

Forty-two patients with 47 polyps were enrolled in the study. The median procedure time and fluid infusion were 71 s (42-607) and 50 mL (30-130), respectively. The rates of R0 resection and en bloc resection were 80.9 and 97.9%, respectively, with 100% technical success. R0 resection was observed in 42.9% of polyps sized ≥15 mm and 87.5% sized <15 mm (p < 0.01). Muscle entrapment was found in 71.4% of patients with polyps sized ≥15 mm and 10% <15 mm (p < 0.01). Immediate bleeding occurred in 12.8% of cases and was controlled using a snare tip or hemostatic forceps. Snare-tip ablation and hemostatic forceps ablation were performed in 27.7 and 6.4% of patients, respectively. No delayed bleeding, perforation, or any other complications were reported.

Conclusion

Modified UEMR can be used in cases in which securing visibility or performing the existing UEMR is challenging. Careful treatment is required when removing polyps >15 mm in size.

Optimizing adenoma detection in screening-related colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Screening-related colonoscopy is a vital component of screening initiatives to both diagnose and prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), with prevention being reliant upon early and accurate detection of pre-malignant lesions. Several strategies, techniques, and interventions exist to optimize endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADR).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an overview of the importance of ADR and other colonoscopy quality indicators. It then summarizes the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the following domains in terms of improving ADR: endoscopist factors, pre-procedural parameters, peri-procedural parameters, intra-procedural strategies and techniques, antispasmodics, distal attachment devices, enhanced colonoscopy technologies, enhanced optics, and artificial intelligence. These summaries are based on an electronic search of the databases Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane performed on December 12, 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality of CRC, the quality of screening-related colonoscopy quality is appropriately prioritized by patients, endoscopists, units, and payers alike. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy should be up to date regarding available strategies, techniques, and interventions to optimize their performance.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

WASh multicentre randomised controlled trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in English NHS bowel scope screening

OBJECTIVES

The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO₂ technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps.

DESIGN

The WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO₂ from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured.

RESULTS

1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO₂). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO₂ (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO₂ arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO₂ or WAS intubation technique.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN81466870.

Screening colonoscopy: The present and the future

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of mortality in men and women. We are now seeing an increasing number of patients with advanced-stage diagnosis and mortality from colorectal cancer before 50 years of age, which requires earlier screening. With the increasing need for CRC screening through colonoscopy, and thus endoscopists, easier and simpler techniques are needed to train proficient endoscopists. The most widely used approach by endoscopists is air insufflation colonoscopy, where air distends the colon to allow visualization of the colonic mucosa. This technique is un-comfortable for patients and requires an anesthetist to administer sedation. In addition, patients commonly complain about discomfort post-op as air escapes into the small bowel and cannot be adequately removed. Current research into the use of water insufflation colonoscopies has proved promising in reducing the need for sedation, decreasing discomfort, and increasing the visibility of the colonic mucosa. Future direction into water insufflation colonoscopies which have shown to be simpler and easier to teach may increase the number of proficient endoscopists in training to serve our aging population.

Current status of water-assisted colonoscopy

Compared with the traditional air insufflation method, water-assisted colonoscopy has many advantages in clinical application with regard to reduced abdominal pain, increased cecal intubation rate, increased detection rate of colon adenoma, and increased complete resection rate of larger polyps. It has gradually attracted more and more attention both in China and other countries. The aim of this article is to elaborate the invention, development, and therapeutic applications of water-assisted colonoscopy, as well as its advantages and shortcomings.

Unsedated Colonoscopy: Impact on Quality Indicators

BACKGROUND

In the USA, sedation is commonly used for colonoscopies; though colonoscopy can be successfully performed without sedation, outcomes data in this setting are scarce.

AIMS

To determine patient characteristics associated with undergoing unsedated colonoscopy and whether adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR) differ between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using a single-center electronic endoscopy database, we identified patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between 2011 and 2018 with or without sedation. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with unsedated colonoscopy, CIR, and ADR.

RESULTS

We identified 24,795 patients who underwent colonoscopy during the study period. Of these, 179 patients (0.7%) underwent unsedated colonoscopy. ADR was 27.4% in sedated and 21.2% in unsedated colonoscopies (p = 0.06); CIR was 95.8% in sedated and 85.5% in unsedated patients (p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 2.06, CI 1.52-2.79) and suboptimal bowel preparation (OR 1.75, CI 1.24-2.45) were associated with undergoing unsedated colonoscopy, while higher BMI was inversely associated with unsedated colonoscopy (BMI 25-29.9: OR 0.44, CI 0.25-0.77). On multivariable analysis, colonoscopy with sedation was associated with CIR (OR 3.79, CI 2.39-6.00) and ADR (OR 1.45, OR 1.00-2.10).

CONCLUSION

We found that undergoing outpatient colonoscopy with sedation as opposed to no sedation was significantly associated with a higher CIR and ADR. Our findings suggest sedation is necessary to meet current CIR and ADR guidelines; however, given the potential cost and safety benefits of unsedated colonoscopy, further investigation into methods to improve patient selection and colonoscopy quality indicators is warranted.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

A review of water exchange and artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection

Water exchange (WE) and artificial intelligence (AI) have made critical advances during the past decade. WE significantly increases adenoma detection and AI holds the potential to help endoscopists detect more polyps and adenomas. We performed an electronic literature search on PubMed using the following keywords: water-assisted and water exchange colonoscopy, adenoma and polyp detection, artificial intelligence, deep learning, neural networks, and computer-aided colonoscopy. We reviewed relevant articles published in English from 2010 to May 2020. Additional articles were searched manually from the reference lists of the publications reviewed. We discussed recent advances in both WE and AI, including their advantages and limitations. AI may mitigate operator-dependent factors that limit the potential of WE. By increasing bowel cleanliness and improving visualization, WE may provide the platform to optimize the performance of AI for colonoscopies. The strengths of WE and AI may complement each other in spite of their weaknesses to maximize adenoma detection.

Cecal intubation time between the use of one-channel and two-channel water exchange colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

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).

Effectiveness and safety of underwater techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comprehensive review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), represent the standard of care for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal lesions. In 2012 a novel technique called underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) was described by Binmoeller and colleagues. This substantial variation from the standard procedure was afterwards applied at endoscopic submucosal dissection (U-ESD) and recently proposed also for peroral endoscopic myotomy (U-POEM) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (U-EFTR).

METHODS

This paper aims to perform a comprehensive review of the current literature related to supporting the underwater resection techniques with the aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Based on the current literature U-EMR appears to be feasible and safe. Comparison studies showed that U-EMR is associated with higher "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for colonic lesions, but lower "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for duodenal non-ampullary lesions, compared to standard EMR. In contrast to U-EMR, little evidence supporting U-ESD are currently available. A single comparison study on gastric lesions showed that U-ESD had shorter procedural times and allowed a similar "en-bloc" resection rates compared to standard ESD. No comparison studies between U-ESD and ESD are available for colonic lesions. Finally, only some anecdotal experiences have been reported for U-POEM or U-EFTR, and the feasibility and effectiveness of these techniques need to be further investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Further prospective studies are necessary to better explore the advantages of underwater techniques compared to the respective standards of care, especially in the setting of U-ESD where consistent data are lacking and where standardization of the technique is needed.

Water Exchange (WE) and Quality Improvement-Enhanced Advanced Adenoma Detection: A Pooled Data Analysis of 6 Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Advanced adenomas (≥10 mm in diameter, >25% villous, or high-grade dysplasia), a marker of colorectal cancer risk, are used to stratify patients for closer surveillance. Modern accessories, endoscopes, and age-adjusted evaluation have variable impacts on the advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). In 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing air insufflation (AI) with water exchange (WE), the right colon AADR was significantly increased by WE. Four network meta-analyses reported that WE significantly increased overall adenoma detection rate (ADR), but the impact on AADR was not addressed.

AIM

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that WE significantly increased AADR compared with AI.

METHOD

Six Clinicaltrial.gov-registered RCTs were reported by a group of WE investigators. Data including AADR (primary outcome) and overall ADR (secondary outcome) were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 5407 patients were randomized to AI (2699) and WE (2708). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased AADR (5.7% vs. 8.3%, P=0.001) and overall ADR (20.9% vs. 27.4%, P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to published reports, which showed variable impacts on AADR, WE was consistent in increasing AADR in 6 reported RCTs. The pooled data confirm that the impact of WE in increasing AADR was significant. The significantly enhanced overall ADR indicated that WE provided a higher quality outcome than AI. The significant improvement in AADR confirmed WE to be clinically relevant and has finally arrived as a timely addition to colorectal cancer prevention programs.

How to increase proximal adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis comparing water exchange, water immersion and air/CO2 insufflation methods for colonoscopy

Background

Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated a higher adenoma detection rate using the water exchange method (WE), compared to water immersion (WI) and air/CO₂ insufflation (ACI). Proximal adenomas have a high miss rate owing to their location and appearance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the WE and WI methods to the ACI method, with a primary focus on proximal adenoma detection rate.

Methods

The following databases were searched for our systematic review: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences. We included both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The primary outcome was proximal adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes were right adenoma detection rate and cecal intubation rate.

Results

A total of 12 studies (17 arms) with 5660 patients (2260 ACI, 2281 WE, and 1119 WI) were included. A higher proximal adenoma detection rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.53; P=0.001) and right adenoma detection rate (RR 1.43, 95%CI 1.19-1.71; P≤0.001; I²=0%) were noted for the WE group compared to the ACI group. The WI group did not demonstrate a better detection rate of proximal or right adenomas.

Conclusions

The water exchange method for colonoscopy holds promise and should be encouraged in the clinical setting to increase proximal and right adenoma detection rates. This will in turn decrease the incidence of colorectal cancer.

The WASh Trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Programme: study protocol for a randomized multicenter trial

Background and study aims  The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants' comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods  This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO ₂ insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO ₂ or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO ₂ and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion  This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020. Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870.

Water exchange colonoscopy decreased adenoma miss rates compared with literature data and local data with CO2 insufflation: an observational study

Background

Reports showed adenoma miss rates (AMRs) of 22.5–27% in the right colon and 23.4–33.3% in the proximal colon. Missed lesions could contribute to postcolonoscopy cancers. Water exchange (WE) with near-complete removal of infused water during insertion increased adenoma detection rate but the impact on AMR had not been reported. We hypothesized that WE could reduce AMRs. Study 1 compared the AMRs of WE with literature data. Study 2 developed local AMR data with CO₂ insufflation.

Methods

The lead author attended a research seminar in 2017 on WE colonoscopy. For performance improvement, study 1 was undertaken. When data in study 1 confirmed WE produced a considerably lower AMRs in the right and proximal colon, study 2 with CO₂ insufflation was performed.

Results

Eighty-six patients completed each study. In study 1, WE removed 89% of infused water upon arrival to the cecum. The AMRs of right colon (17.5%) and proximal colon (15.5%) were considerably lower than those in the literature. Upon completion of study 2, compared with local data of CO₂ insufflation, WE showed a significantly lower AMR in the right (17.5% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.034) and proximal (15.5% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.018) colon, respectively. The major limitation was that the investigation consisted of two consecutive observational studies, not a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Conclusions

WE with near-complete (89%) removal of infused water during insertion significantly decreased AMRs in the right and proximal colon compared with literature data and those of CO₂ insufflation in our hands. The provocative data warrant confirmation in a RCT.

Trial registration

NCT03832322 (Retrospectively registered on February 2, 2019).

Factors Associated With Adenoma Detection in Propofol-sedated Patients

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.

Water Exchange Produces Significantly Higher Adenoma Detection Rate Than Water Immersion: Pooled Data From 2 Multisite Randomized Controlled Trials

GOALS

To test the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) significantly increases adenoma detection rates (ADR) compared with water immersion (WI).

BACKGROUND

Low ADR was linked to increased risk for interval colorectal cancers and related deaths. Two recent randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparison of WE, WI, and traditional air insufflation (AI) each showed that WE achieved significantly higher ADR than AI, but not WI. The data were pooled from these 2 studies to test the above hypothesis.

STUDY

Two trials (5 sites, 14 colonoscopists) that randomized 1875 patients 1:1:1 to AI, WI, or WE were pooled and analyzed with ADR as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The ADR of AI (39.5%) and WI (42.4%) were comparable, significantly lower than that of WE (49.6%) (vs. AI P=0.001; vs. WI P=0.033). WE insertion time was 3 minutes longer than that of AI (P<0.001). WE showed significantly higher detection rate (vs. AI) of the >10 mm advanced adenomas. Right colon combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR of AI (3.4%) and WI (5%) were comparable and were significantly lower than that of WE (8.5%) (vs. AI P<0.001; vs. WI P=0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with AI and WI, the superior ADR of WE offsets the drawback of a significantly longer insertion time. For quality improvement focused on increasing adenoma detection, WE is preferred over WI. The hypothesis that WE could lower the risk of interval colorectal cancers and related deaths should be tested.

Comparing adenoma and polyp miss rates for total underwater colonoscopy versus standard CO2: a randomized controlled trial using a tandem colonoscopy approach

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although water exchange may improve adenoma detection compared with CO₂, it is unclear whether water is a better medium to fill the lumen during withdrawal and visualize the mucosa. Total underwater colonoscopy (TUC) involves the use of water exchange with the air valve off during insertion followed by the inspection of the mucosa under water. Our goal was to compare miss rates for TUC with standard CO₂ for polyps and adenomas using a tandem colonoscopy design.

METHODS

We randomized participants to undergo tandem colonoscopies using TUC or CO₂ first. In TUC, water exchange was performed during insertion, and withdrawal was performed under water. For the CO₂ colonoscopy, both insertion and withdrawal were performed with CO₂. The main outcomes were miss rates for polyps and adenomas for the first examination calculated as the number of additional polyps/adenomas detected during the second examination divided by the total number of polyps/adenomas detected for both examinations. Inspection times were calculated by subtracting the time for polypectomy, and care was taken to keep the times equal for both examinations.

RESULTS

A total of 121 participants were randomized with 61 having CO₂ first. The overall miss rate for polyps was higher for the TUC-first group (81/237; 34%) compared with the CO₂-first cohort (57/264; 22%) (P = .002). In addition, the overall miss rate for all adenomas was higher for the TUC-first group (52/146; 36%) compared with the CO₂ group (37/159; 23%) (P = .025). However, 1 of the 3 endoscopists had higher polyp/adenoma miss rates for CO₂, but these were not statistically significant differences. The insertion time was longer for TUC than for CO₂. After adjusting for times, participant characteristics, and bowel preparation, the miss rate for polyps was higher for TUC than for CO₂.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that TUC had an overall higher polyp and adenoma miss rate than colonoscopy performed with CO₂, and TUC took longer to perform. However, TUC may benefit some endoscopists, an issue that requires further study. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03231917.).

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reduction of multitasking distractions underlies the higher adenoma detection rate of water exchange compared to air insufflation - blinded analysis of withdrawal phase videos

Background

Experts have hypothesized that a reduction of multitasking distractions and improved bowel cleanliness can explain why insertion water exchange enhances adenoma detection rate.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to test the role of both distractions during withdrawal and bowel cleanliness in enhancing adenoma detection rate using coded video records of colonoscopy.

Methods

The withdrawal phase of videos of 299 consecutive colonoscopies from two randomized controlled trials comparing water exchange versus air insufflation at a regional hospital in Taiwan were coded. The primary outcome was distractions; activities that preclude full attention being paid to inspection of the mucosa for polyps. A single blinded reviewer collected the data.

Results

There were significant agreements in inter-rater reliability indexes. Compared to air insufflation, water exchange had significantly fewer distractions; higher diagnostic yield (intervention time and number), adenoma detection rate, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score. Water exchange had a higher withdrawal technique score (predominantly adequacy of cleaning). The association between increased adenoma detection rate and water exchange was mediated by the number of distractions and withdrawal time, but not the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score.

Conclusion

The speculation by experts that a reduction of multitasking distractions underlies the significantly higher adenoma detection rate of water exchange is supported by the current study. Increased bowel cleanliness did not contribute to the increased adenoma detection rate by use of water exchange.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background/Aims

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Bayesian network meta-analysis: Efficacy of air insufflation, CO2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion in colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonoscopy is an excellent screening tool for colorectal cancer. There are four colonoscopy techniques: air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion. Some studies reported that the latter three methods are better than the criterion standard (air insufflation), whereas some studies did not. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the four colonoscopy techniques, a network meta-analysis was carried out.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCT) published up to September 2017 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. Studies referencing the comparison between at least two of air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion were selected. Primary outcomes included pain score during insertion, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes included cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate. Mean differences or odds ratios and their corresponding 95% credible intervals were pooled with Bayesian modeling.

RESULTS

Forty RCT with 13 734 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis showed that air insufflation had the highest pain score (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 98.8%) and the lowest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 21.3%) and polyp (SUCRA: 16.8%). Water exchange had the lowest pain score (SUCRA: 1.1%) and highest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 96.0%) and polyp (SUCRA: 98.9%), although it led to the longest cecal intubation time (SUCRA: 86.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Air insufflation might be the most unsatisfactory colonoscopy. Meanwhile, water exchange might be the most efficient colonoscopy.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Increase your adenoma detection rate without using fancy adjunct tools

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.

Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma of any size, is a quality indicator. We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) improves ADR but water immersion (WI) has no adverse effect on ADR compared with air insufflation (AI).

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted at the Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital in southern Taiwan and the Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital in eastern Taiwan on patients randomly assigned to WE, WI, or AI with stratification by the 3 study colonoscopists. The primary outcome was ADR.

RESULTS

From July 2013 to December 2015, 651 patients were recruited and randomized into 3 groups with a 1:1:1 ratio (217 patients per group). Overall, ADR met quality standards: WE 49.8% (95% CI, 43.2%-56.4%), AI 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-44.4%), and WI 40.6% (95% CI, 34.2%-47.2%). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased ADR (P = .016). There was no difference between WI and WE. ADRs of WI and AI were comparable. Compared with AI, WE confirmed a longer insertion time, higher cleanliness score, but similar adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) and withdrawal time with polypectomy. Subgroup analysis found WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. Multivariate generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that age ≥50 years, WE (vs AI), colonoscopy indication, no previous history of colonoscopy, and withdrawal time >8 minutes were significant predictors of increased ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Confirmation of prior reports showing WE, but not WI, increased ADR further strengthened the validity of our observations. WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. The outcome differences justify assessment of the role of WE in colorectal cancer prevention. Similar APPC and withdrawal times suggest that adequate inspection was performed on colonoscope withdrawal in each of the study arms. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01894191.).

A prospective randomized study of the use of an ultrathin colonoscope versus a pediatric colonoscope in sedation-optional colonoscopy

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.

Water Exchange Method Significantly Improves Adenoma Detection Rate: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key colonoscopy quality indicator in Western clinical literature. Our low ADR prompted us to assess novel methods to improve performance. Western retrospective reports suggested that water exchange (WE) could increase ADR. However, most of these studies used pain score or intubation rate as the primary outcome. Here we test the hypothesis that WE significantly increases ADR among Chinese colonoscopists and design a prospective randomized controlled trial using ADR as our primary outcome.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled trial was performed at six centers in China. Screening, surveillance, and diagnostic cases were randomized to be examined by WE or traditional air insufflation (AI) method. The primary outcome was ADR.

RESULTS

From April 2014 to July 2015, 3,303 patients were randomized to WE (n=1,653) and AI (n=1,650). The baseline characteristics were comparable. Overall ADR was 18.3% (WE) and 13.4% (AI) (relative risk 1.45, 95% confidential interval: 1.20-1.75, P<0.001). ADR in screening patients using AI was 25.8% (male) and 15.7% (female). ADR in screening patients aged >50 years old was 29.4% (WE) and 22.9% (AI) (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidential interval: 1.00-1.19, P=0.040). The increase by WE was reproducibly observed in all indication categories, and significant in screening and diagnostic cases. The limitation imposed by the unblinded investigators was mitigated by comparable inspection times in cases without polyps, similar adenoma per positive colonoscopy, and reproducible enhancement of ADR and adenoma per colonoscopy by WE across all eight investigators.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study confirms Western retrospective data that WE significantly improves ADR among Chinese colonoscopists. WE may be superior to AI for screening colonoscopy in China. Colonoscopists elsewhere with low ADR might consider evaluating WE for performance improvement.

Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy

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.

Painless Colonoscopy: Available Techniques and Instruments

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.

Impact of Colonoscopy Insertion Techniques on Adenoma Detection

BACKGROUND

Low adenoma detection rate (ADR) predicts development of interval cancers, found mainly in the right (cecum-ascending) colon, where poor bowel preparation is an associated factor. Single-site studies reported increased detection of adenomas in the proximal colon segments by water exchange (WE). Data about colon cleansing revealed that WE had the greatest impact in the right colon.

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that WE had the greatest impact on ADR in colon segments with the most favorable bowel cleanliness scores, namely the right colon.

METHODS

We pooled right colon and overall ADR data of three similarly designed colonoscopy trials that compared WE, water immersion (WI) and insufflation of air or carbon dioxide (AICD) in a mixed gender European population.

RESULTS

In this study, 1200 (704 males) subjects and were included. 288 were screening cases. Demographic and procedural data were comparable. Water exchange achieved significantly higher right colon <10 mm ADR (11.9 %, vs WI 6.9 %, p = 0.016; vs AICD 7.2 %, p = 0.025). Water exchange achieved the lowest proportions of poor bowel preparation and the highest right colon and overall Boston bowel preparation scale scores (p range 0.003, <0.0005). In patients with right colon excellent bowel cleanliness, water exchange was the only method significantly associated with right colon adenoma detection. One of the limitations is unblinded colonoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

In a mixed gender European population, water exchange is confirmed to be a superior insertion technique showing a significant increase in <10 mm right colon adenoma detection, achieving the cleanest colon and lowest proportions of poor bowel preparation requiring repeat procedures. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV NO

NCT01781650, 01954862, 01780818.

Development of a murine colonoscopic polypectomy model (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy provides a means for screening and removal of colon adenomas, preventing such lesions from progressing to late-stage carcinoma. No preclinical model currently exists that closely parallels the clinical scenario with respect to polyp resection and recovery after endoscopy.

METHODS

When we used the polyposis in rat colon (Pirc) model, a new polypectomy methodology was developed. A novel PLC classification system (polyp number/location/clockwise orientation) also was devised in order to accurately and reproducibly specify the location of each lesion within the colon.

RESULTS

One week after surgery, injuries to the polypectomy site were confined to the submucosa, indicating that little or no damage occurred to the inner muscle layer of the colon. Polypectomy sites occasionally continued to show ulcer formation, whereas others exhibited tissue regeneration. A pilot study (n = 6 animals), involving a total of 37 polypectomies, confirmed that the new methodology could be applied by using either air insufflation or water-assisted techniques, with either hot or cold snare. As a general observation, polyps tended to be more fully distended and less flattened against the colon mucosa by using the water-assisted protocol, increasing the technical ease of ensnaring and resecting lesions. The PLC system proved to be straightforward and facilitated longitudinal studies by allowing the investigator to track each polypectomy site on repeated examination.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pirc model was ideally suited to colonoscopy with polypectomy. Because the main cause of morbidity in the Pirc model is blockage of the colon, polypectomy can be used as a preventive strategy and will likely facilitate long-term investigations of single agent and combination therapies with potential direct clinical relevance.

Evidence to suggest adoption of water exchange deserves broader consideration: Its pain alleviating impact occurs in 90% of investigators

AIM: To determine whether observations were reproducible among investigators.

METHODS: From March 2013 through June 2014, 18-85-year-old diagnostic and 50-70-year-old screening patients were enrolled at each center to on-demand sedation colonoscopy with water exchange (WE), water immersion (WI) and insufflation with air or CO₂ for insertion and withdrawal [air or carbon dioxide (AICD)]. Data were aggregated for analysis. Primary outcome: Variations in real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 1-2 = discomfort, 10 = worst).

RESULTS: One thousand and ninety-one cases analyzed: WE (n = 371); WI (n = 338); AICD (n = 382). Demographics and indications were comparable. The WE group had the lowest real-time maximum insertion pain score, mean (95%CI): WE 2.8 (2.6-3.0), WI 3.8 (3.5-4.1) and AICD 4.4 (4.1-4.7), P < 0.0005. Ninety percent of the colonoscopists were able to use water exchange to significantly decrease maximum insertion pain scores. One investigator had high insertion pain in all groups, nonetheless WE achieved the lowest real-time maximum insertion pain score. WE had the highest proportions of patients with painless unsedated colonoscopy (vs WI, P = 0.013; vs AICD, P < 0.0005); unsedated colonoscopy with only minor discomfort (vs AICD, P < 0.0005), and completion without sedation (vs AICD, P < 0.0005).

CONCLUSION: Aggregate data confirm superiority of WE in lowering colonoscopy real-time maximum insertion pain and need for sedation. Ninety percent of investigators were able to use water exchange to significantly decrease maximum insertion pain scores. Our results suggest that the technique deserves consideration in a broader scale.

Water Exchange Is the Least Painful Colonoscope Insertion Technique and Increases Completion of Unsedated Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Unsedated colonoscopy is acceptable for diagnostic, surveillance, and screening indications worldwide. However, insertion of the colonoscope can be painful; it is not clear which technique is least painful and thereby increases the likelihood of colonoscopy completion. We performed a head-to-head comparison of air insufflation (AI), carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, water immersion (WI), and water exchange (WE) to determine which combination of insertion techniques produces the least amount of pain.

METHODS

In a patient-blinded prospective trial, 624 subjects were assigned randomly to groups that underwent colonoscopy with AI-AI, CO2-CO2, WI-AI, WE-AI, WI-CO2, or WE-CO2 insertion and withdrawal techniques, including on-demand sedation, at the St. Barbara Hospital (Iglesias, Italy) or the Vìtkovice Hospital (Ostrava, Czech Republic), from October 2013 through June 2014. The primary outcome was real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 10 = worst), recorded by an unblinded nurse assistant. At discharge, a blinded observer recorded the recalled maximum insertion pain and patients' and investigators' guesses about method or gas used.

RESULTS

Patients and investigators correctly guessed the method used for fewer than 44% of procedures, confirming adequate blinding. The correlation between real-time and recalled maximum insertion pain (r = 0.9; P < .0005) confirmed internal validation of the primary outcome. The WE group had the lowest scores: mean pain values were 5.2 for AI-AI (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-5.8), 4.9 for CO2-CO2 (95% CI, 4.3-5.4), 4.3 for WI-CO2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.9), 4.0 for WI-AI (95% CI, 3.5-4.5), 3.1 for WE-CO2 (95% CI, 2.7-3.4), and 3.1 for WE-AI (95% CI, 2.7-3.6) (P < .0005). The highest proportions of patients completing unsedated colonoscopy were in the WE groups. WE groups also had significantly better colon cleanliness, particularly in the transverse and right colon (P < .0005). One limitation of the study was that colonoscopists and assistants were not blinded to water-aided insertion methods.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of colonoscopy insertion methods, CO2 insufflation did not reduce real-time maximum insertion pain. Compared with AI or CO2, WI and WE reduced insertion pain. The least painful technique was WE, which significantly increased completion of unsedated colonoscopy and bowel cleanliness without prolonging insertion time. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01954862.

Suboptimal Bowel Preparation Significantly Impairs Colonoscopic Detection of Non-polypoid Colorectal Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the quality of bowel preparation affects colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs).

AIM

To evaluate the impact of bowel-cleansing quality on detection of NP-CRNs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of asymptomatic screening colonoscopy cases after standardized bowel preparation at an academic teaching hospital between June 2011 and May 2013. Primary outcome was a comparison of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of non-polypoid morphology according to quality of bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included detection prevalence of non-polypoid adenomas.

RESULTS

Of the enrolled 6097 screening examinations, the preparation quality was rated as adequate (excellent or good) in 5224 (85.7 %), fair in 615 (10.1 %), and poor in 258 (4.2 %) patients. The prevalence of NP-CRNs was 40.5 % (1962/4847) of all CRNs. The overall ADR of non-polypoid morphology was 12.3 % (747/6097) of all colonoscopies, but it significantly differed among participating endoscopists (all P < 0.05). The ADR of non-polypoid morphology was significantly lower with fair- or poor-quality preparation, versus adequate-quality preparation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.55, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.75; aOR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.30-0.79, respectively). Poor-quality preparation was also associated with impaired detection of polypoid, proximal colon, and sub-centimeter adenomas (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal (fair or poor) bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of NP-CRNs. Given that the prevalence of NP-CRNs is substantial in our average-risk screening cohort, ongoing efforts to improve the preparation quality are practically valuable in increasing the detection of NP-CRNs, thereby improving the efficacy of screening colonoscopies.