1
|
Leung FW, Cadoni S, Koo M, Yen AW, Siau K, Hsieh YH, Ishaq S, Cheng CL, Ramirez FC, Bak AW, Karnes W, Bayupurnama P, Leung JW, de Groen PC. A survey of colonoscopists with and without in-depth knowledge of water-aided colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 37:1785-1791. [PMID: 35613903 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15896] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2022] [Revised: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Endoscopy featured water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE. METHODS A questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in-depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in-depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified. RESULTS Of 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co-authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta-analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On-demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time. CONCLUSIONS An important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix W Leung
- Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, VAGLAHS; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Medicine, North Hills, California, USA
| | - Sergio Cadoni
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Iglesias, Italy
| | - Malcolm Koo
- Graduate Institution of Long-term Care, Tzu Chi University of Science and Technology, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Andrew W Yen
- Sacramento Veterans Affairs Medical Center, VANCHCS, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - Keith Siau
- Department of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK
| | - Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Sauid Ishaq
- The Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Visiting Professor of Medicine and Gastroenterology, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
| | - Chi-Liang Cheng
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Evergreen General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Francisco C Ramirez
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
| | - Adrian W Bak
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
| | - William Karnes
- Digestive Health Institute, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Irvine, California, USA
| | - Putut Bayupurnama
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| | - Joseph W Leung
- Sacramento Veterans Affairs Medical Center, VANCHCS, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - Piet C de Groen
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
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
|
3
|
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
|
4
|
Hsieh YH, Tseng CW, Koo M, Leung FW. Feasibility of sedation on demand in Taiwan using water exchange and air insufflation: A randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35:256-262. [PMID: 31420895 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.14839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2019] [Revised: 08/08/2019] [Accepted: 08/12/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Completion of colonoscopy without sedation eliminates sedation cost and complications. Reported in the United States and Europe, on-demand sedation is not routine practice in Taiwan. Water exchange (WE), characterized by infusion and nearly complete removal of infused water during insertion, reduces insertion pain compared to air insufflation (AI) during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility of on-demand sedation in Taiwan. In a randomized controlled trial of WE vs AI colonoscopy, we also aimed to determine if WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement. METHODS This prospective patient-blinded study randomized patients to AI or WE (75 patients/group) to aid insertion. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing without sedation. RESULTS In the AI and WE groups, 76.0% and 93.3% (P = 0.006) completed without need for sedation, respectively. The WE group had lower insertion pain score (mean [SD]) (4.0 [2.9] vs 2.1 [2.6], P < 0.001), lower doses of propofol (25.7 [52.7] mg vs 9.1 [35.6] mg, P = 0.012), and less time in the recovery room (3.4 [7.4] vs 1.5 [5.5], P = 0.027) than the AI group. Patient satisfaction scores and willingness to repeat if needed in the future were similar. CONCLUSION On-demand sedation was feasible in Taiwan. The completion rate without sedation was high in patients (76.0% with standard AI) open to the option (no prior intent to receive the standard of full or minimal sedation). WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement without adversely affecting patient satisfaction or willingness to repeat.
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, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Chih-Wei Tseng
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan.,School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Malcolm Koo
- Graduate Institute of Long-term Care, Tzu Chi University of Science and Technology, Hualien, Taiwan.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Felix W Leung
- Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, North Hill, California, USA.,David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Beintaris I, Esmaily S, Saunders BP, Rees CJ, Von Wagner C, Tsiamoulos Z, Hoare Z, Evans R, Yeo ST, Edwards RT, Larkin T, Veitch A, Chilton A, Bramble MG, Deane J, Rutter MD. The WASh Trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Programme: study protocol for a randomized multicenter trial. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7:E1574-E1582. [PMID: 31723580 PMCID: PMC6847695 DOI: 10.1055/a-0953-1468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2018] [Accepted: 04/23/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iosif Beintaris
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
| | - Shiran Esmaily
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
| | | | - Colin J Rees
- Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside NHS Trust, South Shields UK
| | - Christian Von Wagner
- Research Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, UK
| | | | - Zoe Hoare
- North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, UK
| | - Rachel Evans
- North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, UK
| | - Seow Tien Yeo
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, UK
| | - R T Edwards
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, UK
| | | | - Andrew Veitch
- Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - Andrew Chilton
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - Michael G Bramble
- Department of Gastroenterology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Jill Deane
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
| | - Matthew D Rutter
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
- School of Medicine Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, UK
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Facciorusso A, Triantafyllou K, Murad MH, Prokop LJ, Tziatzios G, Muscatiello N, Singh S. Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17:2439-2454.e25. [PMID: 30529731 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.11.058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2018] [Revised: 11/22/2018] [Accepted: 11/29/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection. METHODS We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient. CONCLUSIONS In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Facciorusso
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
| | - Konstantinos Triantafyllou
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine - Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Mohammad Hassan Murad
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Larry J Prokop
- Department of Library Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Georgios Tziatzios
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine - Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Nicola Muscatiello
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
| | - Siddharth Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California; Division of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
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
|
8
|
|
9
|
Comparing adenoma and polyp miss rates for total underwater colonoscopy versus standard CO 2: a randomized controlled trial using a tandem colonoscopy approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89:591-598. [PMID: 30367879 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2018] [Accepted: 09/30/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.).
Collapse
|
10
|
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
|
11
|
Fuccio L, Frazzoni L, Hassan C, La Marca M, Paci V, Smania V, De Bortoli N, Bazzoli F, Repici A, Rex D, Cadoni S. Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88:589-597.e11. [PMID: 29981753 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.06.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2018] [Accepted: 06/21/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorenzo Fuccio
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Leonardo Frazzoni
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Marina La Marca
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Valentina Paci
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Veronica Smania
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Nicola De Bortoli
- Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Franco Bazzoli
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessandro Repici
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research and University Hospital, Rozzano (MI), Italy
| | - Douglas Rex
- Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Sergio Cadoni
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Iglesias, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Chen Z, Li Z, Yu X, Wang G. Is water exchange superior to water immersion for colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2018; 24:259-267. [PMID: 29873319 PMCID: PMC6151995 DOI: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_52_18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhihao Chen
- Department of Endoscopy, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Zhengqi Li
- Department of Endoscopy, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Xinying Yu
- Department of Endoscopy, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Guiqi Wang
- Department of Endoscopy, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
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
|
14
|
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]
|
15
|
Zhang Z, Wu Y, Sun G, Zhang J, Li J, Qiu C, Zheng X, Wang B, Yang L, Wang X. Bayesian network meta-analysis: Efficacy of air insufflation, CO 2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion in colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 2018; 30:321-331. [PMID: 29334136 DOI: 10.1111/den.13012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2017] [Accepted: 01/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhen Zhang
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Yifeng Wu
- Tianjin People's Hospital Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Guangge Sun
- Tianjin People's Hospital Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Jing Zhang
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Jiaxin Li
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Chongyang Qiu
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Xin Zheng
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Botao Wang
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Lei Yang
- Tianjin Institute of Acute Abdominal Disease of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Ximo Wang
- Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
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]
|
17
|
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
|
18
|
Cecal intubation time between cap-assisted water exchange and water exchange colonoscopy: a randomized-controlled trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 29:1296-1302. [PMID: 28857895 DOI: 10.1097/meg.0000000000000954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM The water exchange (WE) method can decrease the discomfort of the patients undergoing colonoscopy. It also provides salvage cleansing and improves adenoma detection, but a longer intubation time is required. Cap-assisted colonoscopy leads to a significant reduction in cecal intubation time compared with traditional colonoscopy with air insufflation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether combined cap-assisted colonoscopy and water exchange (CWE) could decrease the cecal intubation time compared with WE. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 120 patients undergoing fully sedated colonoscopy at a regional hospital in southern Taiwan were randomized to colonoscopy with either CWE (n=59) or WE (n=61). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time. RESULTS The mean cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in CWE (12.0 min) compared with WE (14.8 min) (P=0.004). The volume of infused water during insertion was lower in CWE (840 ml) compared with WE (1044 ml) (P=0.003). The adenoma detection rate was 50.8 and 47.5% for CWE and WE, respectively (P=0.472). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores were comparable in the two groups. Results from the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that WE with a cap, a higher degree of endoscopist's experience, a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, and a lower volume of water infused during insertion, without abdominal compression, without change of position, and without chronic laxative use, were significantly associated with a shorter cecal intubation time. CONCLUSION In comparison with WE, CWE could shorten the cecal intubation time and required lower volume of water infusion during insertion without compromising the cleansing effect of WE.
Collapse
|
19
|
|
20
|
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
|
21
|
Ertem F, Dashwood WM, Rajendran P, Raju G, Rashid A, Dashwood R. Development of a murine colonoscopic polypectomy model (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83:1272-6. [PMID: 26658879 PMCID: PMC4875801 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2015] [Accepted: 11/20/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Furkan Ertem
- Center for Epigenetics & Disease Prevention, Texas A&M
Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Wan-Mohaiza Dashwood
- Center for Epigenetics & Disease Prevention, Texas A&M
Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Praveen Rajendran
- Center for Epigenetics & Disease Prevention, Texas A&M
Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Gottumukkala Raju
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, MD
Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Asif Rashid
- Department of Pathology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas,
USA
| | - Roderick Dashwood
- Center for Epigenetics & Disease Prevention, Texas A&M
Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA,Department of Nutrition & Food Science, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas,Department of Molecular & Cellular Medicine, College of
Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas,Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, MD Anderson Cancer Center,
Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Retrospective comparison of sedated and non-sedated colonoscopy in an outpatient practice. Indian J Gastroenterol 2016; 35:129-32. [PMID: 27138929 DOI: 10.1007/s12664-016-0648-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2015] [Accepted: 03/24/2016] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy are the standard practice in western countries, non-sedated colonoscopy is still in practice 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 non-sedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high-quality and well-tolerated examination. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected performance improvement in endoscopy unit at King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia. The tolerance of colonoscopy without sedation in terms of patient's ability to return to routine work and drive if necessary on the same day of procedure was evaluated. A total of 538 patients who underwent a colonoscopy at King Khalid Hospital endoscopy unit (Najran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) were reviewed from September 2011 to November 2013. All of the procedures were performed by two expert endoscopists, assisted by well-trained nursing staff. Insertion of the colonoscope was aided by insufflations of air, and in a few instances, by water through the colonoscope to minimize air insufflations. IV sedatives were administered upon the judgment of the physician when patient was unable to tolerate the procedure. Of 538 patients who underwent a colonoscopy, 79 patients required sedation. Forty-seven during the procedure and 32 requested pre-procedure sedation, most of them below 20 years of age. Thirty-two who requested pre-procedure sedation were excluded from our statistics. Of the remaining 506 cases, 47 (9.3 %) required sedation during procedure while 459 (90.7 %) tolerated the procedure without sedation. This shortened the hospital stay time, improved the ability to return to work much earlier, and undertake daily activities such as driving. It is also cost effective. The approach of non-sedative colonoscopy and use of sedation on-demand with minimal air insufflation or water infusion when needed during the procedure were well tolerated by approximately 91 % of patients at a single center in Saudi Arabia.
Collapse
|
23
|
Cadoni S, Liggi M, Falt P, Sanna S, Argiolas M, Fanari V, Gallittu P, Mura D, Porcedda ML, Smajstrla V, Erriu M, Leung FW. Evidence to suggest adoption of water exchange deserves broader consideration: Its pain alleviating impact occurs in 90% of investigators. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8:113-121. [PMID: 26839651 PMCID: PMC4724028 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i2.113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2015] [Revised: 08/18/2015] [Accepted: 12/15/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
24
|
Cadoni S, Falt P, Gallittu P, Liggi M, Mura D, Smajstrla V, Erriu M, Leung FW. Water Exchange Is the Least Painful Colonoscope Insertion Technique and Increases Completion of Unsedated Colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13:1972-80.e1-3. [PMID: 25956838 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.04.178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2015] [Revised: 04/17/2015] [Accepted: 04/21/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Cadoni
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy.
| | - Přemysl Falt
- Digestive Diseases Center, Vìtkovice Hospital, Zálužanského, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Paolo Gallittu
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy
| | - Mauro Liggi
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy
| | - Donatella Mura
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy
| | - Vit Smajstrla
- Digestive Diseases Center, Vìtkovice Hospital, Zálužanského, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Matteo Erriu
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Italy
| | - Felix W Leung
- Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hills, California; David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
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
|
26
|
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
|
27
|
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
|
28
|
Allen P, Shaw E, Jong A, Behrens H, Skinner I. Severity and duration of pain after colonoscopy and gastroscopy: a cohort study. J Clin Nurs 2015; 24:1895-903. [DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12817] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/14/2015] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Penny Allen
- Rural Clinical School; The University of Tasmania; Burnie Tasmania
| | - Elissa Shaw
- Mersey Community Hospital; Department of Health and Human Services; LaTrobe Tasmania
- Board of Australian College of Operating Room Nurses (ACORN)
| | - Anne Jong
- Mersey Community Hospital; Department of Health and Human Services; LaTrobe Tasmania
| | - Heidi Behrens
- Rural Clinical School; The University of Tasmania; Burnie Tasmania
| | - Isabelle Skinner
- Rural and Regional Practice Development; School of Health and Rural Clinical School; The University of Tasmania; Burnie Tasmania
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
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
|
30
|
Hsieh YH, Leung FW. Response to Feuerstein. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110:475-6. [PMID: 25743719 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.15] [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]
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- 1] Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan [2] Tzu Chi University, School of Medicine, Hualien, Taiwan
| | - Felix W Leung
- 1] Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hill, California, USA [2] David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
A randomized, controlled trial comparing real-time insertion pain during colonoscopy confirmed water exchange to be superior to water immersion in enhancing patient comfort. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81:557-66. [PMID: 25262100 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2014] [Accepted: 07/09/2014] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Status Evaluation Report recommended comparative studies of water-aided colonoscopy methods to refine the optimal insertion technique. OBJECTIVE Air insufflation (AI), water immersion (WI), and water exchange (WE) were compared head-to-head to test the hypothesis that WE produces the least insertion pain. DESIGN Patient-blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trials. SETTING Two community hospitals in Italy. PATIENTS First-time diagnostic or screening colonoscopy in unsedated patients with the option of on-demand sedation. INTERVENTION Colonoscopy with AI, WI, or WE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 10 = worst). To avoid interventional bias, the timing of recording was at the discretion of the nurse assistant. Adjunct measures were implemented to ensure patient perception of minimal discomfort. Recalled pain and patients' guess of insertion methods were recorded after colonoscopy. RESULTS Results were merged for 576 randomized patients. Correct patient guesses lower than 33% confirmed adequate blinding. Significant correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.6, P < .0005) between real-time and recalled pain provided internal validation of the former as the primary outcome. Real-time pain (95% confidence interval [CI]: AI, 4.1 [3.7-4.5]; WI, 3.5 [3.0-3.9]; and WE, 2.5 [2.2-2.9] [P < .0005] was the lowest in the WE group. The proportions of patients completing unsedated colonoscopy based on the assigned methods were significantly different (WE, 74.7% vs WI, 62.4%; P = .009; vs AI, 65.3%; P = .04). WE required the least implementation of adjunct maneuvers. LIMITATIONS Unblinded colonoscopists. CONCLUSION The current findings with an internally validated primary outcome in adequately blinded patients support the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in attenuating real-time insertion pain and enhancing completion of unsedated colonoscopy.
Collapse
|
32
|
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
|
33
|
Razavi F, Gross S, Katz S. Endoscopy in the elderly: risks, benefits, and yield of common endoscopic procedures. Clin Geriatr Med 2014; 30:133-47. [PMID: 24267608 DOI: 10.1016/j.cger.2013.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
There has been limited research examining the risks, benefits, and use of common endoscopic procedures in the elderly. Furthermore, gastroenterology training programs do not routinely incorporate elderly concerns when dealing with common gastrointestinal issues. There exists a broad array of endoscopic procedures with varying inherent risks that must be weighed with each elderly patient in mind. This article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of the most common procedures and indications for endoscopy including upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and deep enteroscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Farid Razavi
- Division of Gastroenterology, Langone Medical Center, New York University, 550 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Dik VK, Moons LMG, Siersema PD. Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20:2200-2211. [PMID: 24605019 PMCID: PMC3942825 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2013] [Revised: 12/06/2013] [Accepted: 01/20/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Up to a quarter of polyps and adenomas are missed during colonoscopy due to poor visualization behind folds and the inner curves of flexures, and the presence of flat lesions that are difficult to detect. These numbers may however be conservative because they mainly come from back-to-back studies performed with standard colonoscopes, which are unable to visualize the entire mucosal surface. In the past several years, new endoscopic techniques have been introduced to improve the detection of polyps and adenomas. The introduction of high definition colonoscopes and visual image enhancement technologies have been suggested to lead to better recognition of flat and small lesions, but the absolute increase in diagnostic yield seems limited. Cap assisted colonoscopy and water-exchange colonoscopy are methods to facilitate cecal intubation and increase patients comfort, but show only a marginal or no benefit on polyp and adenoma detection. Retroflexion is routinely used in the rectum for the inspection of the dentate line, but withdrawal in retroflexion in the colon is in general not recommended due to the risk of perforation. In contrast, colonoscopy with the Third-Eye Retroscope® may result in considerable lower miss rates compared to standard colonoscopy, but this technique is not practical in case of polypectomy and is more time consuming. The recently introduced Full Spectrum Endoscopy™ colonoscopes maintains the technical capabilities of standard colonoscopes and provides a much wider view of 330 degrees compared to the 170 degrees with standard colonoscopes. Remarkable lower adenoma miss rates with this new technique were recently demonstrated in the first randomized study. Nonetheless, more studies are required to determine the exact additional diagnostic yield in clinical practice. Optimizing the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance requires high definition colonoscopes with improved virtual chromoendoscopy technology that visualize the whole colon mucosa while maintaining optimal washing, suction and therapeutic capabilities, and keeping the procedural time as low and patient discomfort as optimal as possible.
Collapse
|
35
|
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
|
36
|
Wang WJ, Gao JX, Qian JY, Qi YR, Sun MH, Han HY, Liu WT. Water injection versus air insufflation for colonoscopy in elderly patients. Shijie Huaren Xiaohua Zazhi 2014; 22:601-605. [DOI: 10.11569/wcjd.v22.i4.601] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To compare the impact of water injection versus air insufflation for colonoscopy on cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time and pain degree in elderly patients.
METHODS: Two hundred elderly patients (aged 65-82 years) who underwent non-narcotic colonoscopy were randomly divided into two groups: water injection and air insufflation. The cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time and pain degree were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in cecal intubation rate (98% vs 94%, P > 0.05) or cecal intubation time (7.83 min ± 1.58 min vs 8.01 min ± 1.26 min, P > 0.05) between the water injection and air insufflation groups. Abdominal pain score was significantly lower in the water injection than in the air insufflation group (3.23 ± 1.71 vs 4.87 ± 1.94, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Compared with air insufflation colonoscopy, water injection colonoscopy has similar cecal intubation rate and cecal intubation time, but is associated with significantly lower pain in elderly patients.
Collapse
|
37
|
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
|
38
|
Falt P, Šmajstrla V, Fojtík P, Liberda M, Kliment M, Tvrdík J, Urban O. Cap-assisted water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: prospective, randomized, single-center trial. Dig Endosc 2013; 25:434-9. [PMID: 23808948 DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01402.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2012] [Accepted: 09/19/2012] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Water immersion insertion is able to reduce discomfort and need for sedation during colonoscopy. A cap attached to the colonoscope tip may improve insertion during air insufflation colonoscopy. According to several reports, both techniques alone may result in higher detection of neoplastic lesions. Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted water immersion compared to water immersion colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients. METHODS A total of 208 consecutive outpatients were randomized to either cap-assisted water immersion (Cap Water) or water immersion colonoscopy (Water). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time. RESULTS Cecal intubation time was 6.9 ± 2.9 min in Cap Water and 7.4 ± 4.2 min in the Water arm (P = 0.73). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy was equal in both groups (92.9%, P = 1.00). From the endoscopist's point of view, there were non-significant trends towards lower discomfort (P = 0.06), less need for abdominal compression (P = 0.06) and lower difficulty score (P = 0.05) during Cap Water colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was similar in both arms (44% in Cap Water vs 45% in the Water group, P = 0.88). There were no complications recorded in the present study. CONCLUSIONS In comparison with water immersion without cap, cap-assisted water immersion colonoscopy was not able to shorten the cecal intubation time. However, it has the possibility of reducing patient discomfort and difficulty of colonoscope insertion. Potential impact on improved detection of neoplastic lesions has to be evaluated by further studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Přemysl Falt
- Digestive Diseases Center, Vítkovice Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
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
|
40
|
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
|
41
|
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
|
42
|
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]
|
43
|
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
|
44
|
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
|
45
|
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
|
46
|
Abstract
Gastrointestinal endoscopy has undergone a remarkable expansion in its capabilities as a result of sophisticated technological advances in recent years. New imaging technologies, novel ablation and resection techniques, cutting-edge endoscope development and creative extraluminal applications have taken gastrointestinal endoscopy to an exciting new level. An update on some of these advances is presented for the physician audience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Kwan
- Department of Gastroenterology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, Kato N, Kamijima T, Ichise Y, Tanaka N. Colonoscopic enema as rescue for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a prospective, observational study. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14:e735-9. [PMID: 22630138 DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03107.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
AIM Colonoscopy may need to be rescheduled because of inadequate bowel preparation. We evaluated the effectiveness of colonoscopic enema as rescue for an inadequate 1-day bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHOD Patients referred for afternoon colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in the study during a 1-year period. Patients took bowel preparation (polyethylene glycol) solution on the morning of the endoscopy. If during colonoscopy the bowel preparation was poor, an enema of polyethylene glycol solution (500 ml) was instilled into the colon at the level of the hepatic flexure via the biopsy channel of the colonoscope which was then removed. The patient was allowed to recover from the propofol sedation and used the bathroom to evacuate the enema. The colonoscope was then introduced and the examination continued. RESULTS Of 504 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 26 (4.9%) received an enema. The median age was 59 (29-79) years and 19 (73%) were female. A subsequent successful colonoscopy was achieved in 25/26 (96%). There were no complications. The mean time spent for the entire colonoscopy from the initial preparation to the end of the examination including the enema was 7.6± 1.1h (5.4 h preparation, 0.2h first colonoscopy+enema, 0.66h waiting in the lavatory, 0.33h second colonoscopy and 1 h for recovery). CONCLUSION Colonoscopic enema was highly successful as rescue for patients with inadequate bowel preparation and avoided postponement of the procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Horiuchi
- Digestive Disease Center, Showa Inan General Hospital, Komagane, Japan.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
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
|
49
|
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
|
50
|
Combination of water immersion and carbon dioxide insufflation for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-center trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24:971-7. [PMID: 22569079 DOI: 10.1097/meg.0b013e3283543f16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Water immersion insertion and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, as alternative colonoscopic techniques, are able to reduce patient discomfort during and after the procedure. We assessed whether the combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation is superior in efficacy and patient comfort to other colonoscopic techniques. METHODS In a prospective, randomized study, a total of 420 patients were randomized to either water immersion insertion and CO2 insufflation during withdrawal (water/CO2), water insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal (water/air), CO2 insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (CO2/CO2), or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal (air/air). The main outcome was the success of minimal sedation colonoscopy, which was defined as reaching the cecum without switching to another insertion method and without additional sedation beyond the initial 2 mg of midazolam. Patient comfort during and after the procedure was assessed. RESULTS A total of 404 patients were analyzed. The success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy in the water insertion arm (water/CO2 and water/air) was 97% compared with 83.3% in the gas insertion arm (CO2/CO2 and air/air; P<0.0001). Intraprocedural pain and bloating were significantly lower in the water/CO2 group than in all other groups. Patient discomfort in the water/CO2 group during 24 h after the procedure was comparable with that in the CO2/CO2 group and significantly lower than that in the air groups (water/air and air/air). No complications were recorded during the study. CONCLUSION The combination of water immersion and CO2 insufflation appears to be an effective and safe method for minimal sedation colonoscopy. Overall patient discomfort was significantly reduced compared with that in other techniques.
Collapse
|