Unsedated colonoscopy: an option for some but not for all

Unsedated colonoscopy utilizing virtual reality distraction: a pilot-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Sedation increases colonoscopy risks and prolongs recovery time. We examined whether virtual reality (VR) can substitute for sedation. The primary outcome was the overall satisfaction of patients who underwent colonoscopy with VR headset compared with patients who underwent standard sedation. Pain during the procedure, polyp detection rate (PDR), colonoscopy duration, post-colonoscopy adverse events, post-colonoscopy recovery, time-to-return to daily functions, and turnaround time at the endoscopy unit were secondary outcomes.

METHODS

The study was approved by Sheba Medical Center's ethics committee IRB number 21-8177-SMC. Sixty patients were sequentially enrolled in a 1:1 ratio to either standard sedated colonoscopy or VR-unsedated procedure, and all patients signed a written informed consent. 28/30 patients successfully completed the colonoscopy using VR headset. Overall satisfaction score was comparable between the groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference between VR and controls in colonoscopy duration, or PDR. VR patients had numerically lower rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events than controls. The proportion of VR patients who reported resuming daily activities on the day of the procedure was significantly higher than in the control group. The VR group patients spent significantly less time in the hospital compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

VR technology can provide adequate substitution for sedation for most patients undergoing colonoscopy and offers comparable patient satisfaction and faster return to daily activities.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Robotic endoscope with double-balloon and double-bend tube for colonoscopy

The insertion of conventional colonoscopes can sometimes cause patients to experience pain during the procedure owing to the stretching of the mesentery. In this study, a prototype of a robotic colonoscope with a double-balloon and double-bend tube based on the conventional double-balloon endoscope was developed to simplify insertion and prevent the overstretching of the colon. Both the outer and inner tubes were confirmed to be free from interference from wires and sheaths. Additionally, all functions such as tip bending, inflation and deflation of the balloons, and actuator-driven pulling and pushing of the inner tube were operated properly. During the insertion test, the device could be reached the cecum of a colon model in approximately 442 s when operated by a non-medical operator. In addition, the device did not overstretch the colon model, thereby suggesting that the insertion mechanism can follow the shape of the colon model. As a result, the developed mechanism has the potential to navigate through a highly-bent colon without overstretching.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age.

METHODS

Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

A novel intubation discomfort score to predict painful unsedated colonoscopy

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

The efficacy of on-demand sedation colonoscopy: a STROBE-compliant retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy has been routinely performed with sedation. Previous studies showed that on-demand sedation colonoscopy is acceptable in patients. We aim to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing colonoscopy with and without sedation.

METHODS

A prospectively collected retrospective matched cohort study was performed. 290 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy without sedation were included into the study. Another 290 patients who underwent colonoscopy with sedation were then selected based on matched sex and age group distribution. Data were collected in a prospective database. Age, sex, race, and procedural variables were collected. Outcomes analyzed included adenoma detection rate, Boston bowel preparation scores, time spent in the recovery room, cecal intubation time, and presence of pain during colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 580 patients were included in the study. Of the 290 patients who underwent colonoscopy without sedation, 10 patients (3.45%) required sedation to be administered to complete the scope. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the administration of sedation was a significant predictor of prolonged recovery time (increase in 34.76 min, 95% CI 29.56-39.55, p < 0.001). Comparing the group who underwent colonoscopy without sedation to the group who underwent colonoscopy with sedation, there was no statistically significant difference in mean cecal intubation time (11.28 vs. 10.38 min, p = 0.129), adenoma detection rates (25.1 vs. 35.8%, p = 0.060), percentage of patients who experienced no pain at all during the procedure (93.5 vs. 93.5%, p = 1.000), and Boston bowel preparation scores (2.23 vs. 2.34, p = 0.370).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that on-demand sedation colonoscopy can be performed in patients, with a significant decrease in time spent in the recovery room prior to discharge. Cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rates, and percentage of patients experiencing no pain at all during the procedure were similar in both groups of patients.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Tolerability of Bowel Preparation and Colonoscopy in IBD Patients: Results From a Prospective, Single-Center, Case-Control Study

Background

Endoscopy plays a fundamental role in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of bowel preparation and colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) patients compared to subjects participating in a colorectal cancer population screening program.

Methods

Consecutive enrolment of CD and UC patients and screening subjects (SS) undergoing colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was done by split dose of 2 L PEG-ELS + simethicone. We recorded endoscopic, clinical, and demographic features; cleanliness rating using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); and sedation doses. Bowel-preparation tolerability, discomfort, and pain during colonoscopy were assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale from 0 to 100 mm.

Results

Sixty-three UC (mean age 49.9 ± 14.9 years), 63 CD (mean age 44.0 ± 14.0 years), and 63 SS (mean age 59.9 ± 6.3 years) patients were enrolled. Bowel preparation was similarly tolerated in UC, CD, and SS (P = 0.397). A complete colonoscopy was similarly performed in UC (59/63, 93.7%), CD (58/63, 92.1%), and SS (60/63, 95.2%) (P = 0.364). The BBPS did not show significant differences between UC (6.2 ± 1.6), CD (6.1 ± 1.3), and SS (6.2 ± 1.4) (P = 0.824). The need to increase sedation doses was significantly higher in CD (24/63, 38.1%) and UC (16/63, 25.4%) than in SS (4/63, 6.3%) (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Bowel preparation is equally tolerated and efficacious in IBD patients and in healthy SS. In IBD, higher sedation doses are needed to guarantee an equally tolerated colonoscopy.

Unsedated Colonoscopy: Impact on Quality Indicators

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Feasibility of sedation on demand in Taiwan using water exchange and air insufflation: A randomized controlled trial

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.

Factors associated with polyp detection during colonoscopy: A retrospective observational study

The polyp detection rate (PDR) is an important quality indicator for colonoscopy. Several factors have been shown to be associated with PDR. However, whether the moderate sedation is a factor for polyp detection remains controversial. This study aims to assess factors associated with polyp detection including the moderate sedation factor during colonoscopy. Patients who underwent colonoscopy from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 were enrolled into this retrospective study. Patients with poor colon preparation and failure to reach the cecum were excluded. The clinical factors, including patient's sex, age, midazolam/fentanyl sedation, indications, endoscopist colonoscopy volume, and use of antispasmodic agent were evaluated by multivariate analysis. A total of 3373 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 55.8 years, and 1980 patients (58.7%) were male. Among the 3373 patients, 2513 (74.5%) underwent midazolam/fentanyl-based sedated colonoscopy. The multivariate analysis showed that male sex, age over 50 years old, midazolam/fentanyl sedation and indications of screening and surveillance were significantly associated with polyp detection. Moreover, when stratified by sex and age, the midazolam/fentanyl sedation was associated with polyp detection in male patients and patients over 50 years old. This study has highlighted the role of midazolam/fentanyl sedation administered by colonoscopists as a modifiable factor that may increase polyp detection during colonoscopy.

Effect of conscious sedation with midazolam and fentanyl on the overall quality of colonoscopy: a prospective and randomized study

INTRODUCTION

a prospective, randomized study was performed to assess the influence of conscious sedation on the overall quality of colonoscopy, simultaneously quantifying its effect on the scientific quality, perceived quality and patient safety.

METHODS

patients referred for a colonoscopy were included in the study and were randomized to receive or not receive sedation. Demographic data, indication for colonoscopy, cecal intubation, introduction and withdrawal time, resected adenomas and complications during the exploration were collected. Thirty days later, a satisfaction questionnaire was performed (GHAA 9-me) and patients were asked about complications after the examination.

RESULTS

a total of 5,328 patients were included, the average age was 62 ± 15.22 years, 47% were male, 3,734 were sedated and 1,594 were not sedated. The sedated patients had a shorter endoscope insertion time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.019), a higher rate of cecal intubations (96% vs 88%, p < 0.05), longer withdrawal time (7'20 ± 2'15 min vs 6'15 ± 3'12 min, p < 0.01) and higher adenoma detection rates (22% vs 17%, p < 0.05). The use of sedation reduced discomfort during and after the exploration, without increasing the complications. The satisfaction questionnaire score was higher (23.6 ± 1.5 vs 16.6 ± 4.8, p < 0.001) in the sedated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

superficial sedation not only reduces patient discomfort but also improves the overall quality of the colonoscopy. Therefore, we must consider the use of sedation as an essential part of colonoscopy.

Assessment of the Quality of Outpatient Endoscopic Procedures by Using a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic procedures represent an important part of daily practice, both for gastroenterologists and nurses, enabling diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. An optimal level of quality needs to be obtained for endoscopic procedures to be efficient, which is reflected directly by patient satisfaction. The Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ) has already been validated in a multicenter trial as an efficient method for measuring patient satisfaction. Aim The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction by applying a modified version of the GESQ in an outpatient facility, with or without deep sedation performed under the supervision of an anesthesiologist.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study included 552 patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic upper and lower GI endoscopies, including endoscopic ultrasound procedures (EUS) performed under propofol sedation, from September 2015 to February 2016. Consecutive patients examined during these 6 months received the questionnaire which was handed by the endoscopy nurse two hours after procedure. The GESQ was modified to include different sections for: 1) communication skills with questions regarding the quantity and clarity of the information delivered to the patient before and after the procedures; 2) pain and discomfort related to the examination with an added question about the specific procedure the patient had undergone; 3) staff manners; 4) physician's technical skills; 5) facility organization (waiting time, comfort in the recovery room, good facilities and equipment) and 6) overall satisfaction. The questionnaire did not include personal data, while answers were analyzed in a confidential manner.

RESULTS

A total number of 552 patients agreed to answer our questionnaire, 192 (34,7%) underwent gastroscopies, 288 (52,1%) colonoscopies and 72 (13,2%) EUS examinations. Regarding the overall level of satisfaction (assessed on a five-point scale), 476 (86,2%) were very satisfied or satisfied, 69 (12,5%) dissatisfied and the remainder 7 (1,3%) were indifferently. For the communication section 16 (3%) patients were not satisfied with the explanations received before the procedure or with the answers to their questions. Pain and discomfort were mentioned by 29 (5,2%) of the patients, usually related to colonoscopies or EUS examinations. 13 (2,3%) of the patients considered the comfort or intimacy of the recovery room to be poor, and 11 (2%) patients were not satisfied with the waiting time before the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Our modified questionnaire showed good overall patient satisfaction with our endoscopy unit, while also suggesting some areas in need of improvement, such as staff communication skills, better time management and reorganization of the recovery area. Our study demonstrates the importance of such questionnaires in providing feedback information meant to improve standards in endoscopy, including staff skills and organization.

Short article: Willingness to undergo colonoscopy with virtual reality instead of procedural sedation and analgesia

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the willingness of patients to start colonoscopy with virtual reality (VR) instead of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA), as well as their motives and characteristics. There is a growing interest in colonoscopy without PSA. Offering VR as a distraction technique instead of PSA may increase the percentage of colonoscopies without PSA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A survey with demographic, colonoscopy-related and psychology-related questions was completed by 326 adults referred for colonoscopy with PSA.

RESULTS

Overall, 25.7% reported to be willing to start with VR instead of PSA. Main reasons for this choice were receiving as little medication as possible, resuming daily life activities faster and participating in traffic independently afterwards. Logistic regression analysis showed that significant predictors of the willingness to use VR were male sex, higher educational level and absence of worries about the outcome of the colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

If VR turns out to be effective in the future, present results may be useful to customize patient information to help patients choosing VR.

Modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after screening colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Pain associated with colonoscopy is a major burden for patients. We investigated modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after colonoscopy.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional analysis included database records from 23 centres participating in a population-based colonoscopy screening programme in Poland. Colonoscopies were performed under three sedation modalities: none, benzodiazepine-opioid sedation or propofol sedation. We used Gastronet (a validated tool) to assess patients' pain during and after colonoscopy; pain was scored on a four-point scale (no, little, moderate or severe pain), with moderate to severe defined as painful. We used multivariate logistic regression models to estimate ORs for painful colonoscopy and calculated risk-adjusted ratios of painful colonoscopies per endoscopist and compared it to the mean rate.

RESULTS

Of 35 216 screening colonoscopies in 2014 and 2015 included in our study, 22 725 (64.5%) patients returned valid Gastronet questionnaires. The proportion of examinations described as causing pain during (after) the procedure was 22.5% (14.2%) for unsedated, 19.9% (13.5%) for benzodiazepine-opioid sedation and 2.5% (7.5%) for propofol sedation. Propofol sedation, higher case volume of endoscopists, newest endoscope generation and adequate bowel preparation were significantly associated with lower odds of painful colonoscopy. Pain scores after colonoscopy showed similar associations. Adjusted pain rates during and after colonoscopy varied 11 and over 23-fold, respectively, between endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

We identified several independent, modifiable factors associated with pain during and after colonoscopy, of which individual endoscopist was the most important. Dedicated training should be considered to decrease variability among endoscopists.

Prospective study of the factors associated with poor tolerance to ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opiates for colonoscopy is a widespread clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

to determine the patient's tolerance to colonoscopy and identify the factors associated with lower tolerance.

METHODS

a prospective, single-center, descriptive study of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation. The pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale with a score of 0 to 100 and also qualitatively.

RESULTS

three hundred patients with a median age of 54 years completed the study (p25-75: 45-64); 138 were men (46%). Tolerance was good in 273 cases (91%). The median value of tolerance was 13 (p25-p75: 4-33). Pain was considered as mild in 215 (71.7%), moderate in 57 (19%) and intense in 28 (9.3%). In the univariate study, greater pain was associated with females, anxiety, the indication for the procedure, the length of time and difficulty of the examination, and the doses of sedatives. In the multivariate study, both the indication (OR 2.92, 95% CI = 1.03-8.2, p < 0.05) and the difficulty of the examination (OR 4.68, 95% CI = 1.6-13.6, p < 0.01) were significant. Complications were found in 16 patients (5.3%), although all of them were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

tolerance of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation is good in most cases and complications are infrequent and minor. A worse tolerance to the test is associated with women patients, individuals with anxiety prior to colonoscopy, indication, difficult and longer exploration and lower doses of sedatives.

Endoscopy for patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease: bowel preparation and sedation

Endoscopy has a key role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It is helpful in the diagnosis, in case of relapse, refractoriness, before therapeutic changes, after surgery as well as in the assessment of mucosal healing and in the surveillance of colo-rectal cancer. IBD patients are intended to undergo several times the examination during their lifespan. Bowel preparation and sedation highly contribute to high-quality colonoscopy. Areas covered: Few studies addressed preparation and sedation in the field of IBD. In this review, we focused our attention on the available evidences about bowel preparation and sedation in patients with IBD. Expert commentary: In recent years, the goal of medical treatment in IBD is shifting from clinical improvement in symptoms towards mucosal healing. High-quality endoscopy will gain even more importance in the management of IBD. It is important to locate the most effective preparation and the best sedation in patient with IBD to perform a high-quality endoscopy.

Prospective study of anxiety in patients undergoing an outpatient colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Undergoing a colonoscopy can cause anxiety in patients and this is something which has not been closely studied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency and intensity of anxiety prior to a colonoscopy and the factors which are related to the procedure.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy in our hospital. Anxiety was assessed using a visual analogue scale of 0 to 100. The severity of anxiety was rated as mild (1-29), moderate (30-79) or severe (80-100).

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-seven patients completed the study, of whom 154 (47.1%) were men with a median age of 54 years (p25-75: 45-65). Three hundred and nine (94.5%) patients were found to suffer a certain degree of anxiety. The median value on the visual analogue scale was 31 (p25-75: 10-53). Anxiety levels were mild in 136 patients (44%), moderate in 141 (45.6%) and severe in 32 (10.4%). Greater anxiety was associated with female patients (mean 40.38 vs 31.99, p = 0.01) and a poorly tolerated previous colonoscopy (mean 50.67 vs 28.44, p = 0.01) and correlated inversely with age (r = -0.170, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy causes some degree of anxiety in most patients. Being female, younger and having experienced poor tolerance to a previous scan are associated with greater degrees of anxiety. These findings should be taken into account in the implementation of measures to improve the quality and tolerance of colonoscopy.

Psychomotor and cognitive effects of 15-minute inhalation of methoxyflurane in healthy volunteers: implication for post-colonoscopy care

Background and study aims: Colonoscopy with portal inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox) is highly feasible with low sedation risk and allows earlier discharge. It is unclear if subjects can return to highly skilled psychomotor skill task shortly after Penthrox assisted colonoscopy. We evaluated the psychomotor and cognitive effects of 15-minute inhalation of Penthrox in adults. Patients and methods: Sixty healthy volunteers (18 to 80 years) were studied on 2 occasions with either Penthrox or placebo in a randomized, double-blind fashion. On each occasion, the subject's psychomotor function was examined before, immediately, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 240 min after a 15-minute inhalation of studied drug, using validated psychomotor tests (Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), auditory reaction time (ART), eye-hand coordination (EHC) test, trail making test (TMT) and logical reasoning test (LRT). Results: Compared to placebo, a 15-minute Penthrox inhalation led to an immediate but small impairment of DSST (P < 0.001), ART (P < 0.001), EHC (P < 0.01), TMT (P = 0.02) and LRT (P = 0.04). In all subjects, the performance of all 5 tests normalized by 30 minutes after inhalation, and was comparable to that with placebo. Although increasing age was associated with a small deterioration in psychomotor testing performance, the magnitude of Penthrox effects remained comparable among all age groups. Conclusions: In all age groups, a 15-minute Penthrox inhalation induces acute but short-lasting impairment of psychomotor and cognitive performance, which returns to normal within 30 minutes , indicating that subjects who have colonoscopy with Penthrox can return to highly skilled psychomotor skills tasks such as driving and daily work the same day.

Colonoscopy without sedation: Patient factors alone are less likely to influence its uptake

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Conscious sedation during colonoscopy minimizes discomfort, improves polyp detection rates, and reduces technical failure, but carries medication-related risks and requires dedicated and costly recovery services. Sedation-free procedures may offer a safer alternative. We aimed to compare this group with those receiving sedation to determine differences in patient characteristics, cecal intubation rates, polyp detection rates, discomfort levels and safety in patients for whom anesthesia is high risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data from all colonoscopies performed over a 1-year period at three district general hospitals were analyzed. Conscious sedation was offered to all patients and outcomes in those who refused were compared with outcomes in those who received sedation.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four of 1694 (11 %) colonoscopies were performed without sedation (61 % male, P < 0.001) but rates varied between hospitals. Of these, 55 % were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 3 or more and 5 % experienced moderate discomfort, compared to 40 % (P < 0.0001) and 10 % (P = 0.023) respectively of those receiving sedation. They were more likely to have indications of rectal bleeding or frequency of stool and less likely to have anaemia or macroscopic inflammation at colonoscopy. Complications, completion. and polyp detection rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy without sedation can be completed successfully in select patients without compromising comfort or polyp detection rates and is safe in those for whom anesthesia is high risk. It is therefore a safe alternative for clinicians concerned about sedation, but the findings suggest that hospital, rather than patient factors, may prevent its uptake.

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

AIM: To determine whether observations were reproducible among investigators.

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

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

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

Sedation practice and comfort during colonoscopy: lessons learnt from a national screening programme

AIM

Medication may be used to manage discomfort during colonoscopy but practice varies. The relationship between medication use and comfort during colonoscopy was examined in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

METHODS

Data related to patient comfort and medication use from all 113,316 examinations performed within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012 were analysed. Comfort was rated on the five-point Modified Gloucester Comfort Scale: 1, no discomfort; 5, severe discomfort. Scores of 4 and 5 were considered to indicate significant discomfort. Correlations between the proportion of examinations associated with significant discomfort and the amounts of medication used by colonoscopists were assessed using Spearman's ρ. Logistic regression modelling examined the independent predictors of significant discomfort.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 65.7 years, and 58% were male. Examinations were performed by 290 endoscopists. In 91% of examinations, there was no significant discomfort reported during examination; however, there was considerable variation between individual colonoscopists (range 76.1-99.2%).Intravenous sedation and opiate analgesia were used during most examinations, but there was wide variation between colonoscopists, with a median (range) usage of 95.1% (4.1-100%) and 97.3% (5.6-100%), respectively. There was no association between the amount of sedation and analgesia used and significant discomfort (ρ<0.2). On multivariate analysis, significant discomfort was found to be more common among female individuals [odds ratio (OR)=2.0], on incomplete examinations (OR=6.7), and among patients with diverticulosis (OR=1.4).

CONCLUSION

There was wide variation in medication practice among English screening colonoscopists, but this was unrelated to the occurrence of significant discomfort.

Colonoscopic polyp detection rate is stable throughout the workday including evening colonoscopy sessions

Objective: Polyp detection rate (PDR) is an accepted measure of colonoscopy quality. Several factors may influence PDR including time of procedure and order of colonoscopy within a session. Our unit provides evening colonoscopy lists (6-9 pm). We examined whether colonoscopy performance declines in the evening.

Design: Data for all National Health Service (NHS) outpatient colonoscopies performed at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in 2011 were examined. Timing, demographics, indication and colonoscopy findings were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression.

Results: Data from 2576 colonoscopies were included: 1163 (45.1%) in the morning, 1123 (43.6%) in the afternoon and 290 (11.3%) in the evening.  Overall PDR was 40.80%. Males, increasing age and successful caecal intubation were all significantly associated with higher polyp detection. The indications ‘faecal occult blood screening’ (p<0.001) and ‘polyp surveillance’ (p<0.001) were strongly positively associated and ‘anaemia’ (p=0.01) was negatively associated with PDR. Following adjustment for  covariates, there was no significant difference in PDR between sessions. With the morning as the reference value, the odds ratio for polyp detection in the afternoon and evening were 0.93 (95% CI = 0.72-1.18) and 1.15 (95%CI = 0.82-1.61) respectively. PDR was not affected by rank of colonoscopy within a list, sedation dose or trainee-involvement.

Conclusions: Time of day did not affect polyp detection rate in clinical practice. Evening colonoscopy had equivalent efficacy and is an effective tool in meeting increasing demands for endoscopy. Standardisation was shown to have a considerable effect as demographics, indication and endoscopist varied substantially between sessions. Evening sessions were popular with a younger population

Sedated vs unsedated colonoscopy: A prospective study

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

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

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

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

Carbon dioxide insufflation does not reduce pain scores during colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

CO(2) is rapidly absorbed from the colon and eliminated via the lung. Insufflation of CO(2) instead of air during colonoscopy can reduce distention-induced pain.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of CO(2) insufflation on pain during intubation and extubation and to identify predictors of pain and discomfort during colonoscope insertion.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Single tertiary medical center in Taiwan.

PATIENTS

A total of 193 patients enrolled from September 2010 through June 2011.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscope insertion with either air or CO(2) insufflation. CO(2) was used for extubation in both groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measurement was pain, recorded on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) for left-sided colonoscope insertion and right-sided colonoscope insertion and at 1, 3, 6, and 24 hours post-procedure. Colonoscope cecal intubation time and extubation time, completeness of intubation, and loop formation were also assessed.

RESULTS

CO(2) insufflation during colonoscope intubation was used in 98 patients and air in 97 patients. The mean pain scores during intubation were low (2-3) for patients undergoing air insufflation and were not reduced further in patients receiving CO(2). A mean pain score of 0 was reported by both groups for all postprocedure time points. Multivariate analysis identified sex, loop formation of the sigmoid colon, time to reach the transverse colon, and requested sedation as factors that significantly affect VAS pain scores.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited in scope to a single medical center with experienced endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

We detected no significant benefit to the use of CO(2) insufflation compared with air insufflation during intubation for colonoscopy performed by experienced colonoscopists. The absence of postprocedure pain in both groups supports previous observations that CO(2) insufflation during extubation is effective in reducing postprocedure pain. Female sex and loop formation were identified as key factors influencing pain scores on colonoscope insertion. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

TSGHIRB-099-05-081.).

Bringing top-end endoscopy to regional australia: hurdles and benefits

This paper focuses on recent experience in setting up an endoscopy unit in a large regional hospital. The mix of endoscopy in three smaller hospitals, draining into the large hospital endoscopy unit, has enabled the authors to comment on practical and achievable steps towards creating best practice endoscopy in the regional setting. The challenges of using what is available from an infrastructural equipment and personnel setting are discussed. In a fast moving field such as endoscopy, new techniques have an important role to play, and some are indeed cost effective and have been shown to improve patient care. Some of the new techniques and technologies are easily applicable to smaller endoscopy units and can be easily integrated into the practice of working endoscopists. Cost effectiveness and patient care should always be the final arbiter of what is essential, as opposed to what is nice to have. Close cooperation between referral and peripheral centers should also guide these decisions.

Quality assurance for gastrointestinal endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review concerns quality assurance for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, especially colonoscopy and will emphasize research and guidelines published since January 2011. Important articles from previous years have been included for background.

RECENT FINDINGS

Critical lapses in endoscope processing and administration of intravenous sedation alerted us to the infection risk of endoscopy. Increases in cost of colonoscopy, evidence for overuse and studies demonstrating missed cancers have led some to question the value of endoscopy. Despite these setbacks, the National Polyp Study (NPS) consortium published their long-term follow-up of the original NPS patients and confirmed that colonoscopy with polyp removal can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer for an extended period. In this article, we will focus on ways to improve the value of outpatient colonoscopy.

SUMMARY

The United States national quality improvement agenda recently became organized into a more coordinated effort spearheaded by several public and private entities. They comprise the infrastructure by which performance measures are developed and implemented as accountability standards. Understanding wherein a gastroenterology (GI) practice fits into this infrastructure and learning ways we can improve our endoscopic practice is important for physicians who provide this vital service to patients. This article will provide a roadmap for developing a quality assurance program for endoscopic practice.

Safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation during and after outpatient colonoscopy

AIM: To study the safety and effectiveness of propofol sedation for outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS: Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 60 mg for patients < 70 years old, 40 mg for patients age 70-89 years, and 20 mg for those ≥ 90 years, and additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 200 mg. The principal parameters were the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after colonoscopy and overall satisfaction for this procedure. Secondary parameters included successful procedure, respiratory depression, and other complications.

RESULTS: Consecutive patients were entered prospectively and all 2101 entered successfully completed outpatient colonoscopy. The mean dose of propofol used was 96.4 mg (range 40-200 mg). Younger patients required higher doses of propofol than older patients (20-40 years vs≥ 61 years: 115.3 ± 32 mg vs 89.7 ± 21 mg, P < 0.001). Transient supplemental oxygen supply was needed by five patients (0.2%); no other complications occurred. The questionnaires were completed by 1820 (87%) of 2101 patients and most rated their overall satisfaction as excellent (80%) or good (17%). The majority (65%) of patients drove home or to their office after their colonoscopy. Most (99%) were willing to repeat the same procedure. No incidents occurred within 24 h after colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION: Propofol sedation using a dose < 200 mg proved both safe and practical for outpatient colonoscopy.

Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story

Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy is the standard practice in Western countries, unsedated colonoscopy is still routinely provided in Europe and the Far East. This variation in sedation practice relies on the different cultural attitudes of both patients and endoscopists across these countries. Data from the literature consistently report that, in unsedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as warm water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high quality and well tolerated examination.