Randomized trial of standard versus magnetic endoscope imaging colonoscopes for unsedated colonoscopy

Efficacy of ScopeGuide-Assisted Training in Enhancing Colonoscopy Competence and Reducing Patient Discomfort

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the Magnetic Scope Guide Assist (ScopeGuide) in enhancing the procedural competence of endoscopists and reducing patient discomfort during colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study with 88 trainee participants. The study participants were trained on patients who underwent colonoscopy without anesthesia. Both ScopeGuide-assisted training and conventional training (without ScopeGuide) were utilized for colonoscopy instruction. The outcomes of training were compared, with a particular emphasis on the competency of looping resolution.

RESULTS

ScopeGuide-assisted training was superior to conventional training in multiple aspects, including looping resolution ( Z =-3.681, P <0.001), pain scores ( Z =-4.211, P <0.001), time to reach the cecum ( Z =-4.06, P <0.001), willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopy ( Z =-4.748, P <0.001), competence of positional changes ( Z =-4.079, P <0.001), and the effectiveness of assisted compression ( Z =-3.001, P =0.003). Further stratified analysis revealed that the ScopeGuide-assisted training mode was more beneficial for junior endoscopists ( P <0.05 in all parameters) but not for intermediate endoscopists ( P >0.05) and partially beneficial for senior endoscopists ( P <0.05 for all parameters except looping resolution).

CONCLUSION

ScopeGuide-assisted training can significantly facilitate endoscopists in resolving loops and reducing patient pain, thereby enhancing their colonoscopy abilities.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging as a rational investment for specific colonoscopies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) was regarded as an adjuvant device to improve procedural efficacy and patients' comfort during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Based on the heterogeneity of included studies, random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-one randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for meta-analysis, with a total of 7,060 patients. Although there is a slightly lower risk of cecal intubation failure with the adjuvant of MEI (RD 3%; P < 0.00001) compared to the control group, the updated studies show no significant benefits. Similarly, the cecal intubation time, pain scores, and loop formation with the adjuvant of MEI did not show any advantages. However, considerable significant benefits were found in the subgroup of technically difficult colonoscopy and inexperienced colonoscopists. Moreover, MEI was associated with lower loop intubation time, lower abdominal compression times, and better lesion localization.

CONCLUSION

The clinical benefits of MEI could be exaggerated. However, MEI has considerable advantages in technically difficult colonoscopies, the assistance for inexperienced colonoscopists, loop resolving, and lesion localization.

Outcomes of use of electromagnetic guidance with responsive insertion technology (RIT) during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy can be technically challenging and cause discomfort in patients. The integrated Scope Guide assist is built in to show that with its use outcomes are improved during colonoscopy. We aimed to test the usefulness of the Magnetic Scope Guide Assist (ScopeGuide ) with respect to cecal intubation time, and other procedural quality outcomes. Patients and methods  We conducted a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy at the endoscopic units of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) from March 2016 to July 2016. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 block design to groups that either had standard colonoscopy or Scope-guided colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcome measures included use of manual pressure, position changes for cecal intubation and sedation requirements. Results  Three hundred patients were randomized to either group; standard (n = 150) vs. Scope-guided (n = 150). The mean CIT was not statistically different for the standard and the Scope-guided groups (4.6 vs. 4.3 minutes; P  = 0.46). There were also no statistical differences in frequency of manual pressure applied (16.7 % for Scope-guided vs. 19.1 % for standard; P  = 0.65) or position changes (11.4 % for scope guided vs. 8.8 % standard; P  = 0.56). Sedation requirements showed lesser use of midazolam (3.9 mg vs. 4.7 mg, P  = 0.003) in the Scope-guide group, while there was no significant difference in use of fentanyl (fentanyl - 62.1 mg vs. 68.9 mg, P  = 0.09 similar between groups, for Scope-guided vs. standard groups, respectively). Adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusions  In patients undergoing routine elective colonoscopy, use of ScopeGuide by experienced colonoscopists did not improve CIT or affect the frequency of ancillary maneuvers. The benefit of this device during training of endoscopists could be considered for further studies.

Utilisation of magnets to enhance gastrointestinal endoscopy

Methods to assess, access and treat pathology within the gastrointestinal tract continue to evolve with video endoscopy replacing radiology as the gold standard. Whilst endoscope technology develops further with the advent of newer higher resolution chips, an array of adjuncts has been developed to enhance endoscopy in other ways; most notable is the use of magnets. Magnets are utilised in many areas, ranging from endoscopic training, lesion resection, aiding manoeuvrability of capsule endoscopes, to assisting in easy placement of tubes for nutritional feeding. Some of these are still at an experimental stage, whilst others are being increasingly incorporated in our everyday practice.

Magnetic endoscope imaging in single-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) provides continuous viewing of the position of the endoscope on a monitor without using X-ray and has already been established for colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new MEI probe for enteroscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective feasibility study, consecutive patients received single-balloon enteroscopy guided by the new MEI probe. Fluoroscopy was also used in all examinations. MEI images were compared to fluoroscopy images with respect to concordance of loop configuration by two independent observers after the examinations. Main outcome measurement was the rate of concordant MEI and fluoroscopy images with respect to loop configuration.

RESULTS

In all 10 patients, single-balloon enteroscopy with MEI was carried out without any adverse events or technical difficulties. Concordance of MEI and fluoroscopy images was seen in 36/38 images (95%; 95% CI, 82-99%) by both observers. Overall agreement between the two observers was 95% (κ = 0.47, 95% CI, -0.04-1).

CONCLUSION

The use of MEI in single-balloon enteroscopy is safe and feasible. Detection and control of loops can be accurately achieved.

Magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

AIM: To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS: Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as “usual” or “difficult” by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.

RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.

CONCLUSION: Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging vs standard colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM: To assess the theoretical advantages of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) over standard colonoscopies (SCs) and to compare their efficacies.

METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the Science Citation Index, were searched to retrieve relevant trials. In addition, abstracts from papers presented at professional meetings and the reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional studies. The meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.1. A random effect model with the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for pooling dichotomous and continuous data. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding the trials with a small number of patients and by excluding the trials performed by inexperienced providers.

RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 2967 patients, were included in the meta-analysis to compare cecal intubation rates and times, sedation dose, abdominal pain scores and the use of ancillary maneuvers between MEI and SC. The overall OR was 1.92 (95%CI: 1.13-3.27, eight RCTs), as indicated by the cecal intubation rate of MEI compared with SC, but MEI did not have any distinct advantage over SC for cecal intubation time (MD = -0.07, 95%CI: -0.16-0.02; three RCTs). MEI did not generally result in lower pain scores. Outcomes were also analyzed for the two subgroups based on the endoscopists’ experience level to evaluate cecal intubation rates. MEI presented better outcomes for non-experienced colonoscopists than experienced colonoscopists.

CONCLUSION: The real-time magnetic imaging system is of benefit in training and educating inexperienced endoscopists and improves the cecal intubation rate for experienced and inexperienced endoscopists.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging during colonoscopy is associated with less pain and decreased need of analgesia and sedation--results from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is the method of choice for examining patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms. The procedure is, however, in many cases, associated with pain and impaired compliance. Magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) generates a three-dimensional image of the colonoscope on a computer screen which may enable the colonoscopist to avoid looping, and consequently improve patient satisfaction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 200 outpatients referred to colonoscopy at Østfold Hospital Trust, Fredrikstad, Norway, were included. Patients were randomized to either the standard arm (using fluoroscopy on demand, n = 100), or the MEI arm (n = 100). End points were time to cecum, subjective pain experiences, and use of sedation or analgesics.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 200 patients, 54% were men. However, no significant differences between the groups according to gender were found. Fluoroscopy was applied in 23% of the cases in the standard group. Use of MEI was associated with decreased time to cecum (p < 0.05), decreased pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale, p < 0.05), decreased need of analgesia (p < 0.01), and decreased amount of administered midazolam and pethidin (p < 0.05 in both).

CONCLUSIONS

MEI during colonoscopy was associated with decreased pain and less on-demand requests for sedation and analgesia. In addition, the use of MEI reduced the cecal intubation time. Consequently the implementation of magnetic endoscopic imaging in the endoscopy suits may be beneficial, particularly in the clinically difficult cases.

Water exchange enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy. Unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

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.).

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.).

Magnetic endoscope imaging (ScopeGuide) elucidates the mechanism of action of the pain-alleviating impact of water exchange colonoscopy - attenuation of loop formation

BACKGROUND

The explanation why water exchange colonoscopy produces a significant reduction of pain during colonoscopy is unknown. A recent editorial recommended use of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) to elucidate the explanation.

OBJECTIVE

In unselected patients to show that MEI documents less frequent loop formation when water exchange is used.

DESIGN

Observational, performance improvement.

SETTING

Veterans Affairs outpatient endoscopy.

PATIENTS

Routine colonoscopy cases.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy using air or water exchange method was performed as previously described. The MEI equipment (ScopeGuide, Olympus) with built-in magnetic sensors displays the configuration of the colonoscope inside the patient. During sedated colonoscopy the endoscopist was blinded to the ScopeGuide images which were recorded and subsequently reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Loop formation based on a visual guide provided by Olympus.

RESULTS

There were 41 and 32 cases in the water exchange and air group, respectively. The sigmoid N loop was most common, followed by the sigmoid alpha loop, and exaggeration of scope curvature at the splenic flexure/transverse colon. Of these, 20/32 vs. 9/41 patients (p=0.0007) had sigmoid looping, and 17/32 vs. 9/41 patients (p=0.0007) had sigmoid/splenic looping when the scope tip was in the transverse colon, in the air and water exchange group, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Colonoscopy method was not blinded and non randomized.

CONCLUSION

MEI data objectively demonstrated significantly fewer loops during water exchange colonoscopy, elucidating its mechanism of pain alleviation - attenuation of loop formation. Since MEI feedback enhances cecal intubation by trainees, the role of MEI combined water exchange in speeding up trainee learning curves deserves further evaluations.