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

ENDOANGEL versus water exchange for the detection of colorectal adenomas

Background

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

Objectives

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

Design

This was a retrospective study.

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

GOALS

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Upskilling Pediatric Ileocolonoscopy

Upskilling in ileocolonoscopy is an important aspect of pediatric endoscopic practice as it enables endoscopists to learn additional skills through education and training to improve outcomes. With the advent of technologies, endoscopy is continuously evolving. Many devices can be applied to improve endoscopy quality and ergonomics. In addition, techniques such as dynamic position change can be employed to increase procedural efficiency and completeness. Key to upskilling is enhancing endoscopists' cognitive, technical and nontechnical skills and the concept of "training the trainer" to ensure trainers have the requisite skills to teach endoscopy effectively. This chapter details aspects of upskilling pediatric ileocolonoscopy.

A survey of colonoscopists with and without in-depth knowledge of water-aided colonoscopy

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.

Factors associated with prolonged cecal insertion time in patients undergoing water exchange colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Water exchange is superior to air insufflation in reducing discomfort and increasing adenoma detection during colonoscopy. However, prolonged cecal insertion time is a drawback. This study aims to investigate the factors affecting cecal insertion during water exchange colonoscopy.

METHODS

We pooled data from five randomized clinical trials that included patients undergoing water exchange colonoscopy. Logistic analysis was performed to determine the independent factors associated with prolonged cecal insertion time (> 15 min).

RESULTS

The cohort included 912 patients (493 men and 419 women) with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 49-64 years). The median cecal insertion time was 13.5 min (interquartile range, 10.9-17.0 min). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that female sex, body mass index < 25 kg/m² , a history of constipation, no sedation, less experienced endoscopist, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≤ 6, infused water volume during insertion ≥ 1000 mL, and scope length at the cecum ≥ 85 cm were associated with prolonged cecal insertion time. With increasing volume of infused water (1000-2000 mL), the median cecal insertion time increased gradually from 11.4 to 23.0 min (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study identified independent factors associated with prolonged cecal insertion time during water exchange colonoscopy. Several factors are modifiable to achieve a shorter insertion time, including better bowel preparation, the use of sedation, more experienced endoscopist, infusing less water during insertion, and maintaining a shorter scope length.

Polyp detection and false-positive rates by computer-aided analysis of withdrawal-phase videos of colonoscopy of the right-sided colon segment in a randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Water exchange (WE) improves lesion detection but misses polyps because of human limitations. Computer-aided detection (CADe) identifies additional polyps overlooked by the colonoscopist. Additional polyp detection rate (APDR) is the proportion of patients with at least 1 additional polyp detected by CADe. The number of false positives (because of feces and air bubble) per colonoscopy (FPPC) is a major CADe limitation, which might be reduced by salvage cleaning with WE. We compared the APDR and FPPC by CADe between videos of WE and air insufflation in the right-sided colon.

METHODS

CADe used a convolutional neural network with transfer learning. We edited and coded withdrawal-phase videos in a randomized controlled trial that compared right-sided colon findings between air insufflation and WE. Two experienced blinded endoscopists analyzed the CADe-overlaid videos and identified additional polyps by consensus. An artifact triggered by CADe but not considered a polyp by the reviewers was defined as a false positive. The primary outcome was APDR.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-five coded videos of colonoscopies inserted with WE (n = 123) and air insufflation (n = 122) methods were analyzed. The APDR in the WE group was significantly higher (37 [30.1%] vs 15 [12.3%], P = .001). The mean [standard deviation] FPPC related to feces (1.78 [1.67] vs 2.09 [2.09], P = .007) and bubbles (.53 [.89] vs 1.25 [2.45], P = .001) in the WE group were significantly lower.

CONCLUSIONS

CADe showed significantly higher APDR and lower number of FPPC related to feces and bubbles in the WE group. The results support the hypothesis that the strengths of CADe and WE complement the weaknesses of each other in optimizing polyp detection.

Feasibility of salvage colonoscopy by water exchange for failed air-insufflated patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A complete colonoscopy is crucial for screening colorectal diseases and colorectal cancer. However, a failure rate of up to 43% still exists. Several studies have indicated that the water exchange method can enhance the cecal intubation rate while reducing discomfort of the patient. Water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) might be a salvage treatment for the patients who failed from air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC). We aimed to assess the feasibility of WEC as a salvage measure following the failure of conventional AIC.

METHODS

Patients willing to undergo unsedated colonoscopy at a tertiary-care referral center in China were randomly assigned 1:1 to WEC or AIC group for salvage after the initial AIC attempt failed. Patients were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was cecal intubation rate, the secondary outcomes included time to the cecum, maximum pain scores, and technical difficulty level.

RESULTS

Recruited 104 patients were randomized to the WEC (n = 52) or AIC (n = 52) group. WEC significantly increased the cecal intubation rate (92.3% vs 73.1%; p = .02). The maximum pain scores and technical difficulty level in the WEC group were significantly lower than the AIC group during salvage procedure (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized, controlled trial confirms that the WEC significantly enhanced cecal intubation rate in difficult colonoscopy in unsedated patients after the failure of standard AIC. The increased cecal intubation rate, lower pain scores and technical difficulty level suggest WEC is a good alternative for incomplete unsedated colonoscopy. Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100051483.

Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of water-assisted colonoscopy is well established, the role of water immersion sigmoidoscopy (WIS) remains unclear. We compared WIS with carbon dioxide insufflation sigmoidoscopy (CO₂S) on patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a single-center quality improvement program about patients undergoing unsedated screening sigmoidoscopy (WIS and CO₂S) between May 2019 and January 2020. Outcomes studied included the following: Rates of severe pain <17% (score of ≥7 on a numeric rating scale of 0-10, and on a Likert scale), willingness to repeat the procedure without sedation, adequate bowel cleanliness >75% (proportion of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score: 2-3) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

In total, 234 patients (111 WIS; 123 CO₂S) were included. All patients were aged 58 years and 58.9% were female; baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of severe pain (WIS: 16.5%, CO₂S: 13.8%; P = 0.586), willingness to repeat the unsedated procedure (WIS: 82.3%, CO₂S: 84.5%; P = 0.713), adequate bowel cleanliness (WIS: 78.4%, CO₂S: 78%, P = 0.999) or ADR (WIS: 25.2%, CO₂S: 16.3%; P = 0.106) between groups. However, average procedure times were longer with WIS (9.06 min) compared to CO₂S (6.45 min; P < 0.001). Overall, 29.6% of women reported that they would repeat sigmoidoscopy only if sedated.

CONCLUSIONS

WIS does not ameliorate tolerance to and quality of sigmoidoscopy screening measured by several scores. When offered a choice, the women's willingness to repeat WIS or CO₂S without sedation was poor and raises concern on the opportunity of screening sigmoidoscopy without sedation in these subjects.

Comparison of Procedural Sequences in Sedated Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy with Water-Exchange Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Previous studies have favored esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) followed by colonoscopy as the optimal sequence in bidirectional endoscopy (BDE) with air insufflation. However, the optimal sequence in same-day BDE with WE colonoscopy is unclear. Methods: A total of 200 patients undergoing BDE with propofol sedation from May 2018 to January 2021 were randomized to either the EGD-first group (n = 100) or the colonoscopy-first group (n = 100). Results: The EGD-first group required a longer cecal-intubation time (median 16.0 min vs. 13.7 min, p < 0.001) and a lower Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (8.5 vs. 9, p = 0.030) compared with the colonoscopy-first group. However, the EGD-first group needed a significantly lower dose of propofol (200 mg vs. 250 mg, p < 0.001) and a shorter recovery time (7 min vs. 13.5 min, p < 0.001), resulting in a shorter turnover time of the endoscopy room (39.5 min vs. 42.6 min, p = 0.004). There were no differences in the sedation-related adverse events, patients’ satisfaction scores, adenoma-detection rates, or the outcomes of EGD between the two groups. Conclusions: During propofol-sedated BDE, EGD followed by WE colonoscopy was more efficient with a shorter turnover time despite a longer cecal-intubation time (NCT03638713).

Application and prospect of artificial intelligence in digestive endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

With the progress of science and technology, artificial intelligence represented by deep learning has gradually begun to be applied in the medical field. Artificial intelligence has been applied to benign gastrointestinal lesions, tumors, early cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, gallbladder, pancreas, and other diseases. This review summarizes the latest research results on artificial intelligence in digestive endoscopy and discusses the prospect of artificial intelligence in digestive system diseases.

AREAS COVERED

We retrieved relevant documents on artificial intelligence in digestive tract diseases from PubMed and Medline. This review elaborates on the knowledge of computer-aided diagnosis in digestive endoscopy.

EXPERT OPINION

Artificial intelligence significantly improves diagnostic accuracy, reduces physicians' workload, and provides a shred of evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Shortly, artificial intelligence will have high application value in the field of medicine.

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate of water exchange, Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) may contribute to interval cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, water exchange (WE) was shown to be superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. The strong positive correlation between adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) prompted us to hypothesize that WE could significantly improve SSA/PDR compared with Endocuff and cap colonoscopy.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported SSA/PDR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing SSA/PDR of each method using air insufflation as the control and reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

A total of 531 articles resulted from initial keywords search. Eleven RCTs were included in the analysis. A total of 7856 patients underwent air insufflation, WE, Endocuff, or cap colonoscopy. WE significantly increased SSA/PDR (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33-3.13). Endocuff (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41) and cap (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.42-2.74) did not significantly impact SSA/P detection. P-scores for WE (0.96), Endocuff (0.49), cap (0.37), and air insufflation (0.17) suggested that WE had the highest SSA/PDR. The results did not change after adjusting for mean withdrawal time and indication for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Water exchange significantly increases SSA/PDR and is superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at detecting SSA/P.

Comparing right colon adenoma detection rate during water exchange and air insufflation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that water exchange (WE) produced the highest adenoma detection rate (ADR) but did not evaluate right colon adenoma detection rate (rADR) as a primary outcome and only one of the trials employed blinded colonoscopists. The aim of our study was to determine whether, compared with air insufflation, WE significantly increases rADR and right colon serrated lesion detection rate (rSLDR) and decreases adenoma miss rate (rAMR).

METHODS

This prospective, double-blind RCT was conducted at a regional hospital in Taiwan between December 2015 and February 2020. Standard WE and air insufflation were performed. After cecal intubation, the second blinded endoscopist examined the right colon and obtained rADR (primary outcome) and rSLDR. Then, the primary colonoscopist reinserted the scope to the cecum with WE in both groups and performed a tandem examination of the right colon to obtain rAMR.

RESULTS

There were 284 patients (50.9% male, mean age 58.9 ± 9.4 years) who were randomized to WE (n = 144) or air insufflation (n = 140). The baseline characteristics were similar. The rADR (34.7% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.025), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (mean, 2.6 ± 0.6vs. 2.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.001), rSLDR (18.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.007), and rAMR (31.5% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.038) were significantly different between WE and air insufflation.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study demonstrated a significantly higher rADR and rSLDR with the WE method performed by blinded colonoscopists. The impact of the significant findings in this report on the occurrence of interval cancers deserves to be studied.

Clinical effects of left-colon water exchange colonoscopy vs conventional air-insufflation colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The left colon is difficult to detect via conventional air-injection colonoscopy, and patients may have obvious discomfort during intubation. Studies have reported that water exchange technology can significantly reduce the pain and discomfort of patients during endoscopy. However, there are still few studies comparing the clinical effects of left-colon water exchange (WE) colonoscopy with conventional air-insufflation (AI) colonoscopy.

AIM

To compare the clinical effects of left-colon WE colonoscopy and conventional AI colonoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our hospital from June 2020 to December 2020 were collected and randomly divided into either a left-colon WE colonoscopy group or a conventional AI colonoscopy group at a ratio of 1:1. The success rate of ileocecal insertion, time to cecal insertion, time to colonoscope withdrawal, adenoma detection rate (ADR), visual analogue scale (VAS) score of pain, and rate of complications were recorded in the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 139 cases in the left-colon WE colonoscopy group and 137 cases in the conventional AI colonoscopy group. There were no statistical differences in the success rate of ileocecal insertion, time to colonoscope withdrawal, or adenoma detection rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, time to cecal insertion was significantly shorter (4.6 min vs 5.3 min, P < 0.05) and VAS score was significantly lower (2.7 vs 3.1, P < 0.05) in the left-colon WE colonoscopy group than in the conventional AI colonoscopy group. No examination-related complications such as perforation occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional AI colonoscopy, left-colon WE colonoscopy significantly shortens the time to ileocecal insertion and reduces the pain and discomfort of the patients.

Computer-Aided Detection False Positives in Colonoscopy

Randomized control trials and meta-analyses comparing colonoscopies with and without computer-aided detection (CADe) assistance showed significant increases in adenoma detection rates (ADRs) with CADe. A major limitation of CADe is its false positives (FPs), ranked 3rd in importance among 59 research questions in a modified Delphi consensus review. The definition of FPs varies. One commonly used definition defines an FP as an activation of the CADe system, irrespective of the number of frames or duration of time, not due to any polypoid or nonpolypoid lesions. Although only 0.07 to 0.2 FPs were observed per colonoscopy, video analysis studies using FPs as the primary outcome showed much higher numbers of 26 to 27 per colonoscopy. Most FPs were of short duration (91% < 0.5 s). A higher number of FPs was also associated with suboptimal bowel preparation. The appearance of FPs can lead to user fatigue. The polypectomy of FPs results in increased procedure time and added use of resources. Re-training the CADe algorithms is one way to reduce FPs but is not practical in the clinical setting during colonoscopy. Water exchange (WE) is an emerging method that the colonoscopist can use to provide salvage cleaning during insertion. We discuss the potential of WE for reducing FPs as well as the augmentation of ADRs through CADe.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION

WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Water exchange (WE) colonoscopy is the least painful insertion technique with high adenoma detection rate but requires a longer intubation time. In the published literature, some investigators used the instrument channel for both infusing and suctioning of water (one channel), while others use colonoscopes with an integrated water-jet channel specifically designed for infusing water (two channel). The aim of this study was to compare cecal intubation time between one-channel and two-channel WE.

METHODS

A total 120 patients undergoing colonoscopy from May 2017 to April 2019 at a regional hospital in southern Taiwan were randomized to either a two-channel group (n = 60) or a one-channel group (n = 60). The primary outcome was cecal intubation time.

RESULTS

The mean cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the two-channel group compared with the one-channel group (14.0 ± 4.0 vs 17.4 ± 6.7 min, P < 0.001). The two-channel group required less water infused during insertion (564.8 ± 232.4 vs 1213.3 ± 467.5 mL, P < 0.001) but achieved a significantly higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (8.4 ± 0.8 vs 7.5 ± 1.1, P < 0.001) than did the one-channel group. The adenoma detection rate was comparable in the two groups (50.0% vs 48.3%, P = 0.855).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with the one-channel WE, two-channel WE showed a shorter cecal intubation time, required less amount of water during insertion, and provided a better salvage cleansing effect. (NCT03279705).

Impact of propofol sedation versus opioid/benzodiazepine sedation on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Choice of sedation (propofol vs opioid/benzodiazepine) has been studied in the literature and has shown variable outcomes. The majority of recent studies have evaluated propofol sedation (PS) versus opioids, benzodiazepines, or a combination of both. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PS to other sedation methods to assess the impact on colonoscopy outcomes. Methods  Multiple databases were searched and studies of interest were extracted. Primary outcome of the study was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results  A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 177,016 patients (148,753 and 28,263 in the opioids/benzodiazepine group and PS group, respectively). Overall, ADR (RR: 1.07, 95 % CI 0.99-1.15), PDR (RR: 1.01, 95 % CI 0.93-1.10), and AADR (RR: 1.17, 95 % CI 0.92-1.48) did not improve with the use of PS. The CIR was slightly higher for propofol sedation group (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.00-1.03). Conclusion  Based on our analysis, PS and opioid/benzodiazepine sedation seem to have comparable ADR. Our results do not favor use of a particular sedation method and the choice of sedation should be individualized based on patient preference, risk factors and resource availability.

Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR.

METHODS

Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection.

RESULTS

We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

An overview of deep learning algorithms and water exchange in colonoscopy in improving adenoma detection

Introduction: Among the Gastrointestinal (GI) Endoscopy Editorial Board top 10 topics in advances in endoscopy in 2018, water exchange colonoscopy and artificial intelligence were both considered important advances. Artificial intelligence holds the potential to increase and water exchange significantly increases adenoma detection.Areas covered: The authors searched MEDLINE (1998-2019) using the following medical subject terms: water-aided, water-assisted and water exchange colonoscopy, adenoma, artificial intelligence, deep learning, computer-assisted detection, and neural networks. Additional related studies were manually searched from the reference lists of publications. Only fully published journal articles in English were reviewed. The latest date of the search was Aug10, 2019. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning contribute to the promise of real-time computer-aided detection diagnosis. By emphasizing near-complete suction of infused water during insertion, water exchange provides salvage cleaning and decreases cleaning-related multi-tasking distractions during withdrawal, increasing adenoma detection. The review will address how artificial intelligence and water exchange can complement each other in improving adenoma detection during colonoscopy.Expert opinion: In 5 years, research on artificial intelligence will likely achieve real-time application and evaluation of factors contributing to quality colonoscopy. Better understanding and more widespread use of water exchange will be possible.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

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.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Although an established standard, conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has disseminated despite an absence of studies demonstrating the value of submucosal injection. Several consequences of poorly executed submucosal injection may increase the difficulty and risk of EMR. Underwater EMR (UEMR), an alternative resection method for colonic neoplasms, avoids the need for submucosal injections. In comparison with reported outcomes of EMR, UEMR achieves similar rates of complete resection with comparable safety, with lower rates of recurrence and fewer repeat procedures. UEMR also compares favorably with endoscopic submucosal dissection in terms of procedure time and rates of complete resection, recurrence, and complications.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial registration

NCT03832322 (Retrospectively registered on February 2, 2019).

Factors Associated With Adenoma Detection in Propofol-sedated Patients

GOALS

To assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

BACKGROUNDS

Low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are linked to increased risk of interval cancer and related deaths. Compared with air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy, the method of water exchange (WE) significantly decreased insertion pain and increased ADR in unsedated patients. Deep sedation with propofol has been increasingly used in colonoscopy. One report suggested that WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients, but the factors associated with adenoma detection were not analyzed.

STUDY

Post hoc multiple logistic regression analyses were performed based on pooled data from 2 randomized controlled trials to assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

RESULTS

Propofol-sedated patients (n=510) were randomized to AI and WE. The baseline characteristics were comparable. Multiple logistic regression analyses show that age, withdrawal time, indications (screening vs. diagnostic), and WE were significantly and independently associated with higher ADR. WE had fewer patients with inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of <6. Despite a significantly shorter inspection time, WE had significantly higher overall ADR than AI, especially in those with adequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥6. Right colon ADR (17.5% vs. 10.5%), flat ADR (32.3% vs. 19.4%), combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR (13.1% vs. 7.4%) of WE were significantly higher than those of AI.

CONCLUSIONS

WE enhanced quality of colonoscopy in propofol-sedated patients by significantly improving colon cleanliness and overall ADR. Colonoscopists with patients under propofol sedation might consider evaluating WE method for performance improvement.

Comparison of polyp detection during both insertion and withdrawal versus only withdrawal of colonoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Polyps seen and not removed during colonoscope insertion are sometimes unable to be found during withdrawal. We aimed to evaluate whether additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal.

METHODS

A total of 421 patients aged ≥ 45 years and undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal (study group) or inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal (control group). The primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes included other adenoma-related parameters and procedure-related measures.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics, procedure indications, preparation quality, total procedure time, sedative doses, colonoscopy difficulty, and patient discomfort were similar between the groups. The insertion time was significantly longer in the study group (11.1 ± 4.8 vs 6.2 ± 4.7 min, P < 0.0001). The withdrawal time was significantly longer in the control group (29.2 ± 9.8 vs 23.1 ± 7.9 min, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the ADR (63.5% [study group] vs 68.1% [control group]), the mean adenoma per procedure (1.6 ± 2.0 vs 1.9 ± 2.4), or the mean adenoma per positive procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 2.7 ± 2.5) between groups. The proximal colon ADR was significantly higher in the control group compared with the study group (56.2% vs 46.0%, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional inspection and polypectomy during colonoscope insertion did not improve ADR compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal. These results do not support an additional role for routine inspection during insertion (clinical trial registration number: NCT03444090).

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.

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

GOALS

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A prospective RCT comparing combined chromoendoscopy with water exchange (CWE) vs water exchange (WE) vs air insufflation (AI) in adenoma detection in screening colonoscopy

Background

A low adenoma detection rate (ADR) increases risks of interval cancers (ICs). Proximal colon flat polyps, e.g. serrated lesions (SLs), are difficult to find. Missed proximal colon flat lesions likely contribute to IC.

Aims

We compared chromoendoscopy with water exchange (CWE), water exchange (WE) and air insufflation (AI) in detecting adenomas in screening colonoscopy.

Methods

After split-dose preparation, 480 veterans were randomized to AI, WE and CWE.

Results

Primary outcome of proximal ADR (55.6% vs 53.4% vs 52.2%, respectively) were similar in all groups. Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) were comparable. Detection rate of proximal colon SLs was significantly higher for CWE and WE than AI (26.3%, 23.6% and 11.3%, respectively, p = 0.002). Limitations: single operator; SLs only surrogate markers of but not IC.

Conclusions

When an endoscopist achieves high-quality AI examinations with overall ADR twice (61.6%) the recommended standard (30%), use of WE and CWE does not produce further improvement in proximal or overall ADR. Comparable APC and APPC confirm equivalent withdrawal inspection techniques. WE alone is sufficient to significantly improve detection of proximal SLs. The impact of increased detection of proximal SLs by WE on prevention of IC deserves to be studied. This study is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT#01607255).

Diagnostic application of water exchange colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Few well-designed studies have investigated water exchange colonoscopy (WE). We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility of WE based on high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the impacts of WE, water immersion colonoscopy (WI), and gas-insufflation colonoscopy.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang Data for RCTs on WE. We analyzed the results using fixed- or random-effect models according to the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.

Results

Thirteen studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The colonoscopic techniques included WE as the study group, and WI and air- or CO₂-insufflation colonoscopy as control groups. WE was significantly superior to the control procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, and cecal intubation rate according to odds ratios. WE was also significantly better in terms of maximal pain score and patient satisfaction score according to mean difference.

Conclusions

WE can remarkably improve the adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, patient satisfaction, and cecal intubation rate, as well as reducing the maximal pain score in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Water exchange versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To compare water exchange (WE) method with conventional air insufflation (AI) method for colonoscopy, evaluating the technical quality, screening efficacy, and patients' acceptance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing WE colonoscopy with AI colonoscopy. The pooled data of procedure-associated and patient-related outcomes were assessed, using the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies involving 7056 patients were included. The cecum intubation rate was similar between WE and AI methods (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.99-1.02,P = 0.37); however, a significantly longer cecum intubation time was shown in WE group (WMD = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.75-2.37,P = 0.002). Compared with AI, WE was associated with a higher risk of adenoma detection rate (ADR) (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.38,P < 0.00001) and polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.21-1.39,P < 0.00001). Patients in WE group experienced significantly less maximum pain score (WMD = -1.99, 95% CI = -2.68 to -1.30,P < 0.00001) and less requested on-demand sedation (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.44-0.77,P = 0.0002). Likewise, they also experienced less abdominal compression (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.51-0.74,P < 0.00001) and reposition (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.86,P = 0.0001). Moreover, patients' willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WE (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.21,P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed that WE method could significantly increase ADR/PDR and improve patients' acceptance of colonoscopy, while reducing the degree of pain and minimize the need for on-demand sedation and adjunct maneuvers, despite requiring more cecal intubation time.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background/Aims

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Characteristics of right-sided colonic neoplasia and colonoscopy barriers limiting their early detection and prognosis: a review of the literature

Colonoscopy provides less protection from colorectal cancer in the right colon than the left. Areas covered: This review examines patient outcomes and colonoscopy success rates to identify factors that limit the protective effect of colonoscopy in the right colon. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for literature from 2000 onwards, on the long-term outcomes and differences in screening practice between the right and left colon. In total, 12 systematic reviews (including nine meta-analyses) and 44 primary data records were included. Differences in patient outcomes and colonoscopy practice were identified between the right and left colon, suggesting that several factors, many of which disproportionally affect the right colon, impact lesion detection rates. Shorter withdrawal times reduce detection rates, while longer times significantly increase detection; mostly of adenomas in the right colon. Colonoscope attachments often only show a significant improvement in detection rates in the right colon, suggesting detection is more challenging due to visibility of the right colonic mucosa. Higher bowel cleansing grades significantly improve detection rates in the right colon compared to the left. Expert commentary: These findings confirm the need for continued improvement of colonoscopy effectiveness, and obligatory quality assessment, overall and especially in the right colon.