Impact of colonoscopy on working productivity: a prospective multicenter observational study

Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas.

DESIGN

Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868).

SETTING

Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs.

RESULTS

In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]).

LIMITATION

Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

French Ministry of Health.

The safety and efficacy of remimazolam tosylate combined with propofol in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Hypotension is the most common adverse event under propofol-mediated sedation and is possible to cause varying degrees of damage to patients. Whereas remimazolam has a poorer sedative effect than propofol.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the advantages of the combination of remimazolam tosylate and propofol.

METHODS

304 patients were divided into the remimazolam tosylate group (RT group), the propofol group (P group), and the remimazolam tosylate plus propofol group(R+T group). The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes included the results of sedation and recovery. The safety results mainly include the incidence of Hypotension, adverse respiratory events, postoperative nausea and vomiting, hiccup, cough, body movement and bradycardia.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypotension was 56.7% in the P group, 12.6% in the RT group, and 31.3% in the R+P group, three groups of pairwise comparisons showed statistical differences, with P< 0.001. The incidence of body movement was significantly higher in the RT group (26.1%) than in the P group (10.3%) and the R+P group (12.5%), P = 0.004. The endoscopist satisfaction was higher in the P (3.87±0.44) and R+P (3.95±0.22)groups than in the RT(3.53±0.84) group. The incidence of adverse events, in descending order, was P group, RT group, and R+P group (93.8%vs.61.3%vs.42.7%).

CONCLUSION

Co-administration had fewer adverse events than propofol monotherapy, also had a better sedative effect and higher endoscopist satisfaction than remimazolam monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: NCT05429086.

Determinants of symptom burden related to bowel preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Symptoms developing during bowel preparation are major concerns among subjects who refuse the procedure.

AIMS

We aimed to explore the determinants of symptoms occurring during preparation among patients undergoing elective colonoscopy.

METHODS

This is a prospective multicenter study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. A multidimensional approach collecting socio-demographic, clinical, psychological and occupational information before colonoscopy through validated instruments was used. Outcome was a four-category cumulative score based on symptoms occurring during preparation, according to the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire, weighted by intensity. Missing values were addressed through multiple imputation. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated through multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

1137 subjects were enrolled. Severe symptoms were associated with female sex (OR=3.64, 95%CI 1.94-6.83), heavier working hours (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.01-1.25), previous gastrointestinal symptoms (OR=7.81, 95% CI 2.36-25.8 for high score), somatic symptoms (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.06-4.49 for multiple symptoms), day-before regimen (OR=2.71, 95%CI 1.28-5.73). On the other hand, age ≥60 years (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.44) and good mood (p=0.042) were protective factors. A high-risk profile was identified, including women with low mood and somatic symptoms (OR=15.5, 95%CI 4.56-52.7).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified previously unreported determinants of symptoms burdening bowel preparation and identified a particularly vulnerable phenotype. Symptoms during preparation especially impact heavier working activity.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy.

METHODS

A model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR).

RESULTS

The en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 €, i.e. 3,431.03 €/patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 €, and 3,543.11 €/patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 €, and 3,668.61 €/patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 € and 4,258.62 €/patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 € and 4,874.61 €/patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries.

CONCLUSION

ESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.