Patient-reported minor adverse events after colonoscopy: a systematic review

An Estimate of Preventable Harms Associated With Screening Colonoscopy Overuse in the U.S

Introduction

Screening colonoscopy is often performed on patients who are younger or older than the ages specified in national guidelines or at shorter intervals than recommended. The annual incidence of harms associated with overuse of screening colonoscopy in the U.S. is not known. This study estimated the incidence of low-value screening colonoscopies annually in the U.S. and the number of preventable harms associated with them.

Methods

The 2018 National Health Interview Survey was used to estimate the number of annual screening colonoscopies. Rates of colonoscopy overuse and serious (bleeding and bowel perforation) and minor harms were drawn from 3 recent systematic reviews.

Results

Approximately 12.4 million screening colonoscopies were completed in the U.S. in 2018. Given the credible range of overuse rates of screening colonoscopy, between 2.1 and 3.2 million low-value colonoscopies occur per year. Applying the credible ranges identified for serious and minor harms secondary to screening colonoscopy resulted in an estimated annual incidence of serious harm from unnecessary colonoscopies ranging from 9,055 to 11,874. The estimate for minor harms ranged from 359,5790 to 1,566,846.

Conclusions

In the U.S., screening colonoscopies are often completed at intervals and in populations that are inconsistent with national recommendations, resulting in unnecessary serious and minor harm. Although individual risk is relatively low, the large number of nonindicated screening colonoscopies results in large numbers of adverse events that are preventable with better adherence to recommendations.

Utilization of Probiotics in Relieving Post-Colonoscopy Gastrointestinal Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is regarded as a safe diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, nevertheless, some patients may still encounter post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal symptoms. This study aimed to evaluate the utilization of probiotics before and after colonoscopy to relieve those symptoms.

METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Included studies were all interventional studies examining the effects of probiotics use before and after colonoscopy. Articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, EBSCO-Host, Cochrane, ProQuest, and Google Scholar electronic databases, utilized specific keywords ( " Probiotic " OR " Probiotics ") AND (" Colonoscopy " OR " Colonoscopies "). The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools were used for study quality assessment, as well as Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of ten studies were included in this systematic review. Six studies assessed the effect of probiotics consumption after colonoscopy, three examined the impact before colonoscopy, and one study assessed both. The most common type of probiotics used were Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Quantitative synthesis of probiotics before colonoscopy showed no significant differences among bloating, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting symptoms (p=0.49, p=0.14, p=0.30, and p=0.42, respectively). Similarly, quantitative synthesis of probiotics after colonoscopy showed no significant differences in bloating and abdominal pain (p=0.16 and p=0.63, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Probiotic administration pre- and post-colonoscopy exhibited preliminary evidence for reducing gastrointestinal symptoms, but a quantitative synthesis revealed non-significant findings, necessitating further investigations.

DNA methylation analysis of the SDC2, SEPT9 and VIM genes in fecal DNA for colorectal cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. DNA methylation sites may serve as a new gene signature for colorectal cancer diagnosis. The search for representative DNA methylation sites is urgently needed. This study aimed to systematically identify a methylation gene panel for colorectal cancer diagnosis via tissue and fecal samples.

METHODS

A total of 181 fecal and 50 tumor tissue samples were collected. They were obtained from 83 colorectal cancer patients and 98 healthy subjects. These samples were evaluated for DNA methylation of 9 target genes via quantitative bisulfite next-generation sequencing. We employed the rank-sum test to screen the colorectal cancer-specific methylation sites in the tissue and fecal cohorts. A data model was subsequently constructed and validated via the dedicated validation dataset.

RESULTS

Compared with the fecal and negative control samples, the colorectal cancer tissue samples presented significantly higher methylation rates for all the selected gene sites. The methylation rates of the tissue and preoperative fecal samples showed the same high and low rates at the same sites. After screening, a panel of 29 loci in the SDC2, SEPT9, and VIM genes proved to be reliable biomarkers for colorectal cancer diagnosis in fecal samples. Logistic regression models were then constructed and validated using this panel. The sensitivity of the model was 91.43% (95% CI = [89.69, 93.17]), the specificity was 100% (95% CI = [100,100]), and the AUC value is 99.31% (95% CI = [99,99.62]). The diagnostic accuracy of the model for stage I and stage II colorectal cancer was 100% (11/11) and 91.3% (21/23), respectively. Overall, this study confirms that the gene locus panel and the model can be used to diagnose colorectal cancer effectively through feces.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified a set of key methylation sites for colorectal cancer diagnosis from fecal samples, highlighting the importance of using tissue and fecal samples to accurately assess DNA methylation levels to screen for methylation sites, and developing an effective diagnostic model for colorectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Gut microbiota dynamics and fecal SCFAs after colonoscopy: accelerating microbiome stabilization by Clostridium butyricum

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a classic diagnostic method with possible complications including abdominal pain and diarrhoea. In this study, gut microbiota dynamics and related metabolic products during and after colonoscopy were explored to accelerate gut microbiome balance through probiotics.

METHODS

The gut microbiota and fecal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) were analyzed in four healthy subjects before and after colonoscopy, along with seven individuals supplemented with Clostridium butyricum. We employed 16S rRNA sequencing and GC-MS to investigate these changes. We also conducted bioinformatic analysis to explore the buk gene, encoding butyrate kinase, across C. butyricum strains from the human gut.

RESULTS

The gut microbiota and fecal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) of four healthy subjects were recovered on the 7th day after colonoscopy. We found that Clostridium and other bacteria might have efficient butyric acid production through bioinformatic analysis of the buk and assessment of the transcriptional level of the buk. Supplementation of seven healthy subjects with Clostridium butyricum after colonoscopy resulted in a quicker recovery and stabilization of gut microbiota and fecal SCFAs on the third day.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that supplementation of Clostridium butyricum after colonoscopy should be considered in future routine clinical practice.

Effects of Hot Pack Therapy on Post-Colonoscopy Pain: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Post-colonoscopy pain (PCP) is a negative condition that causes physical and psychological distress to patients and may lead to noncompliance with treatment and follow-up. The most common hypothesis for the cause of PCP is the inflation of the lumen with air to examine the mucosa. There are no previous studies that have examined the effects of thermal therapy in patients with PCP.

AIMS

In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of the Hot Pack (HP) method in patients with PCP.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled, prospective study.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 into 2 groups of HP and control. In the HP group, hot packs of 40-45°C, kept in a hydrocollator heating unit for 30-35 minutes and wrapped in towels, were applied to the umbilical and hypogastric region of patients in the supine position for 30 minutes. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were used to measure the pain after colonoscopy. Visual analog scores at 1, 6, and 24 hours were recorded and compared in both groups.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in the presence and severity of pain between the two groups at 1 and 6 hours after colonoscopy (p < .001 and p = .004, respectively). There was no significant difference in pain scores at 24 hours between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the application of HP to patients after colonoscopy is effective in reducing pain in the early period.

The Effect of Progressive Muscle Relaxation on Abdominal Pain and Distension in Colonoscopy Patients

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to examine the effect of progressive muscle relaxation on abdominal pain and distension in colonoscopy patients.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled experimental design.

METHODS

The experimental group was informed about progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) and an audio recording was provided. After the colonoscopy, abdominal pain (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain) and distension (VAS distension) scores were assessed, then PMR was applied for 30 minutes and pain scores were determined again. VAS pain and VAS distension scores of the control group were determined after colonoscopy and 30 minutes later. VAS abdominal pain and VAS distension scores were evaluated at the 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 24th hour after the procedure on all patients. The day after the colonoscopy, post-test data were collected.

FINDINGS

The pretest VAS pain and VAS distension mean scores were similar in the intervention and control groups (P > .05). The mean VAS pain and VAS distension scores decreased significantly in the intervention group post procedure (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PMR was determined to be effective in reducing abdominal pain and distension after colonoscopy.

Application of a multispecies probiotic reduces gastro-intestinal discomfort and induces microbial changes after colonoscopy

Even after decades of research and pharmaceutical development, cancer is still one of the most common causes of death in the western population and the management of cancer will remain a major challenge of medical research. One of the most common types of cancer is colorectal cancer (CRC). Prevention by detection of early-stage precursors is the most reliable method to prevent CRC development. In dependence of age, familial predisposition, and other risk factors the preventative routine screening for CRC by colonoscopy should be performed at least twice in intervals of about ten years. Although colonoscopy is a life-saving clinical examination reducing both incidence and mortality of CRC significantly, it has still a bad reputation in the population as an uncomfortable procedure with unpleasant side effects lasting sometimes over days to weeks. These effects are most likely caused by the bowel preparation before colonoscopy, which is crucial for a successful colonoscopy with high quality. Beside pain, bleeding and other rare but severe complications of colonoscopy, cleaning of the intestinal mucosa alters the gut microbiome significantly and consistently. Abdominal pain, cramps, diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and constipation are common adverse events which can continue to affect patients for days or even weeks after the procedure. In this multicenter, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trial, we investigated the effect of an intervention with a multispecies probiotic formulation for 30 days on the adverse events due to bowel preparation. We show that the treatment of participants with the multispecies probiotic formulation decreases the number of days with constipation significantly, and reduced pain, bloating, diarrhea, and general discomfort. 16S based amplicon analyses reveal recovery of administered probiotic strains from stool samples and differences in alpha diversity dynamics with higher variability in the probiotic group compared to the placebo group. In conclusion, the probiotic ameliorates the side effects after colonoscopy and might be an important supplement to increase acceptance of this life-saving preventative examination. Further, we present here for the first time that probiotic intervention of only 30 days affects alpha diversity parameters in stool samples.

CO2 Is Beneficial to Gut Microbiota Homeostasis during Colonoscopy: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Many studies have reported minor complications and disturbance of the gut microbiota after colonoscopy. Compared with air, carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation could decrease minor complications, but its impact on gut microbiota remains unknown. Methods: Thirty-eight healthy subjects were assessed and twenty were randomized to receive either CO₂ or air insufflation during colonoscopy. Neither the participants nor the staff involved in the follow-up knew which gas was used. Minor complications were assessed using symptom scores. Fecal samples were collected at eight time-points for microbiome analysis by full-length 16S rRNA gene amplicon analysis. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The recovery of minor complications after colonoscopy was faster in the CO₂ group (the day of the colonoscopy) than in the air group (the day after the colonoscopy). There was no significant reduction in alpha diversity (species richness) of the first stool after colonoscopy in the CO₂ group (115.0 ± 32.81 vs. 97.4 ± 42.31, p = 0.28) compared with the air group (123.8 ± 37.25 vs. 84.8 ± 31.67, p = 0.04). However, there were no differences in beta diversity between the groups. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis indicated that anaerobic probiotics such as Bacteroides caccae, Bacteroides finegoldii and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron were more abundant in the CO₂ group than in the air group within 14 days after colonoscopy. On the contrary, the content of Escherichiacoli, Ruminococcus torques and Ruminococcus guavus was higher in the air group. Conclusions: CO₂ is beneficial to gut microbiota homeostasis during colonoscopy in healthy subjects. The effects in patients with different diseases need to be further studied.

Diagnostic accuracy of pan-enteric capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance enterocolonography in suspected Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Magnetic resonance enterocolonography (MREC) and pan-enteric capsule endoscopy (CE) offers visualization of the entire gastrointestinal tract in a single examination. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of MREC and CE in patients with suspected Crohn's disease (CD).

METHOD

In a prospective, blinded, multicenter study, we included patients with clinically suspected CD. Patients were examined with MREC, CE, and ileocolonoscopy (IC) within 2 weeks. The primary outcome was per patient sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for ileocolonic CD. IC served as reference standard.

RESULTS

153 patients were included in the study and IC, MREC, and CE was performed in 152, 151, 133 patients, respectively. CD was diagnosed with IC in 59 (39%) patients (terminal ileum (TI) 22, colon 20, TI and colon 17). The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing ileocolonic CD with MREC was 67.9% (CI 53.7-80.1) and 76.3% (CI 65.2-85.3) (TI 76.9% and 85.6%; colon 27% and 93%) compared to 87.5% (CI 73.2-95.8) and 87.8% (CI 78.2-94.3) with CE (TI 96.6% and 87.5%; colon 75.0% and 93.0%). The sensitivity of CE was superior to that of MREC (p = 0.02). The patient experienced discomfort was equal with CE and MREC and significantly less than with IC.

CONCLUSION

In patients with suspected CD, CE has a high sensitivity for diagnosing CD in the TI and colon, which is superior to that of MREC. The sensitivity of MREC for diagnosing CD in the colon is poor. CE could be a patient-friendly alternative to IC in selected patients with suspected CD. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03134586.

Patient-Reported Experience Measures for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography

Patient experience is defined as a major quality indicator that should be routinely measured during and after a colonoscopy, according to current ESGE guidelines. There is no standard approach measuring patient experience after the procedure and the comparative performance of the different colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is unclear. Therefore, the aim was to develop a conceptual model describing how patients experience a colonoscopy, and to compare the model against colonoscopy-specific PREMs. A systematic search for qualitative research published up to December 2021 in PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was conducted. After screening and quality assessment, data from 13 studies were synthesised using meta-ethnography. Similarities and differences between the model and colonoscopy-specific PREMs were identified. A model consisting of five concepts describes how patients experience undergoing a colonoscopy: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship, and understanding. These concepts were compared with existing PREMs and the result shows that there is agreement between the model and existing PREMs for colonoscopy in some parts, while partial agreement or no agreement is present in others. These findings suggest that new PREMs for colonoscopy should be developed, since none of the existing colonoscopy-specific PREMs fully cover patients’ experiences.

Diagnostic accuracy of capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for polyp detection: systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a technology that might contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs as a filter test between fecal immunochemical testing and standard colonoscopy. The aim was to systematically review the literature for studies investigating the diagnostic yield of second-generation CCE compared with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics including quality of bowel preparation and completeness of CCE transits were extracted. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were extracted for polyps (any size, ≥ 10 mm, ≥ 6 mm) and lesion characteristics. Meta-analyses of diagnostic yield were performed.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 1077 unique papers and 12 studies were included. Studies involved a total of 2199 patients, of whom 1898 were included in analyses. The rate of patients with adequate bowel preparation varied from 40 % to 100 %. The rates of complete CCE transit varied from 57 % to 100 %. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that mean (95 % confidence interval) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.85 (0.73-0.92), 0.85 (0.70-0.93), and 30.5 (16.2-57.2), respectively, for polyps of any size; 0.87 (0.82-0.90), 0.95 (0.92-0.97), and 136.0 (70.6-262.1), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm; and 0.87 (0.83-0.90), 0.88 (0.75-0.95), and 51.1 (19.8-131.8), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm. No serious adverse events were reported for CCE.

CONCLUSION

CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps compared with standard colonoscopy However, the relatively high rate of incomplete investigations limits the application of CCE in a CRC screening setting.

Faecal microbiota transplantation and the patient experience: A systematic review

AIM

To review and synthesise the literature examining the patients' experience of faecal microbiota transplantation.

BACKGROUND

Faecal microbiota transplantation is a common treatment for many conditions, including Clostridium Difficile infections. Patients' experience of treatments is an important influence on clinical decision-making and treatment adherence.

DESIGN

The PRISMA guidelines guided this systematic review. The review was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42020140446].

METHOD

A search of Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline and Embase was conducted for studies published in English and French up to June 2020. Risk of bias was examined using Critical Appraisal Skills Program tools, and quality appraisal was performed independently by three reviewers. Primary outcome of interest was the patient experience of faecal microbiota transplantation. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

The search identified 3316 citations, and 12 studies were included. Methodological quality of studies was moderate to low quality. Few studies have accurately explored the patients' experience of faecal microbiota transplantation: most focus on clinical outcomes or hypothetical scenarios regarding the patients' perspectives of faecal microbiota transplantation. Only one study was identified where the sole focus was the patients' experience of faecal microbiota transplantation. Patient's experience of faecal microbiota transplantation was diverse and complex with physiological and psychological components dependent on the patient's medical condition, the administration method and the efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Patients did not find faecal microbiota transplantation unappealing; however, patients equally reported the procedural experience was unpleasant. Limited results and low quality evidence suggest that further evaluation of the patient experience of faecal microbiota transplantation would be beneficial.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Identifying the patients' experience of faecal microbiota transplantation may inform recommendations regarding alternate treatment therapies and enable opportunities to provide quality care for patients that require faecal microbiota transplantation.

Efficacy and Safety of Carbon Dioxide Versus Air Insufflation for Colonoscopy in Deeply Sedated Pediatric Patients

OBJECTIVES

Studies have shown the advantages of carbon dioxide (CO2) over air insufflation in the adult population during colonoscopies. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CO2 insufflation in deeply sedated children undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. We recruited 100 consecutive pediatric patients who had colonoscopy under deep sedation for various indications. Patients were first randomized by history of abdominal pain and then randomly assigned to either CO2 or air insufflation. Postprocedural abdominal pain scores were registered on a 10-point visual analog rating scale and significant pain was defined as a score of 3 or higher. Abdominal circumferences and end tidal CO2 (ETCO2) levels were measured. Complications during and after the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

We did not find statistically significant difference between CO2 and air insufflation on univariate analysis because of low number of children experiencing significant pain after colonoscopy. After adjusting for baseline pain, we found that pain was significantly lower in patients after CO2 versus air insufflation on multivariable analysis (P = 0.03). The significant factors related to pain were duration of the procedure (P = 0.006), history of abdominal pain (P = 0.002) and previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.02). CO2 insufflation was associated with decreased abdominal circumference after colonoscopy (P = 0.002). Girls were more likely to have pain regardless of intervention (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Most children tolerate endoscopic procedures without significant pain. Our study was underpowered to show significant difference between air and CO2 on univariate analysis. CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy, however, may reduce postprocedural abdominal pain. Significant factors for increased pain on multivariate analysis included colonoscopy length over 30 minutes, history of abdominal pain, and previous abdominal surgery.