1
|
Shi H, Zeng H, Wang M, Jiang J, Sha S, Chen F, Wang Y, Cheng Y, Ma S, Liu X. Effectiveness of Water-Assisted Colonoscopy without Sedation in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis. Dig Dis 2023; 41:737-745. [PMID: 37369180 DOI: 10.1159/000531652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies have found that water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) including water immersion colonoscopy (WIC) and water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) is superior to air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC) in terms of the cecal intubation rate. However, the application of WAC in ulcerative colitis (UC) has rarely been reported. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of WAC without sedation in patients with UC. METHODS One hundred and seventy-two UC patients were randomly divided into the AIC group (n = 56), WIC group (n = 58), and WEC group (n = 58). The cecal intubation rate, abdominal pain score, operator difficulty, bowel cleanliness, insertion, and total time were compared. RESULTS The cecal intubation rate was higher in the WIC (91.4% vs. 75.0%; mean difference = 16.4%; 95% CI: 3.0-29.8%) and WEC (93.1% vs. 75.0%; mean difference = 18.1%; 95% CI: 5.0-31.2%) compared to the AIC group, while there was no difference between the WIC and WEC groups. The abdominal pain score and operator difficulty were lower in the WIC and WEC groups than in the AIC group, while there was no difference between the WIC and WEC groups. The bowel cleanliness during withdrawal was higher in the WIC and WEC groups than in the AIC group, while the WEC was superior to WIC. Compared with the AIC and WIC groups, the insertion time and total time were longer in the WEC group, and there was no difference in the AIC group and WIC group. CONCLUSION In comparison with AIC, WAC can increase the cecal intubation rate, reduce abdominal pain scores and improve bowel cleanliness in patients with UC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haitao Shi
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Hong Zeng
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Mei Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Jiong Jiang
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Sumei Sha
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Fenrong Chen
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Yan Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Yan Cheng
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Shiyang Ma
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Xin Liu
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cadoni S, Ishaq S, Hassan C, Falt P, Fuccio L, Siau K, Leung JW, Anderson J, Binmoeller KF, Radaelli F, Rutter MD, Sugimoto S, Muhammad H, Bhandari P, Draganov PV, de Groen P, Wang AY, Yen AW, Hamerski C, Thorlacius H, Neumann H, Ramirez F, Mulder CJJ, Albéniz E, Amato A, Arai M, Bak A, Barret M, Bayupurnama P, Cheung R, Ching HL, Cohen H, Dolwani S, Friedland S, Harada H, Hsieh YH, Hayee B, Kuwai T, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V, Liggi M, Mizukami T, Mura D, Nylander D, Olafsson S, Paggi S, Pan Y, Parra-Blanco A, Ransford R, Rodriguez-Sanchez J, Senturk H, Suzuki N, Tseng CW, Uchima H, Uedo N, Leung FW. Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93:1411-1420.e18. [PMID: 33069706 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 10/08/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Cadoni
- CTO Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Iglesias, Italy
| | - Sauid Ishaq
- Russell Hall, Dept. of Gastroenterology, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rome, Italy
| | - Přemysl Falt
- University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic; Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
| | - Lorenzo Fuccio
- S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Bologna, Italy
| | - Keith Siau
- JAG Clinical Fellow, JAG, Royal College of Physicians, London, United Kingdom
| | - Joseph W Leung
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sacramento VA Medical Center and University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - John Anderson
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
| | - Kenneth F Binmoeller
- California Pacific Medical Center, Interventional Endoscopy Services, San Francisco, California, United States
| | | | - Matt D Rutter
- University Hospital North Tees NHS, Department of Gastroenterology, Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom; Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
| | - Shinya Sugimoto
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Pradeep Bhandari
- Portsmouth University Hospital, Dept. of Gastroenterology, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
| | | | - Piet de Groen
- University of Minnesota, Division of Gastroenterology, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
| | - Andrew Y Wang
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States
| | - Andrew W Yen
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sacramento VA Medical Center and University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - Chris Hamerski
- California Pacific Medical Center, Interventional Endoscopy Services, San Francisco, California, United States
| | - Henrik Thorlacius
- Lund University Surgery, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Helmut Neumann
- University Medical Center, Interventional Endoscopy Center, Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Mainz, Germany
| | | | - Chris J J Mulder
- VU University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eduardo Albéniz
- Gastroenterology Department, Endoscopy Unit, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Arnaldo Amato
- Ospedale Valduce, Gastroenterology Unit, Como, Italy
| | - Makoto Arai
- Chiba University, Gastroenterology Department, Chiba, Japan
| | - Adrian Bak
- University of British Columbia, Department of Medicine, Kelowna, Canada
| | | | - Putut Bayupurnama
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gadjah Mada University, Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
| | - Ramsey Cheung
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, VA Palo Alto, California, United States
| | - Hey-Long Ching
- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Gastroenterology Department, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Hartley Cohen
- Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles Health Care System, Los Angeles, United States; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, United States
| | - Sunil Dolwani
- Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Shai Friedland
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, VA Palo Alto, California, United States
| | - Hideaki Harada
- Department of Gastroenterology, New Tokyo Hospital, Gastroenterology, Matsudo, Chiba, Japan
| | - Yu-Hsi Hsieh
- Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Dalin Township, Taiwan
| | - Bu Hayee
- King's College Hospital NHS foundation Trust, Gastroenterology Department, London, United Kingdom
| | - Toshio Kuwai
- NHO Kure Medical Center and Chugoku Cancer Center, Gastroenterology Department, Kure, Japan
| | | | - Mauro Liggi
- ASSL Carbonia, Sirai Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Carbonia, Italy
| | - Takeshi Mizukami
- NHO Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Endoscopy Center, Yokosuka, Japan
| | - Donatella Mura
- ASSL Carbonia, Sirai Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Carbonia, Italy
| | - David Nylander
- Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, Gastroenterology Department, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Snorri Olafsson
- Telemark Hospital, Gastroenterology Department, Skien, Norway
| | - Silvia Paggi
- Ospedale Valduce, Gastroenterology Unit, Como, Italy
| | - Yanglin Pan
- Xijing Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, Xian, Republic of China
| | - Adolfo Parra-Blanco
- NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Department of Gastroenterology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Rupert Ransford
- Endoscopy Department Hereford County Hospital, Hereford, United Kingdom
| | | | - Hakan Senturk
- Bezmialem Vakif University Medicine Faculty, Department of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Noriko Suzuki
- Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Chih-Wei Tseng
- Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Dalin Township, Taiwan
| | - Hugo Uchima
- Hospital Germans Triasi i Pujol, Teknon Medical Center, Gastroenterology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Noriya Uedo
- Osaka International Cancer Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka, Japan
| | - Felix W Leung
- Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles Health Care System, Los Angeles, United States; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rutter MD, Evans R, Hoare Z, Von Wagner C, Deane J, Esmaily S, Larkin T, Edwards R, Yeo ST, Spencer LH, Holmes E, Saunders BP, Rees CJ, Tsiamoulos ZP, Beintaris I. WASh multicentre randomised controlled trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in English NHS bowel scope screening. Gut 2021; 70:845-852. [PMID: 32895334 PMCID: PMC8040154 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2020] [Revised: 07/29/2020] [Accepted: 08/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps. DESIGN The WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured. RESULTS 1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques. CONCLUSION In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN81466870.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew D Rutter
- Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK .,Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Rachel Evans
- North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Zoe Hoare
- North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | | | - Jill Deane
- Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
| | - Shiran Esmaily
- Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
| | | | - Rhiannon Edwards
- Centre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Seow Tien Yeo
- Centre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Llinos Haf Spencer
- Centre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Emily Holmes
- Centre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | | | - Colin J Rees
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK,Gastroenterology, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, UK
| | | | - Iosif Beintaris
- Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Compared with the traditional air insufflation method, water-assisted colonoscopy has many advantages in clinical application with regard to reduced abdominal pain, increased cecal intubation rate, increased detection rate of colon adenoma, and increased complete resection rate of larger polyps. It has gradually attracted more and more attention both in China and other countries. The aim of this article is to elaborate the invention, development, and therapeutic applications of water-assisted colonoscopy, as well as its advantages and shortcomings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jun-Quan Shen
- Department of Anorectal Surgery, Yuyao People's Hospital, Yuyao 315400, Zhejiang Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Comparison of Detection Methods for Tracheoesophageal Fistulae With a Novel Method: Capnography With CO2 Insufflation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2020; 70:e88-e93. [PMID: 31990867 DOI: 10.1097/mpg.0000000000002647] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tracheoesophageal fistulae (TEF) are difficult to detect and require a high index of suspicion. We hypothesized that capnography to identify a spike in end-tidal carbon dioxide (etCO2) during esophagoscopy with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation would facilitate TEF diagnosis because of gas passage from the esophagus to the trachea. METHODS Medical records of 42 consecutive cases of recurrent, acquired, or missed congenital TEF diagnosed between January 2015 and November 2019 that underwent esophagoscopy with CO2 insufflation were reviewed. A control cohort of 97 similarly endoscopically evaluated patients with surgical confirmation of absence of recurrent TEF (eg, patients undergoing posterior tracheopexy) was also collected. All patients underwent pre-operative esophagoscopy, bronchoscopy, and capnography; diagnostic abilities of various combinations of modalities for TEF identification were calculated. RESULTS Statistical analysis identified a maximum intra-esophagoscopy end-tidal CO2 level of 68 mmHg as the optimal discriminator between cases and controls, though in practice, we anecdotally find that recurrent TEFs typically permit rapid rise ≥90 mmHg. Increasing numbers of diagnostic modalities increased diagnostic sensitivity to detect recurrent TEF; the highest diagnostic sensitivity for TEF identification was achieved by the combination of intra-esophagoscopy fluoroscopy with bronchoscopy and capnography ≥68 mmHg (sensitivity = 88.1%). There were multiple cases of TEF (N = 7 for etCO2 ≥68 mmHg, N = 3 for etCO2 ≥90 mmHg) identified by capnography that were missed by esophagoscopy. There were 5 (for etCO2 ≥68 mmHg) or 6 (for etCO2 ≥90 mmHg) cases of recurrent TEF that were missed by all nonsurgical methods. CONCLUSION Attention to etCO2 during esophagoscopy with CO2 insufflation represents a simple, novel way to detect TEF. Identification of TEF remains challenging, though combinations of diagnostic modalities improve diagnostic sensitivity.
Collapse
|
6
|
Rogers AC, Van De Hoef D, Sahebally SM, Winter DC. A meta-analysis of carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation on patient comfort and key performance indicators at colonoscopy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35:455-464. [PMID: 31900583 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03470-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/21/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been used as an alternative to air insufflation at endoscopy with good results; however, uptake of the technique has been poor, possibly due to perceived lack of outcome equivalency. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of CO2 versus air in reducing pain post-colonoscopy and furthermore examines other key performance indicators (KPIs) such as sedative use, procedure times and polyp detection rates. METHODS This meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized studies from 2004 to 2019, reporting outcomes for patients undergoing colonoscopy with air or CO2 insufflation, who reported pain on a numerical or visual analogue scale (VAS). Results were reported as mean differences (MD) or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS Of 3586 citations, 23 studies comprising 3217 patients were analysed. Patients undergoing colonoscopy with air insufflation had 30% higher intraprocedural pain scores than those receiving CO2 (VAS 3.4 versus 2.6, MD -0.7, 95% CI - 1.4-0.0, p = 0.05), with a sustained beneficial effect amongst those in the CO2 group at 30 min, 1-2-h and 6-h post procedure (MD - 0.8, - 0.6 and - 0.2, respectively, p < 0.001 for all), as well as less distension, bloating and flatulence (p < 0.01 for all). There were no differences between the two groups in KPIs such as the sedation required, procedure time, caecal intubation or polyp detection rates. CONCLUSIONS CO2 insufflation improves patient comfort without compromising colonoscopic performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailín C Rogers
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. .,Centre for Colorectal Disease, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
| | - Dayna Van De Hoef
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.,Centre for Colorectal Disease, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Shaheel M Sahebally
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.,Centre for Colorectal Disease, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Des C Winter
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.,Centre for Colorectal Disease, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kothari ST, Huang RJ, Shaukat A, Agrawal D, Buxbaum JL, Abbas Fehmi SM, Fishman DS, Gurudu SR, Khashab MA, Jamil LH, Jue TL, Law JK, Lee JK, Naveed M, Qumseya BJ, Sawhney MS, Thosani N, Yang J, DeWitt JM, Wani S. ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90:863-876.e33. [PMID: 31563271 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.07.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2019] [Accepted: 07/29/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Robert J Huang
- Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Aasma Shaukat
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Deepak Agrawal
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - James L Buxbaum
- Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | | - Douglas S Fishman
- Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | | | - Laith H Jamil
- Pancreatic and Biliary Diseases Program, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, West Hollywood, California, USA
| | - Terry L Jue
- The Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Joanna K Law
- Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jeffrey K Lee
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Mariam Naveed
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Coralville, Iowa, USA
| | | | - Mandeep S Sawhney
- Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nirav Thosani
- University of Texas at Houston, Bellaire, Texas, USA
| | - Julie Yang
- Einstein Hospital, New York, New York, USA
| | - John M DeWitt
- Division of Gastroenterology, Indiana University Health Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Sachin Wani
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Beintaris I, Esmaily S, Saunders BP, Rees CJ, Von Wagner C, Tsiamoulos Z, Hoare Z, Evans R, Yeo ST, Edwards RT, Larkin T, Veitch A, Chilton A, Bramble MG, Deane J, Rutter MD. The WASh Trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Programme: study protocol for a randomized multicenter trial. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7:E1574-E1582. [PMID: 31723580 PMCID: PMC6847695 DOI: 10.1055/a-0953-1468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2018] [Accepted: 04/23/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and study aims The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants' comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO 2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO 2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO 2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020. Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iosif Beintaris
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
| | - Shiran Esmaily
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
| | | | - Colin J Rees
- Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside NHS Trust, South Shields UK
| | - Christian Von Wagner
- Research Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, UK
| | | | - Zoe Hoare
- North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, UK
| | - Rachel Evans
- North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, UK
| | - Seow Tien Yeo
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, UK
| | - R T Edwards
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, UK
| | | | - Andrew Veitch
- Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - Andrew Chilton
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - Michael G Bramble
- Department of Gastroenterology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Jill Deane
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
| | - Matthew D Rutter
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-On-Tees, UK
- School of Medicine Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, UK
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Facciorusso A, Triantafyllou K, Murad MH, Prokop LJ, Tziatzios G, Muscatiello N, Singh S. Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17:2439-2454.e25. [PMID: 30529731 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.11.058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2018] [Revised: 11/22/2018] [Accepted: 11/29/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Facciorusso
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
| | - Konstantinos Triantafyllou
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine - Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Mohammad Hassan Murad
- Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Larry J Prokop
- Department of Library Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Georgios Tziatzios
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine - Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Nicola Muscatiello
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
| | - Siddharth Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California; Division of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Nemoto D, Suzuki S, Mori H, Katsuki S, Iwaki T, Aizawa M, Takeuchi Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T, Fujita T, Hewett DG, Togashi K. Inhibitory effect of lidocaine on colonic spasm during colonoscopy: A multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc 2019; 31:173-179. [PMID: 30187572 DOI: 10.1111/den.13272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2018] [Accepted: 09/02/2018] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Colonic spasm can interfere with colonoscopy, but antispasmodic agents can cause complications. This study aimed to assess the inhibitory effect of topical lidocaine compared with a placebo control. METHODS In five tertiary-care hospitals in Japan, 128 patients requiring endoscopic resection of a colorectal lesion were enrolled and randomly and double-blindly allocated to colonoscopy with topical administration of 2% lidocaine solution 20mL (LID, n = 64) or normal saline 20mL (control, n = 64). During colonoscopy, the assigned solution was applied with a spray catheter near the lesion and the area was observed for three minutes. primary endpoint was the inhibitory effect at three time-points (1, 2 and 3 minutes after dispersion), using a three-point scale (excellent, fair, poor). Secondary endpoints were rebound spasm and adverse events. All endpoints were scored in real time. Serum lidocaine levels were measured in 32 patients (LID 16, control 16). RESULTS There were no significant differences between groups in patient demographics. At all time-points, the proportion of patients with "excellent" scores was greater in LID group than control group, with significant differences observed at 2 minutes (p = 0.02) and 3 minutes (p = 0.02). In LID group, the rate of "excellent" scores increased by 12.5% at 2 minutes and was maintained at 3 minutes. Rebound spasm did not occur in LID group, compared with 15.6% of control group (p = 0.001). There were no adverse events in LID group. All serum lidocaine levels were below detectable levels. CONCLUSIONS Topical lidocaine is an effective and safe method for suppressing colorectal spasm during colonoscopy (UMIN000024733).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daiki Nemoto
- Department of Coloproctology, Aizu Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Sho Suzuki
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan
| | - Hideki Mori
- Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shinichi Katsuki
- Department of Gastroenterology, Otaru Ekisaikai Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - Tomoyuki Iwaki
- Department of Endoscopy, Sendai Kousei Hospital, Miyagi, Japan
| | - Masato Aizawa
- Department of Coloproctology, Aizu Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Yoji Takeuchi
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan
| | - Toshio Uraoka
- Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tomoki Matsuda
- Department of Endoscopy, Sendai Kousei Hospital, Miyagi, Japan
| | - Tomoki Fujita
- Department of Gastroenterology, Otaru Ekisaikai Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan
| | - David G Hewett
- Faculty of Medicine, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Kazutomo Togashi
- Department of Coloproctology, Aizu Medical Center, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kresz A, Mayer B, Zernickel M, Posovszky C. Carbon dioxide versus room air for colonoscopy in deeply sedated pediatric patients: a randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7:E290-E297. [PMID: 30705964 PMCID: PMC6353645 DOI: 10.1055/a-0806-7060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2017] [Accepted: 09/24/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and study aims Use of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) instead of room air (RA) during colonoscopy in adults revealed significantly less flatulence and abdominal pain in several studies. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of CO 2 usage on post-interventional pain, abdominal discomfort, abdominal girth, pCO 2 levels, and narcotic requirement in deeply sedated pediatric patients. Patients and methods A total of 97 children and adolescents aged 4 years to 17 years undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to RA or CO 2 in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Age-appropriate pain scales assessed abdominal pain as primary outcome. In addition, abdominal girth, abdominal bloating, transcutaneous pCO 2 , narcotic requirement to achieve deeply sedation, and post-procedural analgesic demand was analyzed in 73 patients. Results Overall, significantly fewer patients reported bloating in the CO 2 group ( P = 0.0012). However, we observed only a trend to lower post-interventional pain ( P = 0.15) and a lower pain score. There was no significant difference in transcutaneous pCO 2 level and no adverse events occurred. Although there was no difference in the dosage of propofol and midazolam, we observed a significant increased necessity for use of synthetic opioids in the RA group to achieve optimal examination conditions ( P = 0.023). Conclusions The benefits using CO 2 in colonoscopy of deeply sedated children predominate. In particular, CO 2 insufflation may allow a less painful post-interventional time and it significantly reduces abdominal bloating. Moreover, with CO 2 , significantly less additional opioids were used. Thus, CO 2 insufflation can be considered as safe in deeply sedated patients as there was no relevant pulmonary CO 2 retention observed. (DRKS00013914).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Kresz
- Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University Medical Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Benjamin Mayer
- Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
| | - Maria Zernickel
- Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University Medical Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Carsten Posovszky
- Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University Medical Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany,Corresponding author Carsten Posovszky, MD Pediatric Gastroenterology and NutritionDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent MedicineUniversity Medical Center UlmEythstr. 2489075 UlmGermany+0731-50057334
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Fuccio L, Frazzoni L, Hassan C, La Marca M, Paci V, Smania V, De Bortoli N, Bazzoli F, Repici A, Rex D, Cadoni S. Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88:589-597.e11. [PMID: 29981753 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.06.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2018] [Accepted: 06/21/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorenzo Fuccio
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Leonardo Frazzoni
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Marina La Marca
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Valentina Paci
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Veronica Smania
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Nicola De Bortoli
- Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Franco Bazzoli
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessandro Repici
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research and University Hospital, Rozzano (MI), Italy
| | - Douglas Rex
- Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Sergio Cadoni
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Iglesias, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Shi X, Tian D, Ye X, Wu Q, Pan Y, Yang Z, Fan D. Is water exchange superior to water immersion in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies? Results from a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2018; 9:30679-30693. [PMID: 30093978 PMCID: PMC6078142 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2018] [Accepted: 05/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Shi
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Dan Tian
- Office of Educational Administration, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Xiaofei Ye
- Department of Health Statistics, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Qiong Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Yanglin Pan
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Zhiping Yang
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| | - Daiming Fan
- State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Zhang Z, Wu Y, Sun G, Zhang J, Li J, Qiu C, Zheng X, Wang B, Yang L, Wang X. Bayesian network meta-analysis: Efficacy of air insufflation, CO 2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion in colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 2018; 30:321-331. [PMID: 29334136 DOI: 10.1111/den.13012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2017] [Accepted: 01/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Colonoscopy is an excellent screening tool for colorectal cancer. There are four colonoscopy techniques: air insufflation, CO2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion. Some studies reported that the latter three methods are better than the criterion standard (air insufflation), whereas some studies did not. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the four colonoscopy techniques, a network meta-analysis was carried out. METHODS We searched randomized controlled trials (RCT) published up to September 2017 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. Studies referencing the comparison between at least two of air insufflation, CO2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion were selected. Primary outcomes included pain score during insertion, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes included cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate. Mean differences or odds ratios and their corresponding 95% credible intervals were pooled with Bayesian modeling. RESULTS Forty RCT with 13 734 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis showed that air insufflation had the highest pain score (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 98.8%) and the lowest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 21.3%) and polyp (SUCRA: 16.8%). Water exchange had the lowest pain score (SUCRA: 1.1%) and highest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 96.0%) and polyp (SUCRA: 98.9%), although it led to the longest cecal intubation time (SUCRA: 86.9%). CONCLUSIONS Air insufflation might be the most unsatisfactory colonoscopy. Meanwhile, water exchange might be the most efficient colonoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhen Zhang
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Yifeng Wu
- Tianjin People's Hospital Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Guangge Sun
- Tianjin People's Hospital Tianjin Union Medical Center, Tianjin, China
| | - Jing Zhang
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Jiaxin Li
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Chongyang Qiu
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Xin Zheng
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Botao Wang
- Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.,Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Lei Yang
- Tianjin Institute of Acute Abdominal Disease of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| | - Ximo Wang
- Tianjin Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tianjin, China
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Patel AM, Green J, Jowhari F, Hookey L. Use of warm carbon dioxide insufflators does not affect intra-colonic gas temperature and has no effect on polyp detection rate during colonoscopy - a randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5:E683-E689. [PMID: 28691054 PMCID: PMC5500117 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-107779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2016] [Accepted: 03/02/2017] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Methods to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have been investigated, with conflicting results for warm water irrigation. Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) warmed to 37 °C may have similar or more pronounced effects on bowel motility. This study aimed to assess whether warmed CO 2 would improve polyp detection compared to room temperature air insufflation. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 204 patients undergoing screening or surveillance outpatient colonoscopy. The primary outcome was polyp per patient detection rate. Secondary outcomes included adenoma per patient detection rates, bowel spasm, and patient comfort. RESULTS The trial was terminated after an interim analysis determined futility. Between the warmed CO 2 and room air groups, no significant differences were found in the per-colonoscopy polyp detection rate ( P = 0.57); overall polyp detection rate ( P = 0.69); or adenoma detection rates ( P = 0.74). More patients in the room temperature group had lower spasm scores (p = 0.02); however, there was a trend towards greater patient comfort in the warmed CO 2 group ( P = 0.054). An ex-vivo study showed a significant difference between exiting CO 2 temperature at the insufflator end vs. delivered CO 2 temperature at the colonoscope tip end. The temperature of insufflation at the tip of the colonoscope was not different when using warmed vs. unwarmed insufflation ( P = 0.62). CONCLUSION When compared with room air insufflation, warmed CO 2 insufflation did not affect polyp detection rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akash M. Patel
- Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
| | - Jordan Green
- Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
| | - Fahd Jowhari
- Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
| | - Lawrence Hookey
- Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario,Corresponding author Lawrence Hookey Division of GastroenterologyHotel Dieu Hospital166 Brock StreetKingston, Ontario, CanadaK7L 5G2+613 544 3400, ext 2292+614 544 3114
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85:1255-1262. [PMID: 27889545 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2016] [Accepted: 10/31/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Endoscopy is performed with air insufflation and is usually associated with abdominal pain. It is well recognized that carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed more quickly into the body than air; however, to date, few studies have investigated the use of CO2 insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy (CEC). Thus, this study evaluated the efficacy of CO2 insufflation compared with air insufflation in CEC. METHODS From March 2014 to April 2016, a total of 215 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive CO2 insufflation (CO2 group, n = 108) or air insufflation (air group, n = 107). Abdominal pain after CEC was recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The amount of sedatives administered, use of analgesics, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), abdominal circumference, and adverse events were also analyzed. RESULTS Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. Abdominal pain on the VAS in the CO2 group and air group 1 hour after CEC was, respectively, 13.8 and 20.1 (P = .010), 3 hours after CEC was 8.3 and 12.5 (P = .056), 6 hours after CEC was 3.5 and 5.3 (P = .246), and 1 day after CEC was 1.8 and 3.4 (P = .192). The dose of sedative administered, analgesic usage, PDR, ADR, and adverse events were not statistically different between the groups. However, the increase in abdominal circumference was significantly higher in the air group than in the CO2 group. CONCLUSIONS CO2 insufflation was superior to air insufflation with regard to the pain score on the VAS in the hour after CEC. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001491.).
Collapse
|
17
|
Kumar AS, Lee JK. Colonoscopy: Advanced and Emerging Techniques-A Review of Colonoscopic Approaches to Colorectal Conditions. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2017; 30:136-144. [PMID: 28381945 DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1597312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
A complete colonoscopy is key in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to a variety of colorectal diseases. Major challenges are incomplete polyp removal and missed polyps, particularly in the setting of a difficult colonoscopy. There are a variety of both well-established and newer techniques that have been developed to optimize polyp detection, perform complete polypectomy, and endoscopically treat various complications and conditions such as strictures and perforations. The objective of this article is to familiarize the colorectal surgeon with techniques utilized by advanced endoscopists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anjali S Kumar
- Colorectal Surgery Program, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
|
19
|
Carbon Dioxide Versus Air Insufflation for Elective Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2017; 26:102-16. [PMID: 26841319 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of colonic insufflation for elective colonoscopy, that is, carbon dioxide (CO2) or air, and to evaluate their efficiency, safety, and side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS Prospective RCTs comparing CO2 versus air insufflation for colonic distension during colonoscopy were selected by searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1980 and October 2014. The outcome variables analyzed included procedural and immediate postprocedural pain (during, end, or within 15 min after procedure), early postprocedural pain (between 30 and 120 min), intermediate postprocedural pain (360 min) and late postprocedural pain (720 to 1140 min), cecal/ileal intubation rate, cecal/ileal intubation time, and total colonoscopy examination time. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important as they influence the practical approach toward patient management within and outside of hospital. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS Twenty-four RCTs totaling 3996 patients (CO2=2017, Air=1979) were analyzed. Statistically significant differences for the pooled effect size were observed for procedural and immediate postprocedural pain [weighted mean difference (WMD)=0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32, 0.73; P=0.0005], early postprocedural pain between 30 and 120 minutes (WMD=0.25; 95% CI, 0.12, 0.49; P<0.0001), intermediate postprocedural pain, that is, 360 minutes after completion (WMD=0.35; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.52; P<0.0001), and late postprocedural pain between 720 and 1440 minutes (WMD=0.53; 95% CI, 0.34, 0.84; P=0.0061). Comparable effects were noted for cecal/ileal intubation rate (WMD=0.86; 95% CI, 0.61, 1.22; P=0.3975), cecal/ileal intubation time (WMD=-0.64; 95% CI, -1.38, 0.09; P=0.0860), and total examination time (WMD=-0.20; 95% CI, -0.96, 0.57; P=0.6133). CONCLUSIONS On the basis of our meta-analysis and systematic review, we conclude that CO2 insufflation significantly reduces abdominal pain during and following the procedure lasting up to 24 hours. There is no difference in the cecal/ileal intubation rate and time and total examination time between the 2 methods. CO2 retention with CO2 insufflation during and after the colonoscopy shows inconsequential variation compared with air insufflation and has no adverse effect on patients. CO2 instead of air should be routinely utilized for colonoscopy.
Collapse
|
20
|
Kim HG. Painless Colonoscopy: Available Techniques and Instruments. Clin Endosc 2016; 49:444-448. [PMID: 27744665 PMCID: PMC5066405 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2016.132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2016] [Revised: 09/19/2016] [Accepted: 09/19/2016] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
During colonoscopy, air insufflation to distend the lumen and facilitate careful inspection and scope insertion can induce pain and cause discomfort. Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation can decrease abdominal pain and discomfort during and after colonoscopy. The advantage of CO2 insufflation is the rapid absorption of the gas across the intestine. Another painless option is water-assisted colonoscopy. Two methods for water-assisted colonoscopy are available: water immersion and water exchange. In a recent direct comparison, the water exchange method was superior to water immersion, CO2 insufflation, and air insufflation with respect to pain during colonoscopy, although it still had the disadvantage of being a time-consuming procedure. Cap-assisted colonoscopy is a simple technique involving the use of a small transparent cap attached to the tip of the scope. Three studies showed an advantage of this technique in terms of reduced patient discomfort compared with the conventional method. Three robotic colonoscopy systems (Endotics System [Era Endoscopy], NeoGuide [NeoGuide Systems Inc.], and Invendoscope [Invendo Medical]) have been introduced to evaluate pain reduction during colonoscopy, but none has been widely adopted and used in practice. In this review, clinical trials of several techniques and new devices for painless colonoscopy are described and summarized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyun Gun Kim
- Institute for Digestive Research, Soon Chun Hyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Lo SK, Fujii-Lau LL, Enestvedt BK, Hwang JH, Konda V, Manfredi MA, Maple JT, Murad FM, Pannala R, Woods KL, Banerjee S. The use of carbon dioxide in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83:857-65. [PMID: 26946413 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2016] [Accepted: 01/20/2016] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|
22
|
Subramaniam S, Kandiah K, Bhandari P. CO2 insufflation or warm water infusion for unsedated colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic constipation in China. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2016; 22:1-2. [PMID: 26831600 PMCID: PMC4763522 DOI: 10.4103/1319-3767.173752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sharmila Subramaniam
- Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK,Address for correspondence: Dr. Sharmila Subramaniam, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK. E-mail:
| | - Kesavan Kandiah
- Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Pradeep Bhandari
- Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Cadoni S, Falt P, Gallittu P, Liggi M, Mura D, Smajstrla V, Erriu M, Leung FW. Water Exchange Is the Least Painful Colonoscope Insertion Technique and Increases Completion of Unsedated Colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13:1972-80.e1-3. [PMID: 25956838 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.04.178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2015] [Revised: 04/17/2015] [Accepted: 04/21/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Unsedated colonoscopy is acceptable for diagnostic, surveillance, and screening indications worldwide. However, insertion of the colonoscope can be painful; it is not clear which technique is least painful and thereby increases the likelihood of colonoscopy completion. We performed a head-to-head comparison of air insufflation (AI), carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, water immersion (WI), and water exchange (WE) to determine which combination of insertion techniques produces the least amount of pain. METHODS In a patient-blinded prospective trial, 624 subjects were assigned randomly to groups that underwent colonoscopy with AI-AI, CO2-CO2, WI-AI, WE-AI, WI-CO2, or WE-CO2 insertion and withdrawal techniques, including on-demand sedation, at the St. Barbara Hospital (Iglesias, Italy) or the Vìtkovice Hospital (Ostrava, Czech Republic), from October 2013 through June 2014. The primary outcome was real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 10 = worst), recorded by an unblinded nurse assistant. At discharge, a blinded observer recorded the recalled maximum insertion pain and patients' and investigators' guesses about method or gas used. RESULTS Patients and investigators correctly guessed the method used for fewer than 44% of procedures, confirming adequate blinding. The correlation between real-time and recalled maximum insertion pain (r = 0.9; P < .0005) confirmed internal validation of the primary outcome. The WE group had the lowest scores: mean pain values were 5.2 for AI-AI (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6-5.8), 4.9 for CO2-CO2 (95% CI, 4.3-5.4), 4.3 for WI-CO2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.9), 4.0 for WI-AI (95% CI, 3.5-4.5), 3.1 for WE-CO2 (95% CI, 2.7-3.4), and 3.1 for WE-AI (95% CI, 2.7-3.6) (P < .0005). The highest proportions of patients completing unsedated colonoscopy were in the WE groups. WE groups also had significantly better colon cleanliness, particularly in the transverse and right colon (P < .0005). One limitation of the study was that colonoscopists and assistants were not blinded to water-aided insertion methods. CONCLUSIONS In a prospective study of colonoscopy insertion methods, CO2 insufflation did not reduce real-time maximum insertion pain. Compared with AI or CO2, WI and WE reduced insertion pain. The least painful technique was WE, which significantly increased completion of unsedated colonoscopy and bowel cleanliness without prolonging insertion time. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01954862.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Cadoni
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy.
| | - Přemysl Falt
- Digestive Diseases Center, Vìtkovice Hospital, Zálužanského, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Paolo Gallittu
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy
| | - Mauro Liggi
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy
| | - Donatella Mura
- Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias (Carbonia-Iglesias), Italy
| | - Vit Smajstrla
- Digestive Diseases Center, Vìtkovice Hospital, Zálužanského, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Matteo Erriu
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Italy
| | - Felix W Leung
- Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hills, California; David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Schmidt-Tänzer W, Eickhoff A. What Influences the Quality of Prevention Colonoscopy? VISZERALMEDIZIN 2015; 30:26-31. [PMID: 26288579 PMCID: PMC4513811 DOI: 10.1159/000358747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Background Colorectal cancer still has a high incidence and mortality. Although colonoscopy is considered as gold standard of colorectal cancer screening, there still exists an unsatisfactory level of adenomas missed in screening and surveillance colonoscopy. Furthermore, patients bear the burden of potentially unpleasant and painful examination and preparation procedures. Method A search of the literature using PubMed was carried out, supplemented by a review of the programs of the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) 2011-2013. Results Several new approaches to colonoscopy were described: water, CO2 and cap colonoscopy, and application of spasmolytics such as hyoscine butylbromide and glucagon. The use of these methods does not necessitate the purchase of new endoscopes. They are feasible and safe, facilitate achieving the aim of more comfort and less pain, and perhaps allow lower doses of sedatives to be used. However, a clear effect on procedure time is lacking. Furthermore, the published data do not consistently answer the question of whether these techniques have a positive impact on the most important goal, the better detection of carcinoma precursors. Conclusion More efforts to optimize bowel preparation have to be made to improve visualization of the mucosal surface. The most reliable criteria for the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy remain a minimum cecal intubation rate of >90%, a withdrawal time of at least 6 or better 9 min, and an adenoma detection rate of >20%. These results should be achieved with a complication rate lower than 1%, including polypectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wolfgang Schmidt-Tänzer
- Medizinische Klinik II, Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Diabetologie und Infektiologie, Klinikum Hanau GmbH, Hanau, Germany
| | - Axel Eickhoff
- Medizinische Klinik II, Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Diabetologie und Infektiologie, Klinikum Hanau GmbH, Hanau, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Sugimoto S, Mizukami T. Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of water-immersion colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:6451-6459. [PMID: 26074684 PMCID: PMC4458756 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i21.6451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2015] [Revised: 03/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/28/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Colonoscopy techniques combining or replacing air insufflation with water infusion are becoming increasingly popular. They were originally designed to reduce colonic spasms, facilitate cecal intubation, and lower patient discomfort and the need for sedation. These maneuvers straighten the rectosigmoid colon and enable the colonoscope to be inserted deeply without causing looping of the colon. Water-immersion colonoscopy minimizes colonic distension and improves visibility by introducing a small amount of water. In addition, since pain during colonoscopy indicates risk of bowel perforation and sedation masks this important warning, this method has the potential to be the favored insertion technique because it promotes patient safety without sedation. Recently, this water-immersion method has not only been used for colonoscope insertion, but has also been applied to therapy for sigmoid volvulus, removal of lesions, lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and therapeutic diagnosis of abnormal bowel morphology and irritable bowel syndrome. Although a larger sample size and prospective head-to-head-designed studies will be needed, this review focuses on the usefulness of water-immersion colonoscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.
Collapse
|
26
|
Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F, Otte J, Rabenstein T, Zolk O. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD009863. [PMID: 26011829 PMCID: PMC11257032 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd009863.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic modality. A large proportion of the population is likely to undergo colonoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases, or when participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. To reduce pain, water infusion instead of traditional air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy has been proposed, thereby improving patients' acceptance of the procedure. Moreover, the water infusion method may improve early detection of precancerous neoplasms. OBJECTIVES To compare water infusion techniques with standard air insufflation, specifically evaluating technical quality and screening efficacy, as well as patients' acceptance of the water infusion procedure. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1999 to February 2014) for eligible randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials comparing water infusion (water exchange or water immersion methods) against standard air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. We performed analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 5). MAIN RESULTS We included 16 randomised controlled trials consisting of 2933 colonoscopies. Primary outcome measures were cecal intubation rate and adenoma detection; secondary outcomes were time needed to reach the cecum, pain experienced by participants during the procedure, completion of cecal intubation without sedation/analgesia, and adverse events. Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was similar between water infusion and standard air insufflation (risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03, P = 0.93). Adenoma detection rate, that is number of participants with at least one detected adenoma, was slightly improved with water infusion (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30, P = 0.007). Assuming the fraction of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy who had one or more adenomas detected was 20 per 100 with standard colonoscopy, the use of water colonoscopy may increase the fraction to 23 per 100 individuals. From our findings, it is possible that up to 68,000 more of the 1.7 million outpatient screening colonoscopies performed annually in the United States, could detect adenomas if water infusion colonoscopy was used. In addition, with water infusion participants experienced significantly less pain (mean difference in pain score on a 0 to 10 scale: -1.57, 95% CI -2.00 to -1.14, P < 0.00001) and a significantly lower proportion of participants requested on-demand sedation or analgesia, or both (risk ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.27, P < 0.00001). Qualitative analysis suggests that water infusion colonoscopy was not associated with a markedly increased rate of adverse events compared with the standard procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was not improved by water infusion compared with standard air insufflation colonoscopy. However, adenoma detection, assessed with two different measures (that is adenoma detection rate and number of detected adenomas per procedure), was slightly augmented by the water infusion colonoscopy. Improved adenoma detection might be due to the cleansing effects of water infusions on the mucosa. Detection of premalignant lesions during standard colonoscopy is suboptimal, and so improvements in adenoma detection by water infusion colonoscopy, although small, may help to reduce the risk of interval colorectal carcinoma. The most obvious benefit of water infusion colonoscopy was reduction of procedure-related abdominal pain, which may enhance the acceptance of screening/surveillance colonoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susanne Hafner
- University Hospital UlmInstitute of Pharmacology of Natural Products & Clinical PharmacologyHelmholtzstrasse 20UlmBaden‐WürttembergGermany89081
| | - Karsten Zolk
- Westpfalz HospitalDepartment of Internal Medicine ‐ AngiologyIm Flur 1KuselWestphaliaGermany66869
| | - Franco Radaelli
- Valduce HospitalGastrenterology UnitVia Dante 11ComoItaly22100
| | - Jörg Otte
- Friedrich‐Alexander‐UniversitätInstitute of Pharmacology and ToxicologyErlangenGermany
| | - Thomas Rabenstein
- Diakonissen Stiftungs KrankenhausDepartment of MedicineHilgardstrasse 26SpeyerRhineland PalatinateGermany67346
| | - Oliver Zolk
- University Hospital UlmInstitute of Pharmacology of Natural Products and Clinical PharmacologyHelmholtzstrasse 20UlmBaden‐WürttembergGermany89081
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Allen P, Shaw E, Jong A, Behrens H, Skinner I. Severity and duration of pain after colonoscopy and gastroscopy: a cohort study. J Clin Nurs 2015; 24:1895-903. [DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12817] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/14/2015] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Penny Allen
- Rural Clinical School; The University of Tasmania; Burnie Tasmania
| | - Elissa Shaw
- Mersey Community Hospital; Department of Health and Human Services; LaTrobe Tasmania
- Board of Australian College of Operating Room Nurses (ACORN)
| | - Anne Jong
- Mersey Community Hospital; Department of Health and Human Services; LaTrobe Tasmania
| | - Heidi Behrens
- Rural Clinical School; The University of Tasmania; Burnie Tasmania
| | - Isabelle Skinner
- Rural and Regional Practice Development; School of Health and Rural Clinical School; The University of Tasmania; Burnie Tasmania
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
A randomized, controlled trial comparing real-time insertion pain during colonoscopy confirmed water exchange to be superior to water immersion in enhancing patient comfort. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81:557-66. [PMID: 25262100 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2014] [Accepted: 07/09/2014] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Status Evaluation Report recommended comparative studies of water-aided colonoscopy methods to refine the optimal insertion technique. OBJECTIVE Air insufflation (AI), water immersion (WI), and water exchange (WE) were compared head-to-head to test the hypothesis that WE produces the least insertion pain. DESIGN Patient-blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trials. SETTING Two community hospitals in Italy. PATIENTS First-time diagnostic or screening colonoscopy in unsedated patients with the option of on-demand sedation. INTERVENTION Colonoscopy with AI, WI, or WE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 10 = worst). To avoid interventional bias, the timing of recording was at the discretion of the nurse assistant. Adjunct measures were implemented to ensure patient perception of minimal discomfort. Recalled pain and patients' guess of insertion methods were recorded after colonoscopy. RESULTS Results were merged for 576 randomized patients. Correct patient guesses lower than 33% confirmed adequate blinding. Significant correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.6, P < .0005) between real-time and recalled pain provided internal validation of the former as the primary outcome. Real-time pain (95% confidence interval [CI]: AI, 4.1 [3.7-4.5]; WI, 3.5 [3.0-3.9]; and WE, 2.5 [2.2-2.9] [P < .0005] was the lowest in the WE group. The proportions of patients completing unsedated colonoscopy based on the assigned methods were significantly different (WE, 74.7% vs WI, 62.4%; P = .009; vs AI, 65.3%; P = .04). WE required the least implementation of adjunct maneuvers. LIMITATIONS Unblinded colonoscopists. CONCLUSION The current findings with an internally validated primary outcome in adequately blinded patients support the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in attenuating real-time insertion pain and enhancing completion of unsedated colonoscopy.
Collapse
|
29
|
Sajid MS, Caswell J, Bhatti MI, Sains P, Baig MK, Miles WFA. Carbon dioxide insufflation vs conventional air insufflation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis 2015; 17:111-23. [PMID: 25393051 DOI: 10.1111/codi.12837] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2014] [Accepted: 08/06/2014] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
AIM Conventional air insufflation (AI) may cause prolonged abdominal bloating, excessive abdominal pain and discomfort during colonoscopy. Carbon dioxide may be an acceptable alternative to avoid these complications. The object of this study was to evaluate systematically the effectiveness of carbon dioxide insufflation (CI) for colonoscopy compared with AI. METHOD Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of CI with that of AI during colonoscopy were retrieved from medical electronic databases and combined analysis was performed using the RevMan statistical package. The combined outcome of dichotomous and continuous variables was expressed as an odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS Twenty-one RCTs comprising 3607 patients were included in the study. There was statistically significant heterogeneity among included studies. CI showed a significant trend towards reduced procedural pain [SMD -1.34; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -2.23 to -0.45; z = 2.96; P < 0.003] and also postprocedural pain at 1 h (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38; z = 2.97; P < 0.003), 6 and 24 h (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.85; z = 2.44; P < 0.01). CI was associated with faster caecal intubation (SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.02; z = 2.23; P < 0.03) but the caecal intubation rate was similar (P = 0.59) in both colonic insufflation techniques . CONCLUSION CI seems to have clinical advantages over AI for colonoscopy with regard to pain during and after the procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M S Sajid
- Department of General, Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, West Sussex
| | - J Caswell
- Department of General, Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, West Sussex
| | - M I Bhatti
- Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, Norfolk, UK
| | - P Sains
- Department of General, Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, West Sussex
| | - M K Baig
- Department of General, Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, West Sussex
| | - W F A Miles
- Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, Norfolk, UK
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Rex DK. Water exchange vs. water immersion during colonoscope insertion. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109:1401-3. [PMID: 25196871 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2014] [Accepted: 07/01/2014] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Water exchange (water infusion with water removal primarily during insertion) and water immersion (water infusion with water removal during withdrawal) reduce patient discomfort during colonoscope insertion compared with air insufflation, and represent a major achievement in colonoscopy. Hsieh et al. found that water exchange, relative to water immersion, resulted in more painless insertions to the cecum and improved adenoma detection in the right colon. However, water exchange is also associated with better bowel cleansing and longer insertion and procedure times. These factors are not specific to water exchange, but could account for all or part of the better results with water exchange. Additional controlled investigation is needed to define the benefits of water exchange compared with water immersion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Douglas K Rex
- Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Tutticci N, Bourke MJ. Advances in colonoscopy. CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN GASTROENTEROLOGY 2014; 12:119-139. [PMID: 24615389 DOI: 10.1007/s11938-014-0009-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
Colonoscopy with polypectomy has been established as the major prevention and detection strategy for colorectal cancer for over a decade. Over this period advances in colonoscopic imaging, polyp detection, prediction of histopathology and polypectomy techniques have all been seen; however, the true magnitude of the limitations of colonoscopy has only recently been widely recognized. The rate and location of missed or interval cancers after complete colonoscopy appears to be influenced by the operator-dependency of colonoscopy and failure of conventional practices to detect and treat adenomatous, and possibly more importantly, non-adenomatous colorectal cancer precursors. Consequently, studies that expand our understanding of these factors and advances that aim to improve colonoscopy, polypectomy, and cancer protection are of critical importance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas Tutticci
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, 106A/151 Hawkesbury Road, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia,
| | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Dik VK, Moons LMG, Siersema PD. Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20:2200-2211. [PMID: 24605019 PMCID: PMC3942825 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2013] [Revised: 12/06/2013] [Accepted: 01/20/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Up to a quarter of polyps and adenomas are missed during colonoscopy due to poor visualization behind folds and the inner curves of flexures, and the presence of flat lesions that are difficult to detect. These numbers may however be conservative because they mainly come from back-to-back studies performed with standard colonoscopes, which are unable to visualize the entire mucosal surface. In the past several years, new endoscopic techniques have been introduced to improve the detection of polyps and adenomas. The introduction of high definition colonoscopes and visual image enhancement technologies have been suggested to lead to better recognition of flat and small lesions, but the absolute increase in diagnostic yield seems limited. Cap assisted colonoscopy and water-exchange colonoscopy are methods to facilitate cecal intubation and increase patients comfort, but show only a marginal or no benefit on polyp and adenoma detection. Retroflexion is routinely used in the rectum for the inspection of the dentate line, but withdrawal in retroflexion in the colon is in general not recommended due to the risk of perforation. In contrast, colonoscopy with the Third-Eye Retroscope® may result in considerable lower miss rates compared to standard colonoscopy, but this technique is not practical in case of polypectomy and is more time consuming. The recently introduced Full Spectrum Endoscopy™ colonoscopes maintains the technical capabilities of standard colonoscopes and provides a much wider view of 330 degrees compared to the 170 degrees with standard colonoscopes. Remarkable lower adenoma miss rates with this new technique were recently demonstrated in the first randomized study. Nonetheless, more studies are required to determine the exact additional diagnostic yield in clinical practice. Optimizing the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance requires high definition colonoscopes with improved virtual chromoendoscopy technology that visualize the whole colon mucosa while maintaining optimal washing, suction and therapeutic capabilities, and keeping the procedural time as low and patient discomfort as optimal as possible.
Collapse
|
33
|
Wang HL, Ye F, Liao WF, Xia B, Zheng GR. Unsedated versus sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A questionnaire investigation in Wuhan, central China. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2013; 33:857-861. [DOI: 10.1007/s11596-013-1211-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2013] [Revised: 10/26/2013] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
34
|
Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled methoxyflurane versus conventional endoscopist-provided sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78:892-901. [PMID: 23810328 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2013] [Accepted: 05/13/2013] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Inhaled methoxyflurane (Penthrox, Medical Device International, Melbourne, Australia) has been used extensively in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) to manage trauma-related pain. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcome of Penthrox for colonoscopy. DESIGN Prospective randomized study. SETTING Three tertiary endoscopic centers. PATIENTS Two hundred fifty-one patients were randomized to receive either Penthrox (n = 125, 70 men, 51.4 ± 1.1 years old) or intravenous midazolam and fentanyl (M&F; n = 126, 72 men, 54.9 ± 1.1 years old) during colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT Discomfort (visual analogue scale [VAS] pain score), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y [STAI-Y] anxiety score), colonoscopy performance, adverse events, and recovery time. RESULTS Precolonoscopy VAS pain and STAI-Y scores were comparable between the 2 groups. There were no differences between groups in (1) pain VAS or STAI Y-1 anxiety scores during or immediately after colonoscopy, (2) procedural success rate (Penthrox: 121/125 vs M&F: 124/126), (3) hypotension during colonoscopy (7/125 vs 8/126), (4) tachycardia (5/125 vs 3/126), (5) cecal arrival time (8 ± 1 vs 8 ± 1 minutes), or (6) polyp detection rate (30/125 vs 43/126). Additional intravenous sedation was required in 10 patients (8%) who received Penthrox. Patients receiving Penthrox alone had no desaturation (oxygen saturation [SaO(2)] < 90%) events (0/115 vs 5/126; P = .03), awoke quicker (3 ± 0 vs 19 ± 1 minutes; P < .001) and were ready for discharge earlier (37 ± 1 vs 66 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) than those receiving intravenous M&F. LIMITATIONS Inhaled Penthrox is not yet available in the United States and Europe. CONCLUSIONS Patient-controlled analgesia with inhaled Penthrox is feasible and as effective as conventional sedation for colonoscopy with shorter recovery time, is not associated with respiratory depression, and does not influence the procedural success and polyp detection.
Collapse
|
35
|
Ai YH, Chen JW. Comfort and safety of carbon dioxide-insufflating colonoscopy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Shijie Huaren Xiaohua Zazhi 2013; 21:2466-2469. [DOI: 10.11569/wcjd.v21.i24.2466] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the comfort and safety of carbon dioxide-insufflating colonoscopy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight IBS patients were included in this study. One hundred and thirty healthy volunteers who underwent physical examination in the outpatient department in the same period were used as controls. Both IBS patients and healthy controls were randomized into two groups to receive air and CO2 insufflation, respectively. Patients' symptoms such as distension and pain were scored and compared using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). PETCO2 was measured immediately before the examination, when the endoscope reached the cecum, immediately, 5 and 15 min after the examination.
RESULTS: The mean severity of pain before the examination was higher in the IBS group than in the control group. For patients with IBS, the severity of symptoms was reduced earlier in the CO2 group. There was no rise in the mean PETCO2during and after colonoscopy in both groups.
CONCLUSION: CO2 insufflation in colonoscopy is safe and effective for IBS patients.
Collapse
|