Comparison of Right Colon Adenoma Miss Rates Between Water Exchange and Carbon Dioxide Insufflation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

GIE Editorial Board Top 10: advances in GI endoscopy in 2021

The 9-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performed a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2021 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals on endoscopy-related topics. Votes from each editorial board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study, with a focus on 3 criteria: significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice. The 10 areas identified collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic topics: colonoscopy optimization, bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic needle sampling and drainage, peroral endoscopic myotomy, endoscopic defect closure, meeting systemic challenges in endoscopic training and practice, endohepatology, FNA versus fine-needle biopsy sampling, endoscopic mucosal and submucosal procedures, and cold snare polypectomy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 of the consensus topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2021.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopy featured water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in-depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in-depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified.

RESULTS

Of 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co-authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta-analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On-demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time.

CONCLUSIONS

An important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Computer-Aided Detection False Positives in Colonoscopy

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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