Cecal intubation time between cap-assisted water exchange and water exchange colonoscopy: a randomized-controlled trial

Factors affecting cecal intubation time during colonoscopy

In recent years, the morbidity and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have increased significantly in China, and it has become one of the major malignancies that threaten the health of residents. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of CRC. High-quality colonoscopy can effectively reduce the mortality of CRC. Cecal intubation time (CIT) is one of the indicators to reflect the quality of colonoscopy. Studies have found that many factors can affect CIT. This paper reviews the literature to identify the factors that affect CIT, such as those related to doctors, patients, assistive technologies, and equipment, in order to improve the quality of colonoscopy performed by endoscopists.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Underwater cap-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy: a pilot study

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) is technically challenging and associated with a significant number of failures. We examined the feasibility and efficacy of a novel technique for the management of bile duct stones (BDSs), called underwater cap-assisted ERCP (u-ERCP). METHODS : Between June 2019 and February 2020 all patients with SAA with jaundice or cholangitis secondary to BDSs who underwent u-ERCP were enrolled. The u-ERCP technique combines the underwater advancement of a pediatric colonoscope with a transparent cap fitted on the tip of the endoscope. We evaluated the technical success, clinical success, and adverse events associated with u-ERCP. RESULTS : We describe the technique itself and our initial experience in six patients. A complete and successful procedure was carried out in all patients, with the occurrence of no adverse events. None of the patients needed additional treatments for recurrence of symptoms during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS : u-ERCP can be considered as a promising alternative for successful endoscopic management of biliary disease in patients with SAA.

Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy during transendoscopic enteral tubing: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing (TET) requires double cecal intubation, raising a common concern of how to save cecal intubation time and make the tube stable. We hypothesized that cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) might reduce the second cecal intubation time and bring potential benefits during the TET procedure.

AIM

To investigate if CC can decrease the second cecal intubation time compared with regular colonoscopy (RC).

METHODS

This prospective multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed at four centers. Subjects ≥ 7 years needing colonic TET were recruited from August 2018 to January 2020. All subjects were randomly assigned to two groups. The primary outcome was the second cecal intubation time. Secondary outcomes included success rate, insertion pain score, single clip fixation time, purpose and retention time of TET tube, length of TET tube inserted into the colon, and all procedure-related (serious) adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 331 subjects were randomized to the RC (n = 165) or CC (n = 166) group. The median time of the second cecal intubation was significantly shorter for CC than RC (2.2 min vs 2.8 min, P < 0.001). In patients with constipation, the median time of second cecal intubation in the CC group (n = 50) was shorter than that in the RC group (n = 43) (2.6 min vs 3.8 min, P = 0.004). However, no difference was observed in the CC (n = 42) and RC (n = 46) groups of ulcerative colitis patients (2.0 min vs 2.5 min, P = 0.152). The insertion pain score during the procedure in CC (n = 14) was lower than that in RC (n = 19) in unsedated colonoscopy (3.8 ± 1.7 vs 5.4 ± 1.9; P = 0.015). Multivariate analysis revealed that only CC (odds ratio [OR]: 2.250, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.161-4.360; P = 0.016) was an independent factor affecting the second cecal intubation time in difficult colonoscopy. CC did not affect the colonic TET tube’s retention time and length of the tube inserted into the colon. Moreover, multivariate analysis found that only endoscopic clip number (OR: 2.201, 95%CI: 1.541-3.143; P < 0.001) was an independent factor affecting the retention time. Multiple regression analysis showed that height (OR: 1.144, 95%CI: 1.027-1.275; P = 0.014) was the only independent factor influencing the length of TET tube inserted into the colon in adults.

CONCLUSION

CC for colonic TET procedure is a safe and less painful technique, which can reduce cecal intubation time.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

My approach to water-assisted colonoscopy

The goal of diagnostic colonoscopy is to achieve procedural completion while maximising effectiveness, patient acceptance and safety. In recent years, international interest in water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) has been steadily gathering pace. A plethora of high-quality randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses now offer incontrovertible evidence into the benefits of WAC, both for the endoscopist and the patient. Despite this, uptake of WAC within the UK has been limited, with the lack of educational resources representing a significant barrier. This practical step-by-step guide is aimed at both existing practitioners and trainees, with a view to promoting familiarity with WAC and potentially for incorporation into daily practice which may ultimately have a positive effect on quality of colonoscopy and patient experience.

Increase your adenoma detection rate without using fancy adjunct tools

The correlation between a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval cancers (ICs) has made ADR one of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy. Data from nation-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs showed that there is room for improvement in ADR in order to reduce ICs in Taiwan. Measures with and without adjunct tools have been shown to have the potential to increase ADR, with the latter being more convenient to apply without additional cost. Optimal withdrawal techniques coupled with sufficient withdrawal time, training endoscopists with emphasis on recognition of subtle characteristics of flat lesions, dynamic position changes during the withdrawal phase, removing small polyps found during insertion, and retroflexion in the right colon have all been associated with increased ADR. In particular, water exchange (WE), which is characterized using water in lieu of air and suction removal of infused water during insertion, appears to meet the needs of colonoscopy patients in Taiwan. Analyses of both primary and secondary outcome variables of recently published studies have consistently shown that WE yields higher ADR than traditional air insufflation, even in propofol-sedated patients. Colonoscopists participating in the nationwide CRC screening program in Taiwan should consider applying one or more of the above measures to improve ADR and hopefully reduce ICs.