Combination of water immersion and carbon dioxide insufflation for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-center trial

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.

Perception and Practices of Colonoscopy Procedure: A Nationwide Survey of Indian Gastroenterologists

Introduction There is a lack of data and consensus about the practices and policies regarding performing colonoscopy in India. We surveyed gastroenterologists to assess their practices and policies of performing colonoscopy.

Methodology A questionnaire was presented to gastroenterologists all over India regarding their preference of bowel preparation and method of sedation, completeness of cecal and ileal intubation rates, preferences for inflation, use of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, and complications faced.

Results Of the 350 surveys, 307 had completely responded (88%). Only 18% of the centers were conducting more than 100 colonoscopies a month and 46% denied following a colon cancer screening policy. Two bottles of liquid polyethylene glycol were the most preferred preparation. A total of 21% did not prefer any sedation at all. Nitrous oxide was used by only 5.6% of doctors. Ileal intubation rate was >96% in 34% of centers and cecal intubation rate >96% in 58% of centers. Air was used for inflation by 58%, while 39% used CO2. A total of 40% of the respondents believe CO2 inflation would improve cecal intubation rate, while 9.4% believed otherwise. While one third found CO2 inflation unnecessary and 14% not cost-effective, three fourths were still interested in setting up a CO2 facility. Reasons for not using nitrous oxide were practical/administrative difficulty (46.6%), side effects (20%), and cost (16%). Still more than half surveyed would consider using Entonox in future. Perforation was the most noted complication faced by respondents.

Conclusions This survey of real-world clinical practices will help to formulate practice guideline regarding colonoscopy in India.

Current status of water-assisted colonoscopy

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.

Comparison of ED95 of Butorphanol and Sufentanil for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Butorphanol, a synthetic opioid partial agonist analgesic, has been widely used to control perioperative pain. However, the ideal dose and availability of butorphanol for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy are not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluated the 95% effective dose (ED₉₅) of butorphanol and sufentanil in GI endoscopy and compared their clinical efficacy, especially regarding the recovery time.

Methods

The study was divided into two parts. For the first part, voluntary patients who needed GI endoscopy anesthesia were recruited to measure the ED₉₅ of butorphanol and sufentanil needed to achieve successful sedation before GI endoscopy using the sequential method (the Dixon up-and-down method). The second part was a double-blind, randomized study. Two hundred cases of painless GI endoscopy patients were randomly divided into two groups (n = 100), including group B (butorphanol at the ED₉₅ dose) and group S (sufentanil at the ED₉₅ dose). Propofol was infused intravenously as the sedative in both groups. The recovery time, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, hand grip strength, fatigue severity scores, incidence of nausea and vomiting, and incidence of dizziness were recorded.

Results

The ED₉₅ of butorphanol for painless GI endoscopy was 9.07 μg/kg (95% confidence interval: 7.81–19.66 μg/kg). The ED₉₅ of sufentanil was 0.1 μg/kg (95% CI, 0.079–0.422 μg/kg). Both butorphanol and sufentanil provided a good analgesic effect for GI endoscopy. However, the recovery time for butorphanol was significantly shorter than that for sufentanil (P < 0.05, group B vs. group S:21.26 ± 7.70 vs. 24.03 ± 7.80 min).

Conclusions

Butorphanol at 9.07 μg/kg was more effective than sufentanil for GI endoscopy sedation and notably reduced the recovery time.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trail Registry (Registration number # ChiCTR1900022780; Date of Registration on April 25rd, 2019).

The WASh Trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Programme: study protocol for a randomized multicenter trial

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.

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.

Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

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.

Is water exchange superior to water immersion in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies? Results from a Bayesian network meta-analysis

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.

Bayesian network meta-analysis: Efficacy of air insufflation, CO2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion in colonoscopy

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.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a double-blind, randomized, single-center trial

OBJECTIVE

Bowel distension by insufflated air causes abdominal discomfort after colonoscopy. Carbon dioxide (CO2) instead of air insufflation during colonoscopy can reduce postprocedural discomfort in diagnostic and screening cases. Discomfort after colonoscopy and CO2 insufflation have never been studied in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, characterized by younger age, structural changes of the colon, and need for repeated and frequently uncomfortable colonoscopies. Our trial was designed to evaluate postprocedural discomfort associated with CO2 compared with air insufflation in unsedated or minimally sedated patients with known IBD.

METHODS

In a double-blind, randomized, single-center study, 64 patients were randomized to either CO2 insufflation (CO2) or air insufflation colonoscopy (Air). Abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence scores during 24 h after colonoscopy were recorded using a continuous scale of 0-10 (0=none, 10=maximum discomfort). The primary endpoint used for power calculation was bloating score at 1 h after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Pain, bloating, and flatulence scores at end, 1, and 3 h after colonoscopy were significantly lower in CO2 than in Air arm (P<0.001). Scores at 6, 12, and 24 h were comparable. Procedural parameters such as cecal and terminal ileum intubation rate, intubation and total time, pain during insertion, need for repositioning, and abdominal compression were not different between arms. No complications were recorded in the study.

CONCLUSION

Compared with air, CO2 insufflation significantly reduces abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence scores during at least 3 h after colonoscopy in IBD patients, achieving comparable intraprocedural outcomes.

Carbon Dioxide Versus Air Insufflation for Elective Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

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.

Impact of carbon dioxide insufflation and water exchange on postcolonoscopy outcomes in patients receiving on-demand sedation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Water exchange (WE) is the least painful insertion method during colonoscopy. Its impact on postcolonoscopy discomfort has not been well-described. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation consistently reduced postcolonoscopy discomfort. We compared postcolonoscopy outcomes of various combinations of insertion and withdrawal techniques (insertion-withdrawal modality): WE-CO₂, WE-air insufflation (WE-AI), and CO₂-CO₂.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients undergoing on-demand sedation diagnostic colonoscopy were randomized to WE-CO₂ (n = 79), WE-AI (n = 80), CO₂-CO₂ (n = 81), with postprocedural data collected up to 24 hours. The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy bloating. Other postcolonoscopy outcomes included pain scores, flatus and incontinence episodes, toilet use, interference with normal activities, patient satisfaction, and patient willingness to repeat the procedure.

RESULTS

Demographic and procedural data were comparable. Compared with WE-AI, WE-CO₂ and CO₂-CO₂ resulted in significantly less bloating (all P < .0005) and lower pain scores (P values ranged from .008 to < .0005) up to 3 hours and fewer flatus episodes up to 6 hours (P values ranged from .003 to < .0005). WE-CO₂ resulted in less interference with same-day activities compared with WE-AI (P = .043). The differences in postprocedural outcomes were significant, but the magnitude was small. Patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure were high and comparable among groups. WE was the least painful insertion technique (P < .0005).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination WE-CO₂ appears to be the optimal choice to decrease pain during the examination and to reduce bloating and other undesired procedural outcomes afterward. If a CO₂ insufflator is already available, it seems advisable to adopt the combination WE-CO₂. In the absence of a CO₂ insufflator, the cost effectiveness of the addition of withdrawal CO₂ to WE in diagnostic and nondiagnostic settings needs to be critically assessed. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02409979.).

The role of equipment in endoscopic complications

The role of the surrounding equipment in endoscopic complications has not been published widely. However, an adequate understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of such devices might be helpful to avoid unnecessary problems during endoscopy. This is an overview of the basic principles, benefits and possible harms of electrical power units, medical gases and vital sign monitoring equipment. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge about the approach to the electrosurgical unit settings; periprocedural precautions, minimizing the risk of interference between endoscopic equipment and other electrical devices; the appropriate selection of instruments regarding the electrosurgical outcome and the role of carbon dioxide, argon plasma coagulation, pulse oximetry and capnography.

Painless Colonoscopy: Available Techniques and Instruments

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.

Single-port thoracoscopic surgery for pneumothorax under two-lung ventilation with carbon dioxide insufflation

BACKGROUND

The development of single-port thoracoscopic surgery and two-lung ventilation reduced the invasiveness of minor thoracic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of single-port thoracoscopic bleb resection for primary spontaneous pneumothorax using two-lung ventilation with carbon dioxide insufflation.

METHODS

Between February 2009 and May 2014, 130 patients underwent single-port thoracoscopic bleb resection under two-lung ventilation with carbon dioxide insufflation. Access was gained using a commercial multiple-access single port through a 2.5-cm incision; carbon dioxide gas was insufflated through a port channel. A 5-mm thoracoscope, articulating endoscopic devices, and flexible endoscopic staplers were introduced through a multiple-access single port for bulla resection.

RESULTS

The mean time from endotracheal intubation to incision was 29.2±7.8 minutes, the mean operative time was 30.9±8.2 minutes, and the mean total anesthetic time was 75.5±14.4 minutes. There were no anesthesia-related complications or wound problems. The chest drain was removed after a mean of 3.7±1.4 days and patients were discharged without complications 4.8±1.5 days from the operative day. During a mean 7.5±10.1 months of follow-up, there were five recurrences (3.8%) in operated thorax.

CONCLUSIONS

The anesthetic strategy of single-lumen intubation with carbon dioxide gas insufflation can be a safe and feasible option for single-port thoracoscopic bulla resection as it represents the least invasive surgical option with the potential advantages of reducing operative time and one-lung ventilation-related complications without diminishing surgical outcomes.

Water-Aided Colonoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients-A Randomised, Single-Centre Trial

BACKGROUND

Water-aided colonoscope insertion reduces patients' discomfort and need for sedation in unsedated and minimally sedated patients. However, water-aided technique has never been studied in inflammatory bowel disease patients, characterised by younger age, structural changes of the colon and need for repeated colonoscopies. Our trial was designed to evaluate discomfort associated with water-aided colonoscopy compared with air insufflation in on-demand sedated patients with known inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

In a randomised, single-centre study, 92 patients were randomised to either water-aided insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal [Water] or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal [Air]. The main outcome measured was success rate of unsedated colonoscopy, defined as reaching the caecum without requiring sedation and with discomfort during insertion of less than or equal to 5 using 0-10 continuous scale [0 = none, 10 = maximum pain].

RESULTS

Success rate of caecal intubation without sedation or invoking a discomfort score greater than 5 was significantly higher in the Water arm compared with the Air arm [73.9 vs 45.7%, p = 0.01]. Discomfort score during insertion [mean ± SD] was significantly lower in the Water than in the Air arm [3.8±2.4 vs 5.4±1.9, p < 0.001]. Other outcomes including procedural times, success rate of terminal ileum intubation, need for abdominal compression, and repositioning were comparable. There were no complications recorded in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with air insufflation, water-aided colonoscopy significantly reduces discomfort in on-demand sedated patients with inflammatory bowel disease, achieving comparable procedural outcomes.

Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of water-immersion colonoscopy

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.

Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy

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.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing real-time insertion pain during colonoscopy confirmed water exchange to be superior to water immersion in enhancing patient comfort

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.

Carbon dioxide insufflation vs conventional air insufflation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials

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.

Cool water vs warm water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized trial

AIM

Water-aided insertion as an alternative colonoscopy technique reduces patient discomfort. Warm water has been used in most published trials, but the use of cool water is easier and, if equally effective, could support the use of the water-aided technique in routine practice.

METHOD

A double-blind, randomized, single-centre study was performed in which 201 patients were randomized to either cool (20-24 °C) or warm (37 °C) water immersion insertion. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time. The success rate of minimal sedation and patient discomfort were also assessed.

RESULTS

The caecal intubation time for cool and warm water was similar (6.9 ± 3.5 vs 7.0 ± 3.4 min, P = 0.64). The respective success rates of minimal sedation colonoscopy (89.1% vs 90%, P = 1.00) and discomfort (P = 0.51) were no different. All other outcomes except a greater need for abdominal compression in the cool water arm (P = 0.04) were similar including the total procedure time, terminal ileum intubation rate, adenoma detection, length of the inserted scope, water volume, non-standard position rate, difficulty of the procedure and the patient's temperature sensation.

CONCLUSION

The use of cool water did not modify the caecal intubation time compared with warm water. Exception for abdominal compression, all other end-points were no different. Cool water immersion is an alternative to the technically more demanding warm water immersion colonoscopy.

Advances in colonoscopy

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.

Water-aided colonoscopy

Water-aided methods for colonoscopy include the established water immersion and the recent novel modification of water exchange. Water immersion entails the use of water as an adjunct to air insufflations to facilitate insertion. Water exchange evolved from water immersion to facilitate completion of colonoscopy without discomfort in unsedated patients. Infused water is removed predominantly during insertion rather than withdrawal. A higher adenoma detection rate has been reported with water exchange. Aggregate data of randomized controlled trials suggest that water exchange may be superior to water immersion in attenuating colonoscopy discomfort and optimizing adenoma detection, particularly in the proximal colon.

Cap-assisted water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: prospective, randomized, single-center trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Water immersion insertion is able to reduce discomfort and need for sedation during colonoscopy. A cap attached to the colonoscope tip may improve insertion during air insufflation colonoscopy. According to several reports, both techniques alone may result in higher detection of neoplastic lesions. Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted water immersion compared to water immersion colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients.

METHODS

A total of 208 consecutive outpatients were randomized to either cap-assisted water immersion (Cap Water) or water immersion colonoscopy (Water). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation time was 6.9 ± 2.9 min in Cap Water and 7.4 ± 4.2 min in the Water arm (P = 0.73). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy was equal in both groups (92.9%, P = 1.00). From the endoscopist's point of view, there were non-significant trends towards lower discomfort (P = 0.06), less need for abdominal compression (P = 0.06) and lower difficulty score (P = 0.05) during Cap Water colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was similar in both arms (44% in Cap Water vs 45% in the Water group, P = 0.88). There were no complications recorded in the present study.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with water immersion without cap, cap-assisted water immersion colonoscopy was not able to shorten the cecal intubation time. However, it has the possibility of reducing patient discomfort and difficulty of colonoscope insertion. Potential impact on improved detection of neoplastic lesions has to be evaluated by further studies.

Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether water infusion colonoscopy (WIC) is a more effective diagnostic tool than standard air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC).

METHODS

All articles pertinent to a comparison of water-related methods and air insufflation to facilitate insertion of the colonoscope were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pooling results were derived by using the Review Manager Software. Outcomes were assessed using the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables and the odds ratios (OR) with 95 % CI for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies involving 2,797 patients were included. WIC was associated with a significantly higher cecal intubation rate than AIC (OR = 1.90; 95 % CI 1.21-2.99; p = 0.005). The intubation time was similar for the two types of colonoscopy, but in WIC there was a significantly lower visual analog scale score for abdominal pain than in AIC (MD = -1.30; 95 % CI -2.03 to -0.58; p < 0.001) without sacrificing the polyp detection rate (OR = 1.17; 95 % CI 0.78-1.77; p = 0.44). Statistically, the patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WIC than for AIC (OR = 1.74; 95 % CI 1.14-2.67; p < 0.01). Furthermore, in the subgroup for trainees, the WIC group achieved a higher cecal intubation rate (OR = 1.83; 95 % CI 1.15-2.93; p = 0.01) and a shorter intubation time (MD = -1.72 min; 95 % CI -3.34 to -0.11; p = 0.04) than the AIC group.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to AIC, WIC improved cecal intubation, alleviated abdominal pain, and increased patients' willingness to repeat the procedure.

Carbon dioxide insufflation or warm-water infusion versus standard air insufflation for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The increasing demand for colonoscopy has renewed the interest for unsedated procedures. Alternative techniques, such as carbon dioxide insufflation and warm-water infusion, have been advocated to improve patient tolerance for colonoscopy in comparison with air insufflation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of carbon dioxide insufflation and warm-water irrigation over air insufflation in unsedated patients.

DESIGN

This study was a randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a nonacademic single center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive outpatients agreeing to start colonoscopy without premedication were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to either carbon dioxide insufflation, warm-water irrigation, or air insufflation colonoscopy insertion phase. Sedation/analgesia were administered on patient request if significant pain or discomfort occurred.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured was the percentage of patients requiring sedation/analgesia. Pain and tolerance scores were assessed at discharge by using a 100-mm visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-one subjects (115 in the carbon dioxide, 113 in the warm-water, and 113 in the air group) were enrolled. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the proportion of patients requesting sedation/analgesia during colonoscopy was 15.5% in the carbon dioxide group, 13.2% in the warm-water group, and 25.6% in the air group (p = 0.04 carbon dioxide vs air; p = 0.03 warm water vs air). Median (interquartile range) scores for pain were 30 (10-50), 28 (15-50), and 46 (22-62) in the carbon dioxide, warm-water, and air groups (carbon dioxide vs air, p < 0.01; warm water vs air, p < 0.01); corresponding figures for tolerance were 20 (5-30), 19 (5-36), and 28 (10-50) (carbon dioxide vs air, p < 0.01; warm water vs air, p < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS

This investigation was limited because it was a single-center study and the endoscopists were not blinded to randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

Carbon dioxide insufflation was associated with a decrease in the proportion of patients requesting on-demand sedation, improved patient tolerance, and decreased colonoscopy-related pain in comparison with air insufflation. The findings regarding warm-water irrigation confirmed the previously reported advantages, so that warm-water irrigation and carbon dioxide insufflation could represent competitive strategies for colonoscopy in unsedated patients.