Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients

Application of linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with constipation: A prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for clear visualization of the colonic mucosa and lesion detection. However, inadequate bowel preparation is common in patients with constipation, and there is no standardized preparation protocol for these patients. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness and tolerability of a pre-colonoscopy combination regimen of linaclotide and polyethylene glycol (PEG).

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial, 322 participants were divided into two groups: a 3-L PEG + 870-μg linaclotide group (administered as a single dose for 3 days) and a 4-L PEG group. The primary endpoints were the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the rate of adequate and excellent bowel preparation. Secondary endpoints were the rates of detection of colonic adenomas and polyps, cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy time, adverse reactions, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction.

RESULTS

The study included 319 patients. The 3-L PEG + linaclotide group showed significantly higher rates of adequate and excellent bowel preparation than the 4-L PEG group (89.4% vs 73.6% and 37.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < 0.05). The mean BBPS score for the right colon in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group was significantly higher than that in the 4-L PEG group. There were no significant between-group differences regarding the detection rates of colonic polyps and adenomas (44.4% vs 37.7% and 23.1% vs 20.1%, respectively; P > 0.05). There were no significant between-group differences regarding cecal intubation rates, colonoscopy operation, and withdrawal times. However, patient tolerance and sleep quality were better in the 3-L PEG + linaclotide group.

CONCLUSION

The combination of 3-L PEG and 870-μg linaclotide, because of its lower volume of intake, can be considered as an alternative bowel preparation regimen for constipated patients undergoing colonoscopy, especially for the elderly.

The Effect of Informing Patients Who Will Undergo a Colonoscopy via Short Messaging Service on the Procedure Quality and Satisfaction: An Endoscopist-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The present research was carried out to determine the impact of informing patients who would undergo a colonoscopy via short messaging service (SMS) on the procedure quality and satisfaction.

DESIGN

The study was designed as a randomized controlled experimental and single-blind.

METHODS

The study was completed with 170 patients (87 in the control group and 83 in the intervention group). Verbal and written information about bowel preparation was provided to all patients at the first appointment. Additionally, a total of nine informative SMS, including the time of colonoscopy, dietary restrictions to be followed, purgative drugs to be used, and the time of taking the drugs, were sent to the patients in the intervention group starting 2 days before the procedure. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and postcolonoscopy follow-up form.

FINDINGS

The mean score of each colon segment and the total BBPS mean score of the patients in the intervention group were higher compared to the control group, and the difference between them was statistically significant. The percentage of patients with adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the intervention group (84.3%) in comparison with the control group (71.3%). The intervention group had high compliance with a clear diet, enema application, and oral medication intake (P < .05). The cecum was reached in 85.5% of the intervention group. The majority of the patients (89.2%) in the intervention group reported that the information provided via SMS was adequate, and 91.6% were satisfied with the information provided by SMS.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that, in addition to written and verbal information provided before colonoscopy, SMS information positively impacts the quality of patients' bowel preparation, increases their compliance with the preparation instructions, the rate of reaching the cecum, and their satisfaction. Patient education with this practice can help ensure adequate bowel preparation quality and increase patient comfort in the colonoscopy procedure.

Individualized intervention based on a preparation-related prediction model improves adequacy of bowel preparation: A prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled study

AIMS

An easy-to-use preparation-related model (PRM) predicting inadequate bowel preparation (BP) was developed and proved superior to traditional models in our previous study. Here we aimed to investigate whether PRM-based individualized intervention can improve BP adequacy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing morning colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 5 endoscopic centers in China. After standard BP of split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) was completed, patients were randomized (1:1) to the individualized group or standard group. High-risk patients predicted by PRM score ≥3 were instructed to drink an additional 1.5 L PEG in the individualized group while not in standard group. The primary endpoint was the rate of adequate BP, defined by segmental Boston bowel preparation scale ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adverse events.

RESULTS

900 patients were randomly allocated to the individualized group (n = 449) and the control (n = 451). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The rates of high-risk patients were 19.6 % in individualized group and 19.7 % in standard group. In intention-to-treat analysis, adequate BP was 91.8 % in individualized group and 84.7 % in the standard group (p = 0.001). Among high-risk patients, adequate BP rate was 94.3 % in individualized group and 49.3 % in standard group (p < 0.001), and ADR were 40.9 % vs 16.9 %, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding the adverse events and willingness to repeat BP (all p >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The individualized intervention using an additional dose of PEG to high-risk patients predicted by PRM, significantly improved BP quality. The intervention significantly improved ADR in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04434625).

Boston bowel preparation scale score 6 has more missed lesions compared with 7-9

Adequate bowel preparation is an important factor in high-quality colonoscopy. It is generally accepted that a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6 is adequate, but some reports suggest ≥ 7. Subjects who underwent colonoscopy at least twice within 3 years from August 2015 to December 2019 were included. Polyp detection rates (PDRs), adenoma detection rates (ADRs), and number of polyps including adenomas were compared stratified by baseline colonoscopy (C1) BBPS score. Among 2352 subjects, 529 had BBPS 6 (group 1) and 1823 had BBPS 7-9 (group 2) at C1. There was no significant difference in PDR or ADR at C1 and follow-up colonoscopy (C2) between the two groups. However, the numbers of polyps (1.84 vs. 1.56, P = 0.001) and adenomas (1.02 vs. 0.88, P = 0.034) at C2 were significantly higher in group 1 than group 2, respectively. Segmental BBPS score 2 in group 1 compared to group 2, especially, showed higher PDR (P = 0.001) and ADR (P = 0.007) at C2. BBPS 6 is associated with a higher number of polyps and adenomas in short-term follow-up colonoscopy than BBPS 7-9. To reduce the risk of missed polyps, a thorough examination is necessary for BBPS 6.

Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Evaluating the Safety and Quality of Diagnostic Colonoscopies Performed by General Surgeons: A Retrospective Study

Introduction Colonoscopy, which is a challenging procedure and requires adequate time to master the skill, is the procedure of choice to visualize colonic mucosa to rule out many colonic pathologies. There is a dearth of published information from real clinical experiences regarding successful procedures and limitations. The end point of colonoscopy is the visualization of the cecal pole by intubating the cecum. Many Europeans and English health organizations recommend that the procedure should have a completion rate of around or above 90%. Gut preparation is an important determinant for a successful procedure and obviates the need for further invasive and/or expensive procedures such as imaging. The majority of colonoscopies are being performed by gastroenterologists (GI) throughout the world, and the role of a surgeon as an endoscopist is in debate. Before this study, neither a retrospective nor a prospective evaluation of the general surgeon's (GS) endoscopy's quality and safety had been evaluated in our institution. Material and method This retrospective observational study was carried out from 1 January 2022 to 31 August 2022 in the Department of Surgery at Mayo Hospital, Lahore, to evaluate colonoscopy completion rates, reason for failure, and complications in terms of bleeding and perforation. All patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGiE), both elective and emergency, were included. Patients under 15 years of age and patients known to be hepatitis B-positive or hepatitis C-positive were excluded from the study. All relevant data were entered into a data sheet. Qualitative variables such as gender, cecal intubation, adjusted cecal intubation, gut preparation, reasons for failed colonoscopy, analgesia use, and complications (bleeding and perforation) were calculated as frequency and percentage. Quantitative data such as age and pain score were reported as mean and standard deviation (SD). Details obtained were tabulated and analyzed via the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY). Results A total of 57 patient data were collected; 35.1% (n=20) were female, and 64.9% (n=37) were males. The cecal intubation rate (CIR) was 49.1% (n=28), and the adjusted rate was 71.9%, excluding incompleteness due to mass obstructing lumen, 8.8% (n=5); planned left colonoscopy, 7% (n=4); sigmoidoscopy, 3.5% (n=2); distal stoma scope, 1.8% (n=1); and colonic stricture, 1.8% (n=1). The prevalent reason for failed colonoscopy was inadequate gut preparation (15.8% {n=9}). Other reasons include patient discomfort, 3.5% (n=2); looping of scope, 7% (n=4); and acute colonic angulation, 1.8% (n=1). No complications were recorded. Conclusion This study shows that colonoscopy can be done by general surgeons safely and effectively with adequate training. High rates of cecal intubation emerge during colonoscopies performed under deep sedation and by skilled colonoscopists. Adequate bowel preparatory regimen is compulsory for quality procedure.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.

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.

Superiority of a preparation-related model for predicting inadequate bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Three models based on patient-related factors have been developed to predict inadequate bowel preparation (BP). However, the performance of the models seems suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a novel preparation-related model and compare it with the available patient-related models.

METHODS

Patients receiving standard BP were prospectively enrolled from five endoscopic centers. Patient-related and preparation-related factors for inadequate BP (defined by segmental Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score < 2) were identified by logistic regression. A preparation-related model was derived and internally validated in 906 patients. The comparisons of models were assessed by discrimination and calibration. The preparation-related model was also externally validated.

RESULTS

Several patient-related factors (male and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score ≥ 3) and preparation-related factors (drinking-to-stool interval ≥ 3 h, preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 6 h, and poor rectal effluent) were found to be independently associated with inadequate BP (all P < 0.05). C-statistics was 0.81 for the preparation-related model in the training cohort (n = 604), significantly higher than three available patient-based models (0.58-0.61). Similar results were observed in the validation cohort (n = 302). Calibration curves showed close agreement in the preparation-related model (R²  = 0.315 in the training cohort and 0.279 in the validation cohort). The preparation-related model was externally validated in another 606 patients with C-index of 0.80.

CONCLUSIONS

A new preparation-related model (consisting of drinking-to-stool interval ≥ 3 h, preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 6 h, and poor last rectal effluent) was developed and performed better than three available patient-related models. This easy-to-use model may be a useful decision-support tool on individualized plans in patients undergoing BP.

Quality of colonoscopy performed by medical or surgical specialists and trainees in five Australian hospitals

BACKGROUND

Ensuring colonoscopy procedure quality is vital to the success of screening and surveillance programmes for bowel cancer in Australia. However, the data on the performance of quality metrics, through adequate adenoma detection, bowel preparation, and procedure completion rates, in the Australian public sector is limited. Understanding these can inform quality improvement to further strengthen our capacity for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer.

AIM

To determine the quality of colonoscopy in Australian teaching hospitals and their association with proceduralist specialty, trainee involvement, and location.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 2443 consecutive colonoscopy procedure reports from 1 January to 1 April, 2018 from five public teaching tertiary hospitals in Australia (median 60 years old, 49% male). Data for bowel preparation quality, procedure completion rates, and detection rates of clinically significant adenomas, conventional adenomas, and serrated lesions was collected and compared to national criteria for quality in colonoscopy. Participating hospital, proceduralist specialty, and trainee involvement indicators were used for stratification. Data was analysed using Chi-squared tests of independence, Mann-Whitney U, One-way ANOVA, and multivariate binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

Fifty-two point two percent (n = 1276) and 43.3% (n = 1057) were performed by medical and surgical proceduralists respectively, whilst 29.8% (n = 728) involved a trainee. Inadequate bowel preparation affected 7.3% of all procedures. The procedure completion rate was 95.1%, which increased to 97.5% after adjustment for bowel preparation quality. The pooled cancer, adenoma, and serrated lesion detection rates for all five hospitals were 3.5%, 40%, and 5.9% respectively. Assessed hospitals varied significantly by patient age (P < 0.001), work-force composition (P < 0.001), adequacy of bowel preparation (P < 0.001), and adenoma detection rate (P < 0.001). Two hospitals (40%) did not meet all national criteria for quality, due to a procedure completion rate of 94.5% or serrated lesion detection rate of 2.6%. Although lower than the other hospitals, the difference was not significant. Compared with surgical specialists, procedures performed by medical specialists involved older patients [65 years (inter-quartile range, IQR 58-73) vs 64 years (IQR 56-71); P = 0.04] and were associated with a higher adenoma detection rate [odds ratio (OR) 1.53; confidence interval: 1.21-1.94; P < 0.001]. Procedures involving trainee proceduralists were not associated with differences in the detection of cancer, adenoma, or serrated lesions, compared with specialists, or according to their medical or surgical background. On multivariate analysis, cancer detection was positively associated with patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001) and negatively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 0.54; P = 0.04). Conventional adenoma detection rates were independently associated with increasing patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001), positively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 1.41; P = 0.002) and negatively associated with male gender (OR 0.53; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in the quality of colonoscopy in Australia exist, even when national benchmarks are achieved. The role of possible contributing factors, like procedural specialty and patient gender need further evaluation.

Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study

Performing GI endoscopy under sedoanalgesia improves the quality-indices of the examination, in particular for cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. The implementation of procedural sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy is also strongly recommended by the guidelines of the major international scientific societies. Nevertheless, there are regional barriers that prevent the widespread adoption of this good practice. A retrospective monocentric analytic study was performed on a cohort of 529 patients who underwent EGDS/Colonoscopy in sedoanalgesia, with personalized dosage of Fentanyl and Midazolam. ASA class, age and weight were collected for each patient. The vital parameters were recorded during, pre- and post-procedure. The rates of cecal intubation and of procedure-related complications were entered. The VAS scale was used to evaluate the efficacy of sedoanalgesia, and the Aldrete score was used for patient discharge criteria. No clinically significant differences were found between vital signs pre- and post-procedure. Both anesthesia and endoscopic-related complications occurring were few and successfully managed. At the end of examination, both the mean Aldrete score (89.56), and the VAS score (<4 in 99.1%) were suitable for discharge. For the colonoscopies, the cumulative adenoma detection rate (25%) and the cecal intubation rate in the general group (98%) and in the colorectal cancer screening group (100%) were satisfying. Pain control management is an ethical and medical issue aimed at increasing both patient compliance and the quality of the procedures. The findings of this work underscore that in selected patients personalized sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy can be safely managed by gastroenterologists.

The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a new very low-volume 1 litre (1L) polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbate solution (ASC) has been introduced. Our aims were to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of this product compared to low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG solutions, in a real-life setting. In six endoscopy units in Sweden, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were either prescribed solutions according to local routines, or the very low-volume solution in split dose regimen. Bowel cleansing effectiveness and patient experience was assessed using the Boston Bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and a patient questionnaire. A total of 1098 patients (mean age 58 years, 52% women) were included. All subsegment and the total BBPS scores were significantly greater for 1L PEG-ASC in comparison to other solutions (p < 0.05 for 1L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG for transverse and left colon, otherwise p < 0.001). Nausea was more frequent with 1L PEG-ASC compared to 2L PEG-ASC (p < 0.001) and vomiting were more often reported compared to both other solutions (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 for 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG, respectively). Smell, taste, and total experience was better for 1L PEG-ASC compared to 4L PEG (p < 0.001), and similar compared to the 2L PEG-ASC. In conclusion, 1L PEG-ASC leads to better bowel cleansing compared to 2L PEG-ASC or 4L PEG products, with similar or greater patient satisfaction.

Colonoscope "Looping" During Ileo-Colonoscopy in Children is Significantly Different to that Observed in Adult Practice

OBJECTIVES

Ileo-colonoscopy (IC) can be technically challenging because of unpredictable colonoscope loop formation. Aims of this study were to assess the risk of loop formation and to attempt to understand which factors were likely to predispose to which subtype of loop.

METHODS

Prospective study conducted on children referred for an IC at Sheffield Children's Hospital. Presence and type of loop was objectively assessed using the magnetic endoscope imaging tool.

RESULTS

Three hundred procedures were prospectively evaluated. Only 9% of paediatric ICs were loop-free. Alpha loops were the most common loop in children older than 5, whereas reverse alpha loops and a wider variety of complex and repetitive loops were observed in younger patients. Once a specific type of loop has formed, the risk of re-looping in a different way or in a different position of the colon is reduced. Left lateral starting position was found to increase the risk of reverse alpha loops and re-looping. Challenging loops, such as reverse alpha, were more frequent in males. Higher body mass index (BMI) was associated with an increased risk of alpha and deep transverse loops formation, while lower BMI with a higher incidence of reverse alpha and N loop. Loop formation did not prevent 100% ileal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first attempt to describe loop formation according to patient characteristics in a large paediatric series. Further studies are needed in order to establish if these findings could be helpful in simplifying the execution of IC procedures in children and facilitate the learning curve during endoscopy training programs.

Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study

BACKGROUND

Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking.

AIM

To compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.

RESULTS

Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% vs 38.2%, P = 0.005). High-definition scopes were used in 33.4% of patients, without difference in the two groups (P = 0.605). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs 86.6%, P = 0.098), also considering the two different schedules (HV split-dose 93.8% vs LV split-dose 93.6%, P = 1; HV day-before 85.5% vs LV day-before 82.3%, P = 0.182). Mean global BBPS score was higher for HV preparations (7.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.8 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). After adjustment for sex, age and indications for colonoscopy, HV preparation resulted higher in PDR [Odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95%CI: 1.07-1.63, P = 0.011] and ADR (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.02–1.63, P = 0.038) and comparable to LV in AADR (OR 1.51, 95%CI 0.97-2.35, P = 0.069), SDR and cancer detection rate. The use of standard-definition colonoscopes was associated to lower PDR (adjusted OR 1.59, 95%CI: 1.22-2.08, P < 0.001), ADR (adjusted OR 1.71, 95%CI: 1.26–2.30, P < 0.001) and AADR (adjusted OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.09-3.56, P = 0.025) in patients receiving LV preparation. Mean Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7, P = 0.627) but a ≥ 75% dose intake was more frequent with LV (94.6% vs 92.1%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

In a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.

The analysis of multilevel factors affecting adenoma detection rates for colonoscopies: a large-scale retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated primary quality indicator for colonoscopy procedures. However, there is growing concern over the variability associated with ADR indicators. Currently, the factors that influence ADRs are not well understood.

AIMS

In this large-scale retrospective study, the impact of multilevel factors on the quality of ADR-based colonoscopy was assessed.

METHODS

A total of 10,788 patients, who underwent colonoscopies performed by 21 endoscopists between January 2019 and December 2019, were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Multilevel factors, including patient-, procedure-, and endoscopist-level characteristics were analyzed to determine their relationship with ADR.

RESULTS

The overall ADR was 20.21% and ranged from 11.4 to 32.8%. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that higher ADRs were strongly correlated with the following multilevel factors: patient age per stage (OR 1.645; 95% CI 1.577-1.717), male gender (OR 1.959; 95% CI 1.772-2.166), sedation (OR 1.402; 95% CI 1.246-1.578), single examiner colonoscopy (OR 1.330; 95% CI 1.194-1.482) and senior level endoscopists (OR 1.609; 95% CI 1.449-1.787).

CONCLUSION

The ADR is positively correlated with senior level endoscopists and single examiner colonoscopies in patients under sedation. As such, these procedure- and endoscopist-level characteristics are important considerations to improve the colonoscopy quality.

The effectiveness of using an abdominal binder during colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prolongation of cecal intubation time (CIT) directly affects the comfort of the patient and the colonoscopist. In this study, the effectiveness of using an abdominal binder (AB) during colonoscopy on procedure time and colonoscopy outcomes was investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel randomized double-blind sham-device-controlled study of patients who underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy between 1 May 2020, and 31 August 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to AB (n = 173) and sham binder (SB) (n = 173) groups. The primary outcome was CIT. Secondary outcomes were the need for auxiliary maneuvers, the cecum intubation length (CIL) of the colonoscope, visual analog scale (VAS) score, narcotic analgesic dose, and colonoscopy results. Moreover, subgroup analysis was performed in terms of age and obesity indices.

RESULTS

A total of 346 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean CIT was similar between groups (AB group 240 secs, control group 250 secs, p > .05). Manual pressure requirement was less in the AB group (27 vs. 36%, p = .069). VAS score and the need for extra narcotic analgesic drugs were prominently lower in the AB group (p < .001, p = .016, respectively). In the subgroup analyses, in participants at the age of <60 and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) ≥0.5, manual pressure requirements were significantly shorter in the AB group (p = .017, p = .032, respectively).

CONCLUSION

AB use in selected patients may be advantageous during colonoscopy because it reduces the need for analgesics and post-procedure pain, and reduces the need for auxiliary maneuvers in relatively young and obese patients.

Effect of Using Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Quality Indicators of Screening Colonoscopies

Background

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected many facets of the practice of medicine including screening colonoscopies.

Aims

Our study looks to observe if there has been an effect on the quality of colonoscopies, as indicated by quality measures such as the cecal intubation rate (CIR), cecal intubation time (CIT), scope withdrawal time (SWT), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) with the adoption of standard COVID-19 precautions.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review to analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on screening colonoscopies. The study utilized data on CIR, CIT, SWT, and ADR from outpatient, nonemergent procedures conducted at 3 endoscopy suites of St. Luke's University Health Network. All inpatient and emergent procedures were excluded.

Results

Our study demonstrated that the total number of screening colonoscopies was decreased between 2019 and 2020 (318 in 2019 vs. 157 in 2020, p = 0.005). CIT (320 ± 105 seconds in 2019 vs. 392 ± 107 seconds in 2020, p = 0.001) and SWT (706 ± 232 seconds in 2019 vs. 830 ± 241 seconds in 2020, p = 0.001) were increased while CIR (98.2% in 2019 vs. 96.6% in 2020, p = 0.04) was decreased between 2019 and 2020 likely due to PPE introduction. ADR was similar between the two groups (38.23 (12.50-66.66) in 2019 vs. 38.18 (16.66-66.00) in 2020, p = 0.8).

Conclusion

Our study showed that quality indices for screening colonoscopies like CIR, CIT, and SWT were negatively impacted during the COVID-19 time period. ADR, however, was similar. Thus, the efficiency of the procedures was affected by the use of PPE but it did not affect the colonoscopy's clinical benefit.

Factors Affecting Cecal Intubation Time in Colonoscopy: Impact of Obesity

Objective

This study aims to determine the factors that prolong cecal intubation time (CIT) and determine the effect of obesity on CIT measured using multiple indexes.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective colonoscopy between July 10, 2020, and January 20, 2021, were evaluated in this prospective observational study. Age, gender, constipation, bowel preparation, presence of diverticulosis, previous surgery history, auxiliary maneuver and additional analgesic requirement, cecum intubation length (CL) and obesity indices [body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR)] were analyzed. Factors affecting CIT were assessed by both univariate and multivariate logistic regression (LR) analyses.

Results

A total of 512 patients were analyzed. Mean CIT was 5.6 ± 1.6 min, and median CIT was 5.17 min. The CIT median was ≤5.17 min in 264 (51.5%) of the patients, and the CIT median was >5.17 min in 248 (48.5%). In the univariate LR results, young age, constipation, poor bowel preparation, increased CL, additional analgesic requirement, low WHtR, and low BMI (<25 kg/m2) were the factors that prolonged CIT (p <0.05). In the multivariate LR analysis results, WHtR >0.5 and BMI >30 kg/m2 were found to be independent factors that decrease CIT [OR: 0.01 (0.01 0.03) p <0.001; OR: 0.28 (0.13 0.57) p <0.001].

Conclusion

Younger age, low WHtR, low BMI, increased CL, constipation, inadequate bowel preparation, and the use of extra analgesics were found to be associated with longer CIT. When all factors were evaluated together, obesity measured by only WHtR (>0.5) and BMI (>30 kg/m2) were the best predictors of decreased CIT.

Rural Standards and the Quality Equation

The article describes the barriers rural surgeons face when attempting to measure, analyze, and benchmark the quality and value of the care they provide for their patients. Examples of suboptimal care are presented as well as special geographic and resource-related circumstances for many of these disparities of care. The article includes in-depth descriptions of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Optimal Resources for Surgical Quality and Safety Program and the ACS Rural Hospital Surgical Verification and Quality Improvement Program. The article concludes by discussing several documented clinical, economic, and social advantages of keeping surgical care local.

Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score.

RESULTS

Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.

Terminal ileum intubation is not associated with colonoscopy quality measures

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Intubation of the terminal ileum (TI) demonstrates a complete colonoscopy, but its clinical value during screening exams is unknown. We aimed to determine whether TI intubation during screening colonoscopy is associated with colonoscopy quality measures or identifies subclinical pathology.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study examining average-risk screening colonoscopies performed at an academic health system between July 2016 and October 2017. Data were extracted from an internal colonoscopy quality registry and the electronic health record. Appropriate statistical tests were used for group comparisons, to correlate TI intubation rate (TIIR) with measures of colonoscopy quality and to examine factors associated with the likelihood of TI intubation.

RESULTS

There were 7799 colonoscopies performed with adequate prep quality by 28 gastroenterologists. Most patients were female (56.4%) with a median age of 58. The median TIIR was 37.0%, with significant variability among physicians (2-93%). The detection rates for all polyps, adenomas, and sessile serrated polyps were 62.1%, 45.5%, and 7.2%, respectively, and none correlated with TIIR. Intubation of the TI was associated with significantly longer withdrawal times. In a random 10% sample of cases with TI intubation, no clinically significant pathology was found.

CONCLUSIONS

There is wide variability in TIIR among endoscopists. Except to provide photodocumentation of exam extent when other images may be difficult to obtain, the lack of correlation between TI intubation and meaningful clinical outcomes together with the associated time costs suggest routine TI intubation during screening colonoscopy may not be warranted.

New Ultra Low Volume Bowel Preparation and Overview of Existing Bowel Preparations

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential in achieving a good quality colonoscopy. However, one of the barriers to achieving high-quality bowel cleansing is the patient's tolerability. Different bowel preparations have been developed to improve tolerability while maintaining adequate bowel cleansing.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to explore the pros and cons of commonly used bowel preparations, particularly highlighting the new ultra-low volume bowel preparation.

METHODS

Extensive literature search was carried out on various databases to evaluate the effectiveness and side effects of different bowel cleansing agents, including findings of recent clinical trials on ultra-low bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been commonly used as a bowel prep. Due to its high volume required to ingest to achieve an adequate effect, it has been combined with various adjuncts to reduce the volume to make it more tolerable. Magnesium and phosphate-based preps can achieve low volume, but they can be associated with multiple side effects, mainly electrolyte disturbances. Ultra low volume prep (NER1006) was achieved by combing PEG with ascorbic acid, and its efficacy and side effects were demonstrated in three noninferiority studies.

CONCLUSION

It is important to consider patient preferences, co-morbidities and tolerability, and efficacy and side effect profiles when choosing bowel prep for patients undergoing colonoscopy. New ultra-low bowel prep showed promising results in initial clinical trials, but further real-world post-marketing data will inform its value in clinical practice.

Quality of Colonoscopy: A Comparison Between Gastroenterologists and Nongastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy performance by gastroenterologists has been shown to be associated with lower rates of developing interval colorectal cancer. However, it is unclear if this difference among specialists stems from a difference in meeting colonoscopy quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine and compare the rates of colonoscopy quality indicators between different specialties.

DESIGN

This is a cohort study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy investigating quality metrics as compared by the proceduralist specialty.

SETTING

All screening colonoscopies performed at the Cleveland Clinic between 2012 and 2014 were followed by manual chart review.

PATIENTS

Average-risk patients, ≥50 years of age, who had a complete screening colonoscopy were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, and other nonestablished overall and segment-specific rates were calculated and compared using t tests.

RESULTS

A total of 4151 patients were included in the analysis. Colonoscopies were performed by 54 (64.3%) gastroenterologists, 21 (25%) colorectal surgeons, and 9 (10.7%) general surgeons. Gastroenterologists had the highest overall adenoma detection rate (28.6 ± 1.2; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (24.3 ± 1.5) and general surgeons (18.4 ± 2.3), as well as the highest adenoma detection rate in men (34.7 ± 1.3; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (28.2 ± 1.6) and general surgeons (23.7 ± 2.6). Similarly, gastroenterologists had the highest adenoma detection rate in women (24.3 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (21.6 ± 1.4) and general surgeons (12.9 ± 2.0). Withdrawal time was the longest among general surgeons (11.1 ± 5.5; p = 0.041), followed by colorectal surgeons (10.94 ± 5.2) and gastroenterologists (10.16 ± 1.26).

LIMITATIONS

We could not adjust for some procedure-related details such as retroflexion in the right colon and the use of end-of-scope devices.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, only gastroenterologists met the currently accepted overall and sex-specific adenoma detection rate benchmarks. They also outperformed nongastroenterologists in many other nonestablished quality metrics. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B232.

CALIDAD DE LA COLONOSCOPIA

UNA COMPARACIÓN ENTRE GASTROENTERÓLOGOS Y NO GASTROENTERÓLOGOS: Se ha demostrado que el rendimiento de la colonoscopia por parte de los gastroenterólogos, se asocia con tasas más bajas de cáncer colorrectal en intervalos de desarrollo. Sin embargo, no está claro si esta diferencia entre especialistas, se deriva de una diferencia en el cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad de la colonoscopia.El propósito del estudio, es determinar y comparar las tasas de indicadores de calidad de colonoscopia entre diferentes especialidades.Este es un estudio de cohorte de pacientes sometidos a una colonoscopia de detección, que investiga métricas de calidad en comparación con la especialidad de procesos.Todas las colonoscopias de detección realizadas en la Clínica Cleveland entre 2012 y 2014, fueron seguidas por una revisión manual del expediente.Pacientes de riesgo promedio, ≥50 años de edad que se sometieron a una colonoscopia de detección completa.La tasa de detección de adenomas, tasa de intubación cecal, tiempo de retirada y otras tasas generales y específicas de segmento no establecidas, se calcularon y compararon usando pruebas t.Un total de 4,151 pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis. Las colonoscopias fueron realizadas por 54 (64.3%) gastroenterólogos, 21 (25%) cirujanos colorrectales y 9 (10.7%) cirujanos generales. Los gastroenterólogos tuvieron la tasa de detección más alta de adenomas en general (28.6 ± 1.2; p < 0.001), seguidos por los cirujanos colorrectales (24.3 ± 1.5) y los cirujanos generales (18.4 ± 2.3), así como la tasa de detección más alta de adenoma en hombres (34.7 ± 1.3; p < 0.001) seguido por cirujanos colorrectales (28.2 ± 1.6) y cirujanos generales (23.7 ± 2.6). Del mismo modo, los gastroenterólogos tuvieron la tasa más alta de detección de adenoma en mujeres (24.3 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), seguidos por los cirujanos colorrectales (21.6 ± 1.4) y los cirujanos generales (12.9 ± 2.0). El tiempo de extracción fue el más largo entre los cirujanos generales (11.1 ± 5.5; p = 0.041) seguido por los cirujanos colorrectales (10.94 ± 5.2) y los gastroenterólogos (10.16 ± 1.26).No pudimos ajustar algunos detalles relacionados con el procedimiento, tales como la retroflexión en el colon derecho y el uso de accesorios endoscópicos.En este estudio, solo los gastroenterólogos cumplieron con los índices de referencia actualmente aceptados, de detección de adenomas en general y específicas de género. También superaron a los no gastroenterólogos en muchas otras métricas no establecidas de calidad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B232. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Factors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time

Background and Aim

Poor bowel preparation results in difficult colonoscopies, missed lesions, and repeat procedures. Identifying patient risk factors for poor bowel preparation, such as prolonged runway time and prolonged cecal intubation, will aid in interventions prior to a procedure.

Methods

This was a retrospective, single‐center analysis of 3 295 colonoscopies performed between May 2012 and November 2014. Indications for colonoscopy included gastrointestinal bleed and anemia, change in bowel habits, for screening, and others (including planning re‐anastomoses, abdominal distension, family history and angioectasias). Data were collected from medical charts and endoscopy reports. Comparisons between patient factors and runway time were made with adequacy of bowel preparation as the primary outcomes.

Results

Male and diabetic patients had statistically higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation and prolonged cecal intubation times. A previous history of abdominal surgery also demonstrated prolonged cecal intubation. A runway time of ≤7.63 h was associated with higher rates of adequate bowel preparation by multivariate analysis. The optimal time frame is 3–6 h for the highest success rates.

Conclusion

Patient risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or prolonged cecal intubation should signal clinicians to intervene prior to colonoscopy. A runway time between 3 and 6 h is optimal for adequate bowel preparation. This may involve further patient education, along with work flow optimization, to facilitate ideal runway times. Future studies should explore how to avoid repeat endoscopies using protocols enforcing this timeframe.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre-malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high-quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.

Feasibility of sedation on demand in Taiwan using water exchange and air insufflation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Completion of colonoscopy without sedation eliminates sedation cost and complications. Reported in the United States and Europe, on-demand sedation is not routine practice in Taiwan. Water exchange (WE), characterized by infusion and nearly complete removal of infused water during insertion, reduces insertion pain compared to air insufflation (AI) during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility of on-demand sedation in Taiwan. In a randomized controlled trial of WE vs AI colonoscopy, we also aimed to determine if WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement.

METHODS

This prospective patient-blinded study randomized patients to AI or WE (75 patients/group) to aid insertion. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing without sedation.

RESULTS

In the AI and WE groups, 76.0% and 93.3% (P = 0.006) completed without need for sedation, respectively. The WE group had lower insertion pain score (mean [SD]) (4.0 [2.9] vs 2.1 [2.6], P < 0.001), lower doses of propofol (25.7 [52.7] mg vs 9.1 [35.6] mg, P = 0.012), and less time in the recovery room (3.4 [7.4] vs 1.5 [5.5], P = 0.027) than the AI group. Patient satisfaction scores and willingness to repeat if needed in the future were similar.

CONCLUSION

On-demand sedation was feasible in Taiwan. The completion rate without sedation was high in patients (76.0% with standard AI) open to the option (no prior intent to receive the standard of full or minimal sedation). WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement without adversely affecting patient satisfaction or willingness to repeat.

Factors for cecal intubation time during colonoscopy in women: Impact of surgical history

BACKGROUND/AIM

Cecal intubation during colonoscopy is prone to be prolonged in women, which may be related to frequent exposure to pelvic/abdominal surgery. We evaluated the association between Cecal Intubation Time (CIT) and prior episodes of pelvic/abdominal surgery in women.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted on screening participants who underwent colonoscopy. Multivariate regression with parameter estimates (β) was performed to determine the factors affecting CIT, including age, body mass index (BMI), bowel preparation, sedation, diverticulosis, experience of colonoscopists, and a surgical history. Also, subgroup analyses according to type of surgery were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 835 women were enrolled. The mean CIT was 5.82 ± 3.40 min. 323 females (38.7%) had episodes of surgery. The CIT was prolonged in cases performed by non-experienced trainees (β = 3.61, P< 0.001) and with a history of gynecological surgery (β = 0.97, P = 0.001). In the subgroup of non-experienced trainees, lower BMI, poor preparation, and a history of cesarean section significantly prolonged the CIT. Also, the risk for difficult colonoscopy (CIT ≥ 15 min) was increased with a history of cesarean section (odds ratio = 4.43, P= 0.024).

CONCLUSION

A prior episode of gynecological surgery prolonged CIT. Also, cesarean section history was associated with difficult colonoscopy in the examination by non-experienced trainees.

Optimizing Screening Colonoscopy: Strategies and Alternatives

Screening colonoscopy is the most effective screening procedure for the prevention of colorectal cancer. The efficacy of colonoscopy is highly dependent on the overall quality of how this procedure is indicated, planned, prepared, and performed. The quality is directly linked to the number of polyps and/or adenomas detected or, in other words, to the number of polyps or adenomas missed during the procedure. The quality has a direct impact on the rate of interval carcinoma and on the range of how the incidence and occurrence of colorectal cancer is reduced. This review summarizes the current status on general measures and procedure improvements and standards as well as technical advances which have been suggested and established to improve the quality of polyp and adenoma detection rate. This includes selection and preparation of the patients, planning, methodological and technical performance of the procedure, and technical advances of the endoscope technology in order to improve screening results. It also covers new technologies with wide angle endoscopes (Ewave) and IT-based approaches using artificial intelligence to such as ai4GI for the polyp detection and image analysis.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

Changing from two- to one-operator colonoscopy insertion technique is feasible with similar quality outcomes

Background and Aim

Colonoscopy can be performed with two-operator (2OP) or one-operator (1OP) methods. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and colonoscopy quality outcomes for the two different colonoscopy insertion techniques.

Methods

One colonoscopist from Changhua Christian Hospital learned and changed the colonoscopy insertion technique from 2OP to 1OP during 2013. Real-life results of screening colonoscopies performed by this colonoscopist between these two insertion techniques (year 2012: 2OP vs year 2014: 1OP) were retrospectively reviewed and compared.

Results

In total, 219 screening colonoscopies were reviewed (2OP group, n = 103 vs 1OP group, n = 116). No differences were noted between both groups in terms of patient age, gender, weight, and height. The overall cecum intubation was 98.2%, adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 29.7%, and colonoscopy withdrawal time was 518.58 ± 972.04 s. On comparing colonoscopy quality outcomes between both methods, no differences were observed in cecal intubation rates (2OP vs 1OP: 100 vs 96.6%, P = 0.1626), ADR (28 vs 31%, P = 0.7401), and colonoscopy withdrawal time (454.88 ± 178.21 vs 576.92 ± 1325.01 s, P = 0.355). However, the 1OP group demonstrated significantly shorter colonoscopy insertion time (2OP vs 1OP: 298.28 ± 202.95 vs 216.21 ± 121.99 s, P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Colonoscopy quality outcomes were not impaired when one endoscopist changed the colonoscopy practice pattern from 2OP to 1OP. However, 1OP significantly shortened the colonoscopy insertion time.

Post-endoscopic procedure satisfaction scores: Can we improve?

AIM

To organize post-procedure satisfaction data into a useful reference and analyze patient-centered parameters to find trends that influence patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A robust database of two cohorts of outpatients that underwent an endoscopic procedure at Georgetown University Hospital at two separate three-month intervals ranging from November 2012 to January 2013 and November 2015 to January 2016 was compiled. Time of year was identical to control for weather/seasonal issues that may have contributed to the patient experience. The variables recorded included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), type of procedure, indication for procedure, time of the procedure, length of the procedure, type of prep used, endoscopist, satisfactory score, and comments/reasons for score. For continuous variables, differences in averages were tested by two sample t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and ANOVA as appropriate. For categorical variables, differences in proportions between two groups were tested by χ² test. Correlation test and linear regression analyses were conducted to examine relationships between length of procedure and continuous predictors. A P value < 0.05 used to indicate statistically significant relationship.

RESULTS

The primary outcome of this study was to assess if telephone outreach after an endoscopic intervention was a satisfactory method of obtaining post-procedure satisfaction scores from patients at a tertiary care center. With the addition of post-procedure calls, instilled in January 2014, the response rate was 40.5% (508/1256 patients) from a prior completion rate of 3.4% (31/918) with the mail out survey initially. There was a statistically significant improved response rate pre and post intervention with P < 0001. The secondary outcome of this study was to assess if we could use predictive analytics to identify independent predictors of procedure length, such as gender, age, type of procedure, time of procedure, or BMI. The combined pre and post intervention data was used in order to optimize the power to identify independent predictors of procedure length. The total number of patient’s data analyzed was 2174. There was no statistically significant difference in procedure length between males and females with P value 0.5282. However, there was a small (1 min), but statistically significant difference (P = 0.0185) in procedure length based on the time of day the procedure took place, with afternoon procedures having a longer duration than morning procedures. The type of procedure was an independent predictor of procedure length as demonstrated with P value < 0.0001. There is a statistically significant correlation between age and procedure length, although it is only a weak relationship with a correlation coefficient < 0.3. Contrary to patient age, BMI did not have a statistically significant correlation with procedure length (P = 0.9993), which was also confirmed by linear regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study proves calling patients after endoscopy improves post-procedure satisfaction response rates and changing procedural time allotment based on patient characteristics would not change endoscopic workflow.

Quality in Colonoscopy: Beyond the Adenoma Detection Rate Fever

Background

Colonoscopy quality is a hot topic in gastroenterological communities, with several actual guidelines focusing on this aspect. Although the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important indicator, several other metrics are described and need reporting. Electronic medical reports are essential for the audit of quality indicators; nevertheless, they have proved not to be faultless.

Aim

The aim of this study was to analyse and audit quality indicators (apart from ADR) using only our internal electronic endoscopy records as a starting point for improvement.

Methods

An analysis of electronically recorded information of 8,851 total colonoscopies from a single tertiary centre from 2010 to 2015 was performed.

Results

The mean patient age was 63.4 ± 8.5 years; 45.5% of them were female, and in 14.6% sedation was used. Photographic documentation was done in 98.4% with 10.7 photographs on average, and 37.4% reports had <8 pictures per exam. Bowel preparation was rated as adequate in 67%, fair in 27% and inadequate in 4.9% of cases. The adjusted caecal intubation rate (CIR) was 92%, while negative predictors were inadequate preparation (OR 119, 95% CI 84-170), no sedation (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.81-3.15), female gender (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38-1.88) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.34-1.82). In 28% of patients, a snare polypectomy was performed, correlating with adequate preparation (OR 5.75, 95% CI 3.90-8.48), male gender (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.64-2.01) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.37; p < 0.01) as positive predictors. An annual evolution was observed with improvements in photographic documentation (10.7 vs. 12.9; p < 0.001), CIR (91 vs. 94%; p = 0.002) and "adequate" bowel preparation (p = 0.004). Conclusions: There is much more to report than the ADR to ensure quality in colonoscopy practice. Better registry systematization and integrated software should be goals to achieve in the short term.

Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams?

AIM

To determine the effect of sedation with propofol on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rates (CIR) in average risk screening colonoscopies compared to moderate sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 2604 first-time average risk screening colonoscopies performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010-2013. ADR and CIR were calculated in each sedation group. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders of age and body mass index (BMI).

RESULTS

One-third of the exams were done with propofol (n = 874). Overall ADR in the propofol group was significantly higher than moderate sedation (46.3% vs 41.2%, P = 0.01). After adjustment for age and BMI differences, ADR was similar between the groups. CIR was 99% for all exams. The mean cecal insertion time was shorter among propofol patients (6.9 min vs 8.2 min; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Deep sedation with propofol for screening colonoscopy did not significantly improve ADR or CIR in our population of average risk patients. While propofol may allow for safer sedation in certain patients (e.g., with sleep apnea), the overall effect on colonoscopy quality metrics is not significant. Given its increased cost, propofol should be used judiciously and without the implicit expectation of a higher quality screening exam.

Is Unsedated Colonoscopy Gaining Ground Over Sedated Colonoscopy?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent cancer with high global incidence and a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. CRC screening is important for early cancer detection and prevention. Most premalignant adenomas can be identified and removed before they become malignant. Colonoscopy plays a vital role in reducing the risk for developing CRC. Although screening programs with colonoscopy have been implemented in many countries and considered beneficial for a number of people, this technique is generally associated with anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort, resulting in lack of adherence to the recommended screening guidelines. In the US, colonoscopy is mostly performed under sedation, thereby causing amnesia and analgesia. In contrast to sedated colonoscopy, which has been associated with some disadvantages, unsedated colonoscopy exhibits advantages and has been preferred over sedated colonoscopy in numerous cancer centers worldwide. This review enumerates the features of sedated and unsedated colonoscopy with the use of the current relevant evidence-based literature. Unsedated colonoscopy can be a reasonable option for routine and unscheduled CRC screening.

Predictors for difficult cecal insertion in colonoscopy: The impact of obesity indices

AIM

To identify the factors influencing cecal insertion time (CIT) and to evaluate the effect of obesity indices on CIT.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data for participants who received both colonoscopy and abdominal computed tomography (CT) from February 2008 to May 2008 as part of a comprehensive health screening program. Age, gender, obesity indices [body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip circumference ratio (WHR), waist circumference (WC), visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) volume on abdominal CT], history of prior abdominal surgery, constipation, experience of the colonoscopist, quality of bowel preparation, diverticulosis and time required to reach the cecum were analyzed. CIT was categorized as longer than 10 min (prolonged CIT) and shorter than or equal to 10 min, and then the factors that required a CIT longer than 10 min were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 1678 participants were enrolled. The mean age was 50.42 ± 9.931 years and 60.3% were men. The mean BMI, WHR, WC, VAT volume and SAT volume were 23.92 ± 2.964 kg/m², 0.90 ± 0.076, 86.95 ± 8.030 cm, 905.29 ± 475.220 cm³ and 1707.72 ± 576.550 cm³, respectively. The number of patients who underwent abdominal surgery was 268 (16.0%). Colonoscopy was performed by an attending physician alone in 61.9% of cases and with the involvement of a fellow in 38.1% of cases. The median CIT was 7 min (range 2-56 min, IQR 5-10 min), and mean CIT was 8.58 ± 5.291 min. Being female, BMI, VAT volume and involvement of fellow were significantly associated with a prolonged CIT in univariable analysis. In multivariable analysis, being female (OR = 1.29, P = 0.047), lower BMI (< 23 kg/m²) (OR = 1.62, P = 0.004) or higher BMI (≥ 25 kg/m²) (OR = 1.80, P < 0.001), low VAT volume (< 500 cm³) (OR = 1.50, P = 0.013) and fellow involvement (OR = 1.73, P < 0.001) were significant predictors of prolonged CIT. In subgroup analyses for gender, lower BMI or higher BMI and fellow involvement were predictors for prolonged CIT in both genders. However, low VAT volume was associated with prolonged CIT in only women (OR = 1.54, P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Being female, having a lower or higher BMI than the normal range, a low VAT volume, and fellow involvement were predictors of a longer CIT.

Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most robust colonoscopy quality metric and clinical studies have adopted it as the ideal method to assess the impact of technical interventions. Areas covered: We reviewed papers focusing on the impact of colonoscopy technical issues on ADR, including withdrawal time and technique, second evaluation of the right colon, patient positional changes, gastrointestinal assistant participation during colonoscopy, water-aided technique, optimization of bowel preparation and antispasmodic administration. Expert commentary: Overall, technical interventions are inexpensive, available worldwide and easy to implement. Some of them, such as the adoption of split dose regimen and slow scope withdrawal to allow a careful inspection, have been demonstrated to significantly improve ADR. Emerging data support the use of water-exchange colonoscopy. According to published studies, other technical interventions seem to provide only marginal benefit to ADR. Unfortunately, the available evidence has methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, the inclusion of expert endoscopists only and the evaluation of single technical interventions. Additionally, larger studies are needed to clarify whether these interventions might have a higher benefit on low adenoma detectors and whether the implementation of a bundle of them, instead of a single technical maneuver, might have a greater impact on ADR.

Accrediting for screening-related colonoscopy services: What is required of the endoscopist and of the endoscopy service?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely implemented to reduce CRC incidence and related mortality. The impact of screening as well as the balance between screening burden and benefits strongly depends on the quality of colonoscopy. Besides quality, safety of the endoscopic procedure and patient satisfaction are important outcome parameters for a screening program. Therefore the requirements for both CRC screening endoscopy services and endoscopists focus on technical aspects, patient safety, and patient experience. Stringent quality assurance by means of routine monitoring of quality indicators for the performance of endoscopists and endoscopy units is recommended. This allows setting minimum standards, targeted interventions, and enhancement of the overall quality of population screening. This reviews deals with guidelines and quality standards for colorectal cancer screening, with focus on both endoscopist and endoscopy services.

What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

In the USA, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. Declining rates of colon cancer in the past decade have been attributed in part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps via colonoscopy. Recent emphasis has been placed on measures to increase the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. These have been divided into pre-procedure quality metrics (bowel preparation), procedural quality metrics (cecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate), post-procedure metrics (surveillance interval), and other quality metrics (patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure). The purpose of this article is to review the data and controversies surrounding each of these and identify ways to optimize the performance of colonoscopy.

Second-Look Colonoscopies and the Impact on Capacity in FIT-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVES

Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and colonoscopy are tandem procedures in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. A positive FIT predicts advanced neoplasia (AN) that requires endoscopic detection and removal. En bloc or piecemeal resection of AN is associated with a significant rate of residual or recurrent neoplasia. Second-look colonoscopies are indicated to assess completeness of removal of AN. These colonoscopies can make a substantial demand on colonoscopy capacity and health-care system. This study is the first to evaluate the demand and risk factors for second-look colonoscopy in FIT CRC screening.

METHODS

All colonoscopies after a positive FIT, in subjects aged 50-74 years approached for 3 rounds of FIT screening, were prospectively registered. Second-look colonoscopies were defined as any colonoscopy within 1 year following a colonoscopy after positive FIT.

RESULTS

Out of 1,215 FIT-positive screenees undergoing colonoscopy, 105 (8.6%) patients underwent a second-look colonoscopy, of whom 30 (2.5%) underwent more than one colonoscopy (range 2-9), leading to a total of 149 (12.3%) additional colonoscopies. Main reasons for second-look colonoscopies were assessment of complete AN removal (41.9%) and need for additional polypectomy (34.3%). Risk factors were advanced adenomas and poor bowel preparation (P<0.001). High fecal hemoglobin concentration was the only predictor of a second-look colonoscopy before index colonoscopy (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Second-look colonoscopies have substantial impact on colonoscopy resources, increasing the demand with 12%. The main reasons for these second-look colonoscopies were previous incomplete polypectomy and control of completeness of removal of neoplastic lesions. A high fecal hemoglobin concentration as measured by FIT can help to identify patients at risk of a second-look colonoscopy.

Difficult colonoscopy score identifies the difficult patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy

Background

Many factors have been found to affect the difficulty of colonoscope insertion, such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), history of abdominal surgery and operator etc. However, a scoring system may be more useful to predict the difficulty during colonoscopy.

Methods

The individual and procedure-related data of 616 patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively collected from December 2013 through February 2014 in Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases. Cox regression analysis was used to identify high-risk factors associated with difficulty of colonoscopy. A predicting model with the difficult colonoscopy score (DCS) was developed.

Results

Total cecum intubation rate was 98.9% (609/616). Advanced age, lower BMI, inexperienced operator and fair or poor sleep quality were identified as independent factors of prolonged insertion time (all p < 0.05), which were used to develop the DCS. Based on the score, patients could be divided into high-risk and low-risk groups with distinct incomplete rates within 10 min (42.0% vs. 16.5%, p < 0.001). Compared with those with DCS ≤ 1, patients with DCS > 1 had increased insertion time (10.6 ± 0.7 min vs. 6.9 ± 0.2 min, p < 0.001) and pain score (1.9 ± 1.5 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4, p = 0.002). More abdominal compression (36.9% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001) and position change (51.4% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.001) were needed in this group of patients.

Conclusion

Patients with DCS > 1 had longer insertion time, higher pain score and needed more abdominal compression and position changes. DCS was useful for predicting the difficulty of colonoscope intubation.

(ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02105025 05/05/2014).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-015-0273-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The 5-year outcome of patients having incomplete colonoscopy

AIM

Incomplete colonoscopy indicated for the detection of neoplasia occurs in 2-23% of patients, but there is little information on the long-term outcome of such patients.

METHOD

All patients who underwent colonoscopy over 5 years at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital with a follow-up of up to 5 years were identified.

RESULTS

The risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) was 2.9% (312/10 580) for all patients undergoing colonoscopy. For a failed colonoscopy, the risk was five-fold higher [14.3% (99/693)]. The mean age of the patients was 61 years and 58% were female. Following incomplete colonoscopy the risk of finding additional CRC, advanced colonic neoplasia and extracolonic neoplasia on subsequent investigation was 6.2%, 3.2% and 1.9%. The diagnostic yield on subsequent investigation for CRC or colonic polyps was 7% for repeat colonoscopy, 13.4% for computed tomography colonography, 10.3% for standard computed tomography and 1.8% for barium enema. In the 363 patients who were not offered a subsequent investigation, there was no further instance of CRC or CRC-related mortality over a 36-month period.

CONCLUSION

Although the risk of CRC is higher in patients who have had a failed colonoscopy, a protocol approach of subsequent investigation should not replace clinical assessment on whether another test is necessary in the light of the good outcome of patients who were not subsequently investigated.

[Characteristics of deep sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed by intensivists]

OBJECTIVE

To determine tolerance, pain intensity, percentage of tests completed successfully and complications of deep sedation controlled by intensivists during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

DESIGN

A one-year, prospective observational study was carried out.

SETTING

Department of Intensive Care intervention in the Endoscopy Unit of Hospital Universitario del Tajo (Spain).

PATIENTS

Subjects over 15 years of age subjected to endoscopic procedures under deep sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 868 patients were sedated during the study period, with the conduction of 1010 endoscopic procedures. The degree of tolerance was considered adequate («Very good»/«Good») in 96.9% of the patients (95%CI: 95.7-98.1%), with a median score of 0 on the pain visual analog scale. A total of 988 endoscopic procedures were successfully completed (97.8%; 95%CI: 96.9-98.8%): 675 colonoscopies (97.1%) and 305 endoscopies (99.7%). Complications were recorded in 106 patients (12.2%; 95%CI: 10.0-14.5%). The most frequent being desaturation (6.1%), rhythm disturbances (5.1%) and hypotension (2.4%).

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under sedation controlled by intensivists are well tolerated and satisfactory for the patient, and are successfully completed in a very large percentage of cases. The procedures are associated with frequent minor complications that are resolved successfully.

Factors that determine prolonged cecal intubation time during colonoscopy: impact of visceral adipose tissue

OBJECTIVE

Various factors including age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and history of operation have been linked to the colonoscopic intubation time. The aims of this study were to identify the factors predicting cecal intubation time (CIT) and to evaluate the effect of the visceral adipose tissue (VAT) area on CIT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1386 consecutive subjects who underwent colonoscopy and abdominal CT on the same day for a health checkup at a single health care center in Korea from August to December 2011 were studied prospectively. Age, sex, BMI, height, waist circumference, history of operation, symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, bowel preparation status, experience of colonoscopists, VAT amount on abdominal CT and time required to reach the cecum were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the subjects was 53.0 ± 9.6 years, and 63.5% were male. The median CIT was 271 s. Univariate analyses showed that female gender, old age, shorter height, lower BMI, prior history of surgery and lower VAT were associated with longer CIT. To adjust for confounding effects of the gender, we investigated the genders separately in multivariate analysis. Older age and lower VAT were associated with prolonged CIT. However, the significance of association of VAT on prolonged CIT disappeared in women.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that CIT is prolonged by lower VAT area in men. This is the first study to demonstrate a direct association between VAT area and CIT.

One or two operator technique and quality performance of colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The two-operator technique for colonoscopy, with the endoscopy assistant actively advancing and withdrawing the scope, is still commonly practiced in Europe. As uncontrolled data has suggested that the one-operator technique is associated with a higher adenoma detection rate, we tested the hypothesis that the two-operator-technique can achieve comparable performances in terms of adenoma detection.

METHODS

Non-inferiority trial in which consecutive adult outpatients were randomised to undergo colonoscopy by one (one-operator) or by four endoscopists. Each performed half the procedures by one-operator and half by two-operator technique independently of routine clinical practice. Main outcome measure was adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

352 subjects (49% males, mean age 60 ± 12.1 years) were randomised to one (n=176) or to two-operator technique (n=176) colonoscopy. No significant differences were found in adenoma detection (33% vs. 30.7%, p=0.65), or cecal intubation rate, procedure times, and patient tolerability. No differences were found in the subgroup analysis according to routinely adopted colonoscopy technique.

CONCLUSIONS

This study does not confirm a higher adenoma detection rate for one-operator technique colonoscopy. Changing current practice to improve adenoma detection rate for endoscopists routinely using two-operator technique is not warranted.

The hemodynamic effect of an intravenous antispasmodic on propofol requirements during colonoscopy: A randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Hemodynamic status during induction of anesthesia may modify the amount of propofol needed to induce loss of consciousness (LOC). This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of antispasmodic-induced tachycardia on the concentration of propofol at the effect-site for inducing LOC when deep sedation was executed for colonoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred and sixteen adult patients were randomly assigned to receive either 20 mg of the antispasmodic Buscopan intravenously (Buscopan group; n = 58) or normal saline (control group; n = 58) for colonoscopy. After administration of Buscopan, the antispasmodic or normal saline, propofol was given by means of target-controlled infusion to induce LOC. We recorded patient characteristics, hemodynamic profiles, effect-site propofol concentration upon LOC, total propofol dosage for colonoscopy, and colonoscopy outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the characteristics between the two groups. Although the patients receiving Buscopan had a higher heart rate than those of the control group (101 ± 15 beats/minute vs. 77 ± 13 beats/minute; p < 0.001), we found no significant difference between two groups in the effect-site propofol concentration for inducing LOC (3.9 ± 0.6 μg/mL vs. 3.8 ± 0.6 μg/mL; p = 0.261) nor total propofol dosage required for colonoscopy (3.2 ± 1.4 mg/kg vs. 3.1 ± 1.1 mg/kg; p = 0.698). Both groups had comparable colonoscopy outcomes, including percentage of patients completing the procedure and total procedure time.

CONCLUSION

The hemodynamic responses to intravenous Buscopan neither affected the effect-site propofol concentration needed to induce LOC, nor the total propofol dosage required for colonoscopy in this study. There is no need to modify the dosage of propofol in patients subject to Buscopan premedication in colonoscopy.