Is the level of cleanliness using segmental Boston bowel preparation scale associated with a higher adenoma detection rate?

Factors That Influence the Speed and Completion of Double Balloon Enteroscopy in Patients with Arteriovenous Malformations

BACKGROUND

Double balloon enteroscopy remains a resource and time-intensive procedure that is not available in many endoscopy units.

AIMS

We aimed to identify variables impacting the speed and completion of double balloon enteroscopy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 550 patients. Using a mean time and distance for both the antegrade and retrograde approach, we determined the procedure speed and assessed factors that influenced it. In addition, we assessed the factors that contributed to a complete double balloon enteroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 386 antegrade and 164 retrograde double balloon enteroscopies were performed. Greater than 10 AVMs requiring treatment was a negative predictor (AOR 0.25, CI 0.11-0.51, p < 0.001), whereas age greater than 60 years (AOR 2.66, CI 1.18-6.65, p = 0.025) was a positive predictor of a fast antegrade enteroscopy. For retrograde, prior abdominal surgery was the only factor that trended to significance (AOR 0.38, CI 0.14-0.99, p = 0.052). A total of 120 combined procedures were performed. Female gender (AOR 2.62, CI 1.16-6.24, p = 0.02), history of prior abdominal surgery (AOR 0.31, CI 0.13-0.70, p = 0.006) and Boston bowel pre-preparation score of greater than 6 (AOR 4.50, CI 1.59-14.30, p = 0.006) were the only significant predictors of a complete procedure.

CONCLUSION

By applying double balloon enteroscopy speed, a novel method of measuring procedure efficiency, we were able to more reliably identify the factors that will negatively impact the speed and success of the procedure.

The Role of Analgesia in the Identification and Treatment of Digestive Tract Lesions: A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind Study

The association of sedation with analgesia in endoscopic procedures represents the ideal combination of anesthetic drugs, which allows these exploratory procedures to be carried out safely, in an outpatient setting. The aim of this study is to compare the results of the use of simple Propofol or Propofol associated with Fentanyl in order to ensure optimal sedation necessary for the detection of benign or malignant lesions of the digestive tract. In this study, 80 patients aged between 18 and 80 years were included, 40 in Group 1 who were administered Propofol alone and 40 in Group 2 in which Propofol was administered associated with Fentanyl. The onset of anesthetic sleep was 19.3±5.1 seconds in Lot 2 versus 29.6±9.1 seconds in Lot 1. The average dose of Propofol used was 203.6±82.8 mg in Lot 1 and in Lot 2 it was lower, 166.3±8.3mg. Cardio respiratory changes were more frequent in Lot 2. The wake-up time was 3.2±1.2 minutes in Lot 1 as a result of the administration of Propofol alone and 7±1.4 minutes in Lot 2. The discharge time was equal for patients in both groups. The degree of postanesthesia safisfaction was 10 for all patients from Lot 2, due to the analgesia provided by the administration of Fentanyl. The use of Propofol associated with Fentanyl in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is associated with a rapid recovery of cognitive function at the time of discharge and minimal adverse events, ensuring optimal conditions of analgesia and stability of vital functions.

Anesthesia Assistance in Colonoscopy: Impact on Quality Indicators

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) are both indicators for colonoscopy quality. Improving ADR or PDR is critical for reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Although several studies have focused on identifying the factors that may influence ADR or PDR, the evidence remains limited and inconclusive. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the effect of anesthesia assistance (AA) on ADR or PDR in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening and identify risk factors affecting ADR or PDR.

Methods

We reviewed electronic medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy screening between May 2019 and August 2020. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received AA: patients in Group A underwent colonoscopy screening with AA, whereas patients in Group O underwent colonoscopy screening without AA. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to account for differences in baseline characteristics. After, ADR and PDR were compared between the two groups. Binary logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors that affected ADR or PDR.

Results

Of 9432 patients who underwent colonoscopy examination during the study period, 7170 were included in the final analyses (Group A = 5756 and Group O = 1414). After PSM, 736 patients remained in each group for analyses. There was no significant difference between groups A and O (P &gt; 0.05) in ADR or PDR. Binary logistic regression indicated that the endoscopic device version (Olympus HQ290), equipment image-based technique and number of images were independent risk factors that affected ADR, and the age (50–59 years and 60–69 years), gender (male), high-risk status, endoscopist seniority (senior endoscopist), equipment image-based technique and number of images were all independent risk factors that affected PDR.

Conclusions

We discovered that AA does not affect ADR or PDR. Despite improved patient satisfaction, using AA is unnecessary for improving colonoscopy quality. Endoscopists should consider all these factors as much as possible when performing colonoscopy screening.

Opportunistic Colonoscopy Cancer Screening Pays off in Romania-A Single-Centre Study

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer in men (after prostate and lung cancers) and in women (after breast and lung cancer). It is the second cause of cancer death in men (after lung cancer) and the third one in women (after breast and lung cancers). It is estimated that, in EU-27 countries in 2020, colorectal cancer accounted for 12.7% of all new cancer diagnoses and 12.4% of all deaths due to cancer. Our study aims to assess the opportunistic colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy in a private hospital. A secondary objective of this study is to analyse the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and colorectal cancer (CRC) detection rate. We designed a retrospective single-centre study in the Gastroenterology Department of Saint Mary Hospital. The study population includes all individuals who performed colonoscopies in 2 years, January 2019–December 2020, addressed to our department by their family physician or came by themselves for a colonoscopy. One thousand seven hundred seventy-eight asymptomatic subjects underwent a colonoscopy for the first time. The mean age was 59.0 ± 10.9, 59.5% female. Eight hundred seventy-three polyps were found in 525 patients. Five hundred and twenty-five had at least one polyp, 185 patients had two polyps, 87 had three polyps, and 40 patients had more than three polyps. The PDR was 49.1%, ADR 39.0%, advanced adenomas in 7.9%, and carcinomas were found in 5.4% of patients. In a country without any colorectal cancer screening policy, polyps were found in almost half of the 1778 asymptomatic patients evaluated in a single private center, 39% of cases adenomas, and 5.4% colorectal cancer. Our study suggests starting screening colonoscopy at the age of 45. A poor bowel preparation significantly impacted the adenoma detection rate.

Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG + ascorbate

Background and study aims  Polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are effective but associated with high ingestion volume. In this study, 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG preparations were compared in a randomized, colonoscopist-blinded, single-center trial. Patients and methods  Patients were aged > 18 years, required colonoscopy, and provided informed consent. Randomization was 1:1 to 1-L PEG or 2-L PEG, based on hospital identification number (odd or even). Preparations were administered using same-day dosing adjusted for colonoscopy start time. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (no segment scored < 2). Results  A total of 852 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, significantly more patients had diabetes in the 2-L PEG arm, resulting in the creation of the modified-ITT population (mITT) that excluded diabetic patients to correct the imbalance (1-L PEG, n = 239; 2-L PEG, n = 238). In the mITT, there was no significant difference in successful cleansing between 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG (88.3 % vs. 82.4 %; P  = 0.067). Excellent cleansing (BBPS 7-9; no segment < 2) was significantly improved with 1-L PEG (60.7 % vs. 50.4 %; P  < 0.024), as were mean scores in the right and left colon (right: 2.47 vs. 2.30; P  < 0.008; left: 2.55 vs. 2.39; P  = 0.008). Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and none resulted in discontinuation. Rates of nausea and vomiting were significantly higher with 1-L PEG, but that did not affect successful cleansing. Conclusions  The lower-volume 1-L PEG was associated with higher levels of excellent bowel cleansing and greater mean segmental scores on the BBPS than 2-L PEG.

Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of High- Versus Low-Volume Split Colonoscopy Preparations: An Experience Through the British Columbia Colon Cancer Screening Program

Background

The British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) is a population-based colon cancer screening program. In December 2018, physicians in Vancouver, Canada agreed to switch from a low-volume split preparation to a high-volume polyethylene glycol preparation after a meta-analysis of studies suggested superiority of the higher volume preparation in achieving adequate bowel cleansing and improving adenoma detection rates.

Aims

To compare the quality of bowel preparation and neoplasia detection rates using a high-volume split preparation (HVSP) versus a low-volume split preparation (LVSP) in patients undergoing colonoscopy in the BCCSP.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing colonoscopy through the BCCSP at St. Paul’s Hospital from July 2017 to November 2018 and December 2018 to November 2019 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included age 50 to 74 and patients undergoing colonoscopy through the BCCSP. Variables collected included patient demographics and bowel preparation quality. Rates of bowel preparation and neoplasia detection were analyzed using chi-squared test.

Results

A total of 1453 colonoscopies were included, 877 in the LVSP group and 576 in the HVSP group. No statistically significant difference was noted between rates of inadequate bowel preparation (LVSP 3.6% versus HVSP 2.8%; P = 0.364). Greater rates of excellent (48.4% versus 40.1%; P = 0.002) and optimal (90.1% versus 86.5%; P = 0.041) bowel preparation were achieved with HVSP. The overall adenoma detection rate was similar between the two groups (LVSP 53.1% versus HVSP 54.0%; P = 0.074). LVSP demonstrated higher overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate (9.5% versus 5.6%; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Compared to LVSP, HVSP was associated with an increase in excellent and optimal bowel preparations, but without an improvement in overall neoplasia detection.

Longer Withdrawal Time Is More Important than Excellent Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy of Adequate Bowel Preparation

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation is crucial for effective screening colonoscopy. However, it is unclear whether higher bowel preparation scores correspond to beneficial effects on the adenoma and polyp detection rate (ADR and PDR) in the adequate bowel preparation group.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of bowel preparation, according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) on ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group.

METHODS

Healthy examinees between 50 and 75 years old who underwent colonoscopy between September 2015 and August 2016 were included. BBPS scores, CWT, ADR, and PDR were reviewed retrospectively. Predictors of ADR and PDR were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

A total of 5073 cases with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) were analyzed. Examinees with good (BBPS = 6, 7) and excellent (BBPS = 8, 9) bowel preparation were 1898 (37.4%) and 3175 (62.6%), respectively. Both ADR and PDR were higher in the good bowel preparation group than in the excellent bowel preparation group (ADR 47.3% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.035; PDR 73.7% vs. 69.5%, P = 0.004, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, CWT, rather than BBPS, was significantly associated with both ADR (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06; P < 0.001) and PDR (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.07; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Both ADR and PDR were lower when bowel preparation was excellent rather than good. However, CWT, not BBPS, was significantly associated with ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group. Therefore, meticulous inspection is important for high-quality colonoscopy regardless of the BBPS score in examinees with adequate bowel preparation.

Predictive factors for adenoma detection rates: a video study of endoscopist practices

Background and study aims  In 2015, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy deemed adenoma detection rate (ADR) the most important quality measure for colonoscopy. There has been much interest in factors that can increase ADR. To date, however, few studies have looked at what intra-procedural endoscopist practices are associated with improving ADR. We conducted a retrospective review of colonoscopy videos to evaluate intra-procedural practices that could be associated with ADR. Methods  Videos were recorded of colonoscopies performed between September and December 2017 at the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Colonoscopies for screening and surveillance were included for video review. Factors assessed included withdrawal time, intra-procedural cleaning, inspection technique, and other variables (colon distention, removal of equivocal/hyperplastic polyps). A series of multiple regression analyses was conducted on variables of interest before running a final model of significant predictors. Results  A total of 130 videos were reviewed from nine endoscopists whose ADRs ranged between 37.5 % and 73.7 %. The final regression model was significant (F = 15.35, df = 2, P  = 0.0044), R ²  = 0.8365) with close inspection of behind folds and quality of cecal inspection being the factors highly correlated with predicting ADR. Withdrawal and inspection times, colonic wall distention, removal of equivocal/hyperplastic polyps, quality of rectal inspection, suctioning, and washing were factors moderately correlated with predicting ADR. Conclusions  We found that behind-fold inspection and a meticulous cecal inspection technique were predictive of a high ADR.

Adenoma detection rate as a quality indicator for colonoscopy: a descriptive cross-sectional study from a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

Background and study aims  Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is validated for measuring quality of colonoscopy, however there is lack of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in South Asia. The purpose of this study is to analyze and review the polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR and provide insight into the factors that influence them in Pakistan. Patients and methods  This retrospective, cross-sectional study was performed at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, on patients ≥ 18 years, who underwent colonoscopy between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. Results  Of 1985 patients, 59 % were male and 41 % female, with mean age of 47.8 ± 16.2 years. The most common indication for colonoscopy was bleeding-per-rectum (28.0 %) and overall PDR and ADR were 17.9 % and 9.9 %, respectively. There was no significant difference between genders for either PDR ( P  = 0.378) or ADR ( P  = 0.574). Significantly higher PDR and ADR were found for patients ≥ 50 years ( P  < 0.001), as well as for suboptimal bowel preparation [PDR (25.7 %; P  = 0.007) and ADR (18.6 %; P  = 0.014)]. Interestingly, endoscopists with < 500 colonoscopy-procedural-experience reported a higher PDR (21.6 %; P  = 0.020) and ADR (14.4 %; P = 0.049), corresponding to a significantly higher PDR (20.6 %; P  = 0.005) and ADR (11.7 %; P  = 0.02) for endoscopists in practice for ≤ 10 years. Conclusions  We have noticed low PDR and ADR, which require further investigation and research. In addition, we believe there should be a different baseline ADR and PDR as a quality indicator for colonoscopy in our region, where no internationally recommended colonoscopic screening programs have been implemented.

Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) could account for a substantial proportion of colorectal cancers. We aimed to increase clarity on SSP prevalence and clinical features.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for original studies published in English since 2000. We included studies of different populations (United States general or similar), interventions (colonoscopy, autopsy), comparisons (world regions, alternative polyp definitions, adenoma), outcomes (prevalence, clinical features), and study designs (cross-sectional). Random-effects regression was used for meta-analysis where possible.

RESULTS

We identified 74 relevant colonoscopy studies. SSP prevalence varied by world region, from 2.6% in Asia (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-5.9) to 10.5% in Australia (95% CI, 2.8-18.2). Prevalence values did not differ significantly between the United States and Europe (P = .51); the pooled prevalence was 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4-5.8), and SSPs accounted for 9.4% of polyps with malignant potential (95% CI, 6.6-12.3). The mean prevalence was higher when assessed through high-performance examinations (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.0-14.2; P = .04) and with an alternative definition of clinically relevant serrated polyps (12.3%; 95% CI, 9.3-15.4; P < .001). Increases in prevalence with age were not statistically significant, and prevalence did not differ significantly by sex. Compared with adenomas, a higher proportion of SSPs were solitary (69.0%; 95% CI, 45.9-92.1; P = .08), with diameters of 10 mm or more (19.3%; 95% CI, 12.4-26.2; P = .13) and were proximal (71.5%; 95% CI, 63.5-79.5; P = .008). The mean ages for detection of SSP without dysplasia, with any or low-grade dysplasia, and with high-grade dysplasia were 60.8 years, 65.6 years, and 70.2 years, respectively. The range for proportions of SSPs with dysplasia was 3.7%-42.9% across studies, possibly reflecting different study populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review, we found that SSPs are relatively uncommon compared with adenoma. More research is needed on appropriate diagnostic criteria, variations in detection, and long-term risk.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a ready-to-drink bowel preparation in overweight and obese adults: subanalysis by body mass index from a phase III, assessor-blinded study

BACKGROUND

We performed a post hoc secondary analysis for the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ready-to-drink sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC oral solution) bowel preparation.

METHODS

A phase III, randomized, assessor-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority study was conducted comparing split-dose, low-volume SPMC oral solution with a powder formulation for oral solution. A post hoc secondary analysis assessed efficacy, safety, and tolerability of SPMC oral solution stratified by BMI. BMI was classified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions (underweight and normal weight: BMI < 25 kg/m²; overweight: BMI 25-29.9 kg/m²; class I obesity: BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²; class II obesity: BMI 35-39.9 kg/m²; class III/severe obesity: BMI ⩾40 kg/m²). Prespecified primary efficacy endpoint ('responders') was the proportion of participants with 'excellent' or 'good' ratings on a modified Aronchick Scale (AS). Secondary efficacy outcomes were the quality of cleansing of the right colon as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); as well as selected findings from the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Between 82.8% and 92.5% of participants in any BMI group were responders by AS, and between 91.3% and 100% were responders by BBPS in the right colon. Efficacy was consistent across BMI groups, with no clear trends. Greater than 83% of participants in any BMI group found the preparation 'easy' or 'acceptable' to ingest, and the majority (>58%) rated SPMC oral solution as 'better' than a prior bowel preparation. In all BMI groups, safety data were similar to the overall cohort. Commonly reported, drug-related, treatment-emergent AEs were, by ascending BMI group, nausea (1.1%, 5.3%, 1.0%, 5.7%, and 0%) and headache (1.1%, 4.1%, 1.0%, 5.7%, and 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution had consistent, good quality colon cleansing, and favorable tolerability among participants of all BMI groups.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION

NCT03017235.

Effect of Sending Educational Video Clips via Smartphone Mobile Messenger on Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy

Background/Aim

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sending educational video clips via smartphone mobile messenger (SMM) on enhancing bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Methods

This was a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled study. Patients in the SMM group received two video clips sent via SMM that explained the diet and regimen for bowel preparation, whereas those in the control group did not receive any video clips. We compared the quality of bowel preparation between the two groups, which was assessed by an endoscopist using the Ottawa scale.

Results

Between August and November 2014, 140 patients in the SMM group and 141 patients in the control group underwent colonoscopic examination. The total Ottawa score of the SMM group was significantly lower than that of the control group (5.47±1.74 vs. 5.97±1.78, p=0.018). These results were particularly prominent in the younger age group; the total Ottawa score of patents in the SMM group aged <40 years was significantly lower than that of patients in the control group aged <40 years (5.10±1.55 vs. 6.22±2.33, p=0.034).

Conclusions

We demonstrated that sending educational video clips via SMM could result in better bowel preparation, especially in the younger age group.