The role of routinely given hyoscine-N-butylbromide in colonoscopy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Association between antispasmodics and detection of lesions by screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Background and Aim

Whether administration of antispasmodics as a component of premedication contributes to detection of lesions by screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDS) remains unclear. Our primary aim was to investigate this possibility.

Methods

The cohort in this retrospective study comprised consecutive asymptomatic individuals who had undergone screening EGDS as part of a health check‐up at the Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center from October 2015 to September 2020. The investigated lesions comprised esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, gastric adenoma or adenocarcinoma, and duodenal adenoma or adenocarcinoma.

Results

Targeted lesions were detected in 72 of 31 484 participants (0.23%), 18 260 and 13 224 of whom had received and not received pre‐procedure antispasmodics, respectively. The rates of detection of lesions in these groups were 0.21% (38/18260) and 0.26% (34/13224), respectively (P = 0.40). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no association between administration of antispasmodics and rates of detection of targeted lesions [P = 0.24, Odds ratio (95% CI): 1.46 (0.78–2.75)].

Conclusions

Antispasmodics, which were administered to more than half of the study cohort, did not improve the rate of detection of targeted lesions.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Position Statement on the Use of Hyoscine-n-butylbromide (Buscopan) During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Hyoscine butylbromide, also known as hyoscyamine or scopolamine, and sold under the trade name Buscopan, is an antimuscarinic agent commonly used to induce smooth muscle relaxation and reduce spasmodic activity of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract during endoscopic procedures. However, the balance between desirable and undesirable (adverse) effects is not clear when used during GI endoscopy. The Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) conducted systematic reviews and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations for the use of Buscopan during GI endoscopy. To summarize, we recommend against the use of Buscopan before or during colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). We suggest against the use of Buscopan before or during gastroscopy (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). We suggest the use of Buscopan before or during ERCP (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). More research is needed to determine whether patients undergoing advanced procedures such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection benefit from its use. Buscopan should be used with caution in patients with cardiac comorbidities. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is contraindicated in patients with tachycardia, angina, and cardiac failure. Thus, Buscopan should be used very cautiously in patients with these conditions, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Such patients require careful cardiac monitoring in an environment where resuscitation equipment and appropriately trained staff to use it are readily available. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is also contraindicated in patients with prostatic hypertrophy with urinary retention, and therefore, should be used very cautiously in such patients as well, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Obtaining a preprocedural history of glaucoma is unlikely to be of value when considering Buscopan use. However, in cases where Buscopan has been used, patients should be counselled postprocedurally and told to present to an emergency facility should they experience eye pain, redness, decreased vision, nausea and vomiting or headache.

Deceleration capacity of heart rate variability as a predictor of sedation related hypotension

High risk and geriatric patients are supposed to suffer higher risks of hypotension underwent painless endoscopic procedures. This study evaluated different biomarkers associated with hypotension in off-site patients and aimed to determine the most relevant risk factors in space and monitoring limited environment. The inclusions of this observational cohort study underwent complex endoscopic procedures were sedated with age-adjusted doses of target-controlled infusion of propofol. The following pre-sedative parameters were analysed: time domain, frequency domain, and Deceleration capacity (DC) of heart rate variability, estimated cardiac output data and the index of cardiac contractility from the cardiometer. Patients were divided into hypotension group (blood pressure < 90 mmHg or a > 35% decrease) and non-hypotension group according to peri-sedative blood pressure, regression analysis is used to examine the association between factors and hypotension. Total data from 178 patients (age range: 33–94 years) were analysed. Age was not significantly different between the hypotension and non-hypotension groups (p = 0.978). Among all the factors, DC was most associated with hypotension (p = 0.05), better than cardiometer, age, and ASA status. In conclusion, DC, which can be interpreted as the indicator of parasympathetic activity and was significantly and negatively correlated with sedation-related hypotension. Pre-sedative measuring DC from routine ECG monitoring is simple and cost-effective and should be added to haemodynamic monitoring in the endoscopic room.

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.

Standards of diagnostic colonoscopy for early-stage neoplasia: Recommendations by an Asian private group

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing, and it is now becoming the major cause of cancer death in Asian countries. The aim of the present study was to develop Asian expert-based consensus to standardize the preparation, detection and characterization for the diagnosis of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI² G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.

RESULTS

Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

Does Hyoscine improve polyp detection rate during colonoscopy? Systematic Review & meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Published studies have shown conflicting results regarding the benefit of Hyoscine Butylbrmoide use during colonoscopy in polyp and adenoma detection rates. This meta-analysis was conducted with the aim to summarize all available evidence.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library database from inception to December 2017. Studies that compared the use of Hyoscine Butylbrmoide compared to placebo during colonoscopy were included. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model when there was no heterogeneity identified.

RESULTS

Of the 423 retrieved studies, eight met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of polyp and adenoma detection rates.There was no significant difference between the Hyoscine and placebo groups in polyp detection rate (49.3% vs 48%, OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.23, P = 0.50). Adenoma detection rate was also not significantly different between the 2 groups 33.7% vs, 31%; OR = 1.13; 95%CI: 0.95-1.35; P = 0.16). No heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.65, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found no significant impact of Hyoscine on polyp and adenoma detection when used during colonoscopy.

Impact of Hyoscine Bromide Use on Polyp Detection Rate During Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) are key focus in endoscopic research for CRC screening and prevention. Use of anti-spasmodic agents during colonoscopy to help identify adenomas and polyps has remained a controversial topic. Hyoscine butyl bromide (HBB) is the most commonly used anti-spasmodic agent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have questioned the clinical efficacy and safety of routine use of HBB for polyp and adenoma detection rates.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and MEDLINE from inception until February 10, 2018, for studies which compared HBB with placebo. We used RevMan version 5.3 for analysis. Procedural end-points were polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenoma detection rates, mean number of polyps detected and cecal intubation time.

Results

We included seven RCTs with 2,588 patients in our analysis. A total of 1,301 patients were randomized to HBB arm and 1,287 to the placebo arm. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of polyp detection rate, 654 in HBB group vs. 616 in the placebo group, (odds ratio (OR) = 1.11, confidence interval (CI) = 0.93 - 1.34, P = 0.25). There was no difference in secondary outcomes of adenoma detection rate, 430 in HBB group vs. 396 in the placebo group, (OR = 1.06, CI = 0.89 - 1.26, P = 0.51), advanced adenoma detection rate, 92 in HBB vs. 95 in placebo group (OR = 0.95, CI = 0.70 - 1.30, P = 0.76), mean number of polyps detected (point estimate = 0.12, CI = 0.00 - 0.23, P = 0.05), adenomatous polyps (OR = 0.84, CI = 0.39 - 1.81, P = 0.65) and cecal intubation time (point estimate = 0.73, CI = -1.98 - 0.52, P = 0.25) between the two groups.

Conclusions

The use of HBB in patients undergoing colonoscopy does not appear to improve polyp or adenoma detection rates. It showed a non-significant trend of increased mean number of polyps detected with HBB.

The effect of premedication with peppermint oil capsules (Colpermin) prior to colonoscopy: A double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colonoscopy is the cornerstone of diagnosing colonic diseases. Investigators have evaluated the effectiveness of antispasmodic agents in colonoscopy with conflicting evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of enteric coated peppermint oil capsules (Colpermin®), an antispasmodic agent, on outcomes during colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 80 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were recruited and randomized in a double blinded fashion to receive either placebo or peppermint oil capsules administered 4 h prior to the procedure.

RESULTS

Peppermint oil capsules did not affect caecal intubation time when compared with placebo. Patients' tolerance, endoscopist's satisfaction and demand on sedation were also not affected.

CONCLUSION

This randomized controlled trial does not support the routine use of peppermint oil capsules prior to colonoscopy as a tool for procedure optimization, and patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of hyoscine butylbromide versus anisodamine for acute gastric or intestinal spasm-like pain: A randomized, double-blinded, multicenter Phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

Acute gastric or intestinal spasm-like pain is common in clinical setting. Hyoscine butylbromide (HBB), an anti-cholinergic agent, relieves pain in stomach and bowel cramps by inhibiting smooth muscle contractility. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of parenteral HBB and anisodamine for treating acute gastric or intestinal pain.

METHODS

In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter non-inferiority trial, 299 Chinese patients were randomly assigned to HBB or anisodamine in a ratio of 1:1. They were administrated a single dose of either HBB 20 mg or anisodamine 10 mg, and a second dose was given when needed. The primary end-point was the difference in pain intensity (PID) from the pre-dose baseline at 20 min after the first injection.

RESULTS

Altogether 295 patients completed the protocol (153 in the HBB and 142 in the anisodamine group). For the primary end-point, the PID was -4.09 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.41, -3.76) for the HBB group and -3.66 (95% CI: -4.02, -3.31) for the anisodamine group (P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). The percentage of patients with at least one adverse event was lower in the HBB group than in the anisodamine group (13.1% vs 17.6%), but there was no statistical significance (P = 0.279). The most frequent adverse events were thirst (7.8%) and dry mouth (2.6%) in the HBB group, and thirst (7.0%), dry mouth (3.5%) and nodal arrhythmia (2.1%) in the anisodamine group.

CONCLUSIONS

HBB 20 mg was not inferior to anisodamine 10 mg in pain relief of patients with acute gastric or intestinal spasm-like pain. Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.