Carbon dioxide insufflation or warm-water infusion for unsedated colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic constipation in China

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Hydration 1 Hour After Extubation of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Thirst is one of the most common and uncomfortable symptoms in patients after cardiac surgery. The postextubation time for early oral hydration (EOH) remains unclear, and there is a lack of studies on its safety and effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of oral hydration 1 hour after extubation on thirst, salivary pH, salivary flow, oral mucosa, halitosis, gastrointestinal adverse reactions, aspiration pneumonia, and satisfaction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients who underwent cardiac surgery were randomly assigned into 2 groups, for either conventional oral hydration (COH) or EOH. The EOH group drank 30 mL of warm water 1 hour post extubation and thereafter 50 mL hourly for 4 hours. The COH group had nil per os for 4 hours after extubation. If no dysphagia was evident after 4 hours, the patients were instructed to slowly drink water. Thirst intensity was evaluated every hour before the intervention. Nausea and vomiting were recorded after drinking water. The salivary pH, unstimulated salivary flow rate, oral odor, and oral mucosal moisture were evaluated at 1 hour post extubation, immediately before the intervention, and at 4 hour post intervention. Aspiration pneumonia data were collected within 72 hours post intervention. Satisfaction was assessed before leaving the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

The scores for thirst (3.38 ± 1.04; F = 306.21, P < .001), oral mucosa (2.03 ± 0.74; P < .001), and halitosis (2.77 ± 0.63; P < .001) in the EOH group were significantly lower than those in the COH group. The EOH group had significantly higher salivary pH (6.44 ± 1.06; P < .001), unstimulated salivary flow rates (0.18 ± 0.08; P < .001), and patient satisfaction (4.28 ± 0.45; P < .001) than the COH group. Nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly between groups (P = .60). Aspiration pneumonia was not observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral hydration 1 hour after extubation significantly alleviated thirst and stabilized the oral environment without gastrointestinal adverse reactions or aspiration pneumonia, and with increased patient satisfaction.

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR.

METHODS

Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements.

RESULTS

In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Polyethylene Glycol versus Oral Sodium Phosphate for Bowel Preparation in Unsedated Colonoscopy

Aim

To identify the most effective laxative for bowel preparation in unsedated colonoscopy.

Methods

Between April 2019 and April 2020, a total of 586 outpatients scheduled for unsedated colonoscopy at the First Hospital of Jilin University (Changchun, China) were randomized into one of two groups, namely, the polyethylene glycol (PEG) group or the oral sodium phosphate solution (OSP) group. The cleaning efficiency and other relevant clinical parameters were compared between the two groups.

Results

Each group consisted of 293 patients. There were no significant differences in gender, body mass index, and history of abdominal surgery between the two groups. There were more cases of laxative intolerance in the PEG group than in the OSP group (7.5% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.05). After tube insertion, we found that the cleaning efficiency of OSP was better than that of PEG (P < 0.05). After cleaning, there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness between the two groups (P > 0.05). The colonoscopic insertion time of the PEG group was significantly shorter than that of the OSP group (10.0 vs. 12.0 min, P = 0.002), and colonoscopic insertion was more difficult in the OSP group than in the PEG group (P = 0.036). The VAS score of the PEG group patients was significantly lower than that of OSP group patients (4.0 ± 1.3 vs. 5.2 ± 1.7, P ≤ 0.001). There were no significant differences in the cecal intubation rate and the detection rate of polyps and ulcers/erosion between the two groups.

Conclusion

The cleaning efficiency and tolerability of OSP were preferable to those of PEG, but there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness after washing the colon and suctioning the fluid. Compared with patients of the OSP group, those of the PEG group required a shorter colonoscopic insertion time and reported a more comfortable experience. Therefore, for cases that are tolerant of PEG, PEG is a better choice for unsedated colonoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Water exchange versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To compare water exchange (WE) method with conventional air insufflation (AI) method for colonoscopy, evaluating the technical quality, screening efficacy, and patients' acceptance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing WE colonoscopy with AI colonoscopy. The pooled data of procedure-associated and patient-related outcomes were assessed, using the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies involving 7056 patients were included. The cecum intubation rate was similar between WE and AI methods (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.99-1.02,P = 0.37); however, a significantly longer cecum intubation time was shown in WE group (WMD = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.75-2.37,P = 0.002). Compared with AI, WE was associated with a higher risk of adenoma detection rate (ADR) (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.38,P < 0.00001) and polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.21-1.39,P < 0.00001). Patients in WE group experienced significantly less maximum pain score (WMD = -1.99, 95% CI = -2.68 to -1.30,P < 0.00001) and less requested on-demand sedation (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.44-0.77,P = 0.0002). Likewise, they also experienced less abdominal compression (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.51-0.74,P < 0.00001) and reposition (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.86,P = 0.0001). Moreover, patients' willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WE (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.21,P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed that WE method could significantly increase ADR/PDR and improve patients' acceptance of colonoscopy, while reducing the degree of pain and minimize the need for on-demand sedation and adjunct maneuvers, despite requiring more cecal intubation time.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO₂) insufflation colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO₂ and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication).

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO₂ (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.

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

AIM

Water-assisted colonoscopy (water exchange [WE] and water immersion [WI]) has been shown to improve the adenoma detection rate. However, few studies have compared these two methods head-to-head. Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis to integrate both direct and indirect evidence comparing the effectiveness of these two procedures.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for original papers and abstracts published up to March 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data in accordance with the eligibility criteria were included in this study. We performed a Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (n = 11464 patients) including 6 direct and 23 indirect comparisons were included in this network meta-analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in the efficacy of adenoma detection when WE was compared with WI (risk ratio [RR]: 1.2, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.1-1.3), air insufflation (AI; RR: 1.3, 95% CrI: 1.1-1.4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (RR: 1.2, 95% CrI: 1.1-1.5). The different methods were ranked in order from the most to least effective in adenoma detection as follows: WE, WI, AI, and CO2. Moreover, although there were no significant differences in pain scores, willingness to repeat, caecal intubation rate, or total procedure time between WI and WE colonoscopy, WE required a longer caecal intubation time than WI.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis supposes that WE may be superior to WI in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies without affecting other technical features or patient acceptance.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonoscopy is an excellent screening tool for colorectal cancer. There are four colonoscopy techniques: air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion. Some studies reported that the latter three methods are better than the criterion standard (air insufflation), whereas some studies did not. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the four colonoscopy techniques, a network meta-analysis was carried out.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCT) published up to September 2017 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. Studies referencing the comparison between at least two of air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion were selected. Primary outcomes included pain score during insertion, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes included cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate. Mean differences or odds ratios and their corresponding 95% credible intervals were pooled with Bayesian modeling.

RESULTS

Forty RCT with 13 734 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis showed that air insufflation had the highest pain score (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 98.8%) and the lowest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 21.3%) and polyp (SUCRA: 16.8%). Water exchange had the lowest pain score (SUCRA: 1.1%) and highest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 96.0%) and polyp (SUCRA: 98.9%), although it led to the longest cecal intubation time (SUCRA: 86.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Air insufflation might be the most unsatisfactory colonoscopy. Meanwhile, water exchange might be the most efficient colonoscopy.

Use of warm carbon dioxide insufflators does not affect intra-colonic gas temperature and has no effect on polyp detection rate during colonoscopy - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Methods to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have been investigated, with conflicting results for warm water irrigation. Carbon Dioxide (CO ₂₎ warmed to 37 °C may have similar or more pronounced effects on bowel motility. This study aimed to assess whether warmed CO ₂ would improve polyp detection compared to room temperature air insufflation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 204 patients undergoing screening or surveillance outpatient colonoscopy. The primary outcome was polyp per patient detection rate. Secondary outcomes included adenoma per patient detection rates, bowel spasm, and patient comfort.

RESULTS

 The trial was terminated after an interim analysis determined futility. Between the warmed CO ₂ and room air groups, no significant differences were found in the per-colonoscopy polyp detection rate ( P  = 0.57); overall polyp detection rate ( P  = 0.69); or adenoma detection rates ( P  = 0.74). More patients in the room temperature group had lower spasm scores (p = 0.02); however, there was a trend towards greater patient comfort in the warmed CO ₂ group ( P  = 0.054). An ex-vivo study showed a significant difference between exiting CO ₂ temperature at the insufflator end vs. delivered CO ₂ temperature at the colonoscope tip end. The temperature of insufflation at the tip of the colonoscope was not different when using warmed vs. unwarmed insufflation ( P  = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

 When compared with room air insufflation, warmed CO ₂ insufflation did not affect polyp detection rates.

Comparison of carbon dioxide and air insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy in moderate-sedation patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopy is performed with air insufflation and is usually associated with abdominal pain. It is well recognized that carbon dioxide (CO₂) is absorbed more quickly into the body than air; however, to date, few studies have investigated the use of CO₂ insufflation during consecutive EGD and colonoscopy (CEC). Thus, this study evaluated the efficacy of CO₂ insufflation compared with air insufflation in CEC.

METHODS

From March 2014 to April 2016, a total of 215 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive CO₂ insufflation (CO₂ group, n = 108) or air insufflation (air group, n = 107). Abdominal pain after CEC was recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The amount of sedatives administered, use of analgesics, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), abdominal circumference, and adverse events were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups. Abdominal pain on the VAS in the CO₂ group and air group 1 hour after CEC was, respectively, 13.8 and 20.1 (P = .010), 3 hours after CEC was 8.3 and 12.5 (P = .056), 6 hours after CEC was 3.5 and 5.3 (P = .246), and 1 day after CEC was 1.8 and 3.4 (P = .192). The dose of sedative administered, analgesic usage, PDR, ADR, and adverse events were not statistically different between the groups. However, the increase in abdominal circumference was significantly higher in the air group than in the CO₂ group.

CONCLUSIONS

CO₂ insufflation was superior to air insufflation with regard to the pain score on the VAS in the hour after CEC. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001491.).

Diagnosis and treatment of ischemic colitis

Ischemic colitis (IC) is a common reason of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and it is frequently seen in elderly people. In recent years, both the incidence and prevalence of IC have been rising. Most episodes of IC are transient and self-limited and only a minority of cases are severe. IC often has missed and delayed diagnosis. This review mainly focuses on the progress in the understanding of the diagnosis and therapy of IC.