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

Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use.

RESULTS

A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Propofol sedation does not improve measures of colonoscopy quality but increase cost - findings from a large population-based cohort study

Background

Propofol is often used for sedation during colonoscopy. We assessed the impact of propofol sedation on colonoscopy related quality metrics and cost in a population-based cohort study.

Methods

All colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, during an 18-month period, from April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, using either propofol or conscious sedation were evaluated. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate. Binary outcomes were assessed using a modified Poisson regression model adjusted for clustering and potential confounders based on patient, procedure, and physician characteristics.

Findings

A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed, of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation. Compared to conscious sedation, the use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p < 0.0001) but not ssPDR (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.26), PDR (40.5% vs 40.4%, p = 0.79), CIR (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.45). On multi-variable analysis, propofol sedation was not associated with any differences in ADR (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, p = 0.30), ssPDR (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.90-1.60, p = 0.22), PDR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.99), or CIR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26, p = 0.99). The additional cost associated with propofol sedation was $12,730,496 for every 100,000 cases.

Interpretation

The use of propofol sedation was not associated with improved colonoscopy related quality metrics but increased costs. The routine use of propofol for colonoscopy should be reevaluated.

Funding

None.

Comparison of the Jcerity endoscoper airway and the endotracheal tube in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Various airway techniques have been used in endoscopic esophageal variceal ligation (EVL). In this respect, Jcerity endoscoper airway (JEA) is a novel laryngeal mask airway that is designed for use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In the present study, 164 patients who underwent EVL were randomly divided into JEA group or endotracheal tube (ETT) group (ratio: 1:1). Success rate of endoscopic procedure, endoscope insertion time, procedure duration, recovery time, airway technique extubation time, anesthesia costs, hospital stay duration, complications, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded. The success rate of EVL in the JEA group was noninferior to that in the ETT group (98.8% vs. 100.0%). The airway insertion time, anesthesia duration, and recovery time were significantly shorter in the JEA group than in the ETT group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the blood pressure during extubation was more stable in the JEA group (p < 0.001). Moreover, there were less heart rate variations during intubation (p < 0.005) and extubation (p < 0.05) in the JEA group. Nonetheless, the endoscopists' satisfaction scores were comparable between the two groups. Overall, our findings suggest that JEA is efficient and safe for clinical use in EVL.Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031892, Registered April 13, 2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn/searchproj.html .

Impact of sedation type on adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas decreases the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. The available data concerning the relationship between the sedation type and adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) is inconclusive. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conscious vs. deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR/PDR in diagnostic and screening colonoscopies.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients aged 50-75 years old presenting for a first screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were included. Baseline demographic characteristics were collected, as well as PDR and ADR. Endoscopic withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation rated in a binary fashion were also collected. Two multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the independent predictors of endoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas.

RESULTS

574 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 59.26 ± 7.21 with 52.4% females and an average BMI of 28.08 ± 4.89. 374 patients (65.2%) underwent screening colonoscopies, and deep sedation was performed in 200 patients (34.8%). Only 4.7% had bad bowel preparation. PDR was 70% and ADR was 52%. On bivariate analysis, no significant difference was shown in PDR and ADR between conscious and deep sedation groups (0.70, 0.71; p = 0.712 and 0.50, 0.54; p = 0.394, respectively). On multivariate analysis for PDR, age and withdrawal time were independent predictors. For ADR, age, female sex, and withdrawal time were independent predictors. Sedation type and the indication did not reach statistical significance in both models.

CONCLUSION

The use of deep sedation didn't influence the ADR/PDR quality metrics in our mixed cohort of screening and diagnostic colonoscopies.

Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher proportion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. However, there was variation and potential for improvement.

Patient, Physician, and Procedure Characteristics Are Independently Predictive of Polyp Detection Rates in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Variability in colon polyp detection impacts patient outcomes. However, the relative influence of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors on polyp detection is unclear. Therefore, determining how these factors contribute to adenoma and sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection is important to contextualize measures of colonoscopy quality such as adenoma detection rate and patient outcomes.

AIMS

To determine the relative contribution of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors in total polyp, adenoma, and SSP detection rates.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy and used a two-level generalized linear mixed regression model to identify factors associated with polyp detection.

RESULTS

7799 average risk screening colonoscopies were performed between July 2016 and October 2017. The patient factor most strongly associated with increased risk of adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection was white race (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.39 and OR 3.17, 95% CI 2.34-4.30, respectively). Adenomatous (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.04-3.57) and sessile serrated polyps (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.37-20.0) were more likely to be found during procedures performed with anesthesia care as compared to those with moderate sedation. Physician with a luminal gastrointestinal focus had increased odds of adenoma detection (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.50).

CONCLUSIONS

In a multi-level model accounting for clustering effects, we identified patient, provider and procedural factors independently influence adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection. Our findings suggest that to compare polyp detection rates between endoscopists, even at the same institution, risk adjustment by characteristics of the patient population and practice is necessary.

Impact of Moderate versus Deep Sedation and Trainee Participation on Adenoma Detection Rate-Analysis of a Veteran Population

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is used as a quality indicator for screening and surveillance colonoscopy. The study aimed to determine if moderate versus deep sedation affects the outcomes of the ADR and other quality metrics in the veteran population.

METHODS

A retrospective review of colonoscopies performed at Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center over a one-year period was conducted. A total of 900 colonoscopy reports were reviewed. After exclusion criteria, a total of 229 index, average-risk screening colonoscopies were identified. Data were collected to determine the impact of moderate (benzodiazepine plus opioids) versus deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and withdrawal time.

RESULTS

Among 229 screening colonoscopies, 103 (44.9%) used moderate sedation while 126 (55%) were done under deep sedation. The ADR and PDR were not significantly different between moderate versus deep sedation at 35.9% vs. 37.3% (p=0.82) and 58.2% vs. 48.4% (p=0.13), respectively. Similarly, there was no significant difference in withdrawal time between moderate and deep sedation (13.4 min vs. 14 min, p=0.56) during screening colonoscopies.

CONCLUSION

In veterans undergoing index, average-risk screening colonoscopies, the quality metrics of the ADR, PDR, and withdrawal time are not influenced by deep sedation compared with moderate sedation.

Safety of the LMA®Gastro™ for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) patients typically receive either tubeless anesthesia or general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). Patients receiving propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are at higher risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) than patients receiving GETA, primarily due to the need for additional airway maneuvers. The increasing use of non-operating room (OR) anesthesia and the perception of a higher incidence of adverse outcomes in non-OR areas has led to the development of devices to improve safety while maintaining efficiency. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the LMA Gastro™ could be used as a safe alternative to tubeless anesthesia for successfully completing ERCPs.

METHODS

Eligible subjects were identified within the patient population at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patients (≥18 years old) scheduled for elective ERCP with TIVA. This was a prospective observational study in which the following data were collected: number of attempts and time to successful supraglottic airway (SGA) placement, vital signs, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), median end-tidal CO2, practitioner satisfaction, and any complications.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were included in this study. The overall rate of successful SGA placement within 3 attempts was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.8-99.9) or 29/30. The rate of successful ERCP with SGA placement within 3 attempts was 93.3% (95% CI, 77.9-99.2) or 28/30. Both the gastroenterologist and anesthesiologist reported satisfaction with the device in 90% of the cases (in 66.7% of the cases both anesthesiologist and gastroenterologist scored the device a 7/7 for satisfaction). Patients maintained an SpO2 of 95%-100% from induction to discharge, with the exception of 1 patient who had an SpO2 of 93%. The median end-tidal CO2 during the procedure for all patients was 35 mm Hg. Observed aspiration did not occur in any patient. Symptoms of hoarseness (13.3%), mouth soreness (6.7%), sore throat (6.6%), and minor bleeding/cuts/redness/change in taste to the tongue (3.3%) were determined through patient questioning before postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the LMA Gastro might be a safe alternative for ERCP procedures. There was a high level of practitioner satisfaction. Only minor complications, such as hoarseness, mouth or throat soreness, or minor trauma to the tongue were experienced by patients. Similar incidences of complications may occur with GETA and tubeless anesthesia. The procedure was well tolerated by all patients; all patients maintained adequate oxygenation and required only minimal blood pressure support.

Impact of propofol sedation versus opioid/benzodiazepine sedation on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Choice of sedation (propofol vs opioid/benzodiazepine) has been studied in the literature and has shown variable outcomes. The majority of recent studies have evaluated propofol sedation (PS) versus opioids, benzodiazepines, or a combination of both. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PS to other sedation methods to assess the impact on colonoscopy outcomes. Methods  Multiple databases were searched and studies of interest were extracted. Primary outcome of the study was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results  A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 177,016 patients (148,753 and 28,263 in the opioids/benzodiazepine group and PS group, respectively). Overall, ADR (RR: 1.07, 95 % CI 0.99-1.15), PDR (RR: 1.01, 95 % CI 0.93-1.10), and AADR (RR: 1.17, 95 % CI 0.92-1.48) did not improve with the use of PS. The CIR was slightly higher for propofol sedation group (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.00-1.03). Conclusion  Based on our analysis, PS and opioid/benzodiazepine sedation seem to have comparable ADR. Our results do not favor use of a particular sedation method and the choice of sedation should be individualized based on patient preference, risk factors and resource availability.

The impact of sedation on quality metrics of colonoscopy: a single-center experience of 48,838 procedures

PURPOSE

Investigation of the role of sedation during colonoscopy is meaningful as the advantages of colonoscopy performing with sedation are still controversial.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy in our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The sedation rate, adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), iatrogenic colonic perforation rate (ICP) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 48,838 colonoscopies (24,498 in males) dated from July 2007 to February 2017 were analyzed. The median age was 50 years (range 16-85 years). An overall sedation rate was 80.38%. The PDR was 26.77%, and was not statistically different between colonoscopy with or without sedation (26.67% vs 27.22, p = 0.474). ADR was 12.9% regardless of applying sedation or not (13.0% vs 12.44%, p = 0.337). The CIR was 87.42% in all examinations with an adjusted CIR of 90.34%, and was higher when performed with sedation than without sedation (88.92% vs 80.64%, p < 0.0001). Five cases (0.01%) of ICP were reported, all of which occurred in patients under sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedation is associated with increased CIR, but ADR and PDR remain unchanged with or without sedation. However, perforation rate, albeit very low, is significantly higher in sedated patients.

Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for screening colonoscopy has been increasing substantially over the past decade, raising concerns about procedure safety and cost without demonstrating a proven improvement in overall quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). The effect of AA on ADR has not been extensively studied among trainees learning colonoscopy. We aimed to determine whether type of sedation used during screening colonoscopy affects trainee ADR.

METHODS

Using the electronic endoscopy databases of two hospitals in our medical center, we identified colonoscopies performed by 15 trainees from 2014 through 2018, including all screening examinations in which the cecum was reached. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with adenoma detection.

RESULTS

We identified 1420 unique patients who underwent screening colonoscopy by a trainee meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 459 (32.3%) were performed with AA. Overall trainee ADR was 39.6%, with ADR increasing from 35.0% in year one of training to 42.8% in year three (p = 0.047). ADR for cases with AA was 37.9%, while ADR for conscious sedation cases was 32.0% (p = 0.374). Despite this 5.9% absolute difference, the use of AA was not associated with finding an adenoma on multivariable analysis when controlling for patient age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, trainee year of training, mean withdrawal time, supervising attending ADR, and bowel preparation quality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite providing the ability to more consistently sedate patients, the use of AA did not affect trainee ADR. These results on trainee ADR and sedation type suggest that the overall lack of association between AA use and ADR is applicable to the trainee setting.

Substantial Increase in Anesthesia Assistance for Outpatient Colonoscopy and Associated Cost Nationwide

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of anesthesia assistance (AA) for outpatient colonoscopy has been increasing over the past decade, raising concern over its effects on procedure safety, quality, and cost. We performed a nationwide claims-based study to determine regional, patient-related, and facility-related patterns of anesthesia use as well as cost implications of AA for payers.

METHODS

We analyzed the Premier Perspective database to identify patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at over 600 acute-care hospitals throughout the United States from 2006 through 2015, with or without AA. We used multivariable analysis to identify factors associated with AA and cost.

RESULTS

We identified 4,623,218 patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy. Of these, 1,671,755 (36.2%) had AA; the proportion increased from 16.7% in 2006 to 58.1% in 2015 (P < .001). Factors associated with AA included younger age (odds ratios [ORs], compared to patients 18-39 years old: 0.94, 0.82, 0.77, 0.72, and 0.77 for age groups 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and ≥80 years, respectively); and female sex (OR, 0.96 for male patients compared to female patients; 95% CI, 0.95-0.96). Black patients were less likely to receive AA than white patients (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.82), although this difference decreased with time. The median cost of outpatient colonoscopy with AA was higher among all payers, ranging from $182.43 (95% CI, $180.80-$184.06) higher for patients with commercial insurance to $232.62 (95% CI, $222.58-$242.67) higher for uninsured patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of a database of patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy throughout the United States, we found that the use of AA during outpatient colonoscopy increased significantly from 2006 through 2015, associated with increased cost for all payers. The increase in anesthesia use mandates evaluation of its safety and effectiveness in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Impact of moderate versus deep sedation on adenoma detection rate in index average-risk screening colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The debate between moderate sedation versus deep sedation for index average-risk screening colonoscopies is well known to gastroenterologists. Ensuring the best of all metrics to perform quality colonoscopies for colon cancer prevention is paramount for both patients and physicians alike, because colon cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death and is the most-used screening tool in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine if moderate sedation versus deep sedation affects outcomes of adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) in index, average-risk colonoscopies for colon cancer screening.

METHODS

A retrospective, single, tertiary care outpatient center study of 585 healthy average-risk patients who underwent index screening colonoscopy between June 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (moderate sedation only) and June 1, 2016,to December 31, 2016 (deep sedation only) was performed after Institutional Review Board approval. Demographic data and polyp details were collected to determine ADR and PDR. Patients who were not average risk were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 585 index average-risk screening colonoscopies were included in this study with 57.7% moderate sedation and 42.2% deep sedation. Neither ADR nor PDR was significantly different between the 2 groups (44.1% vs 38.5% [P = .18] and 71.9% vs 67.6% [P = .27], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In index average-risk screening colonoscopies, deep sedation appears to have no benefit compared with moderate sedation for ADR and PDR.

Factors Associated With Adenoma Detection in Propofol-sedated Patients

GOALS

To assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

BACKGROUNDS

Low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are linked to increased risk of interval cancer and related deaths. Compared with air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy, the method of water exchange (WE) significantly decreased insertion pain and increased ADR in unsedated patients. Deep sedation with propofol has been increasingly used in colonoscopy. One report suggested that WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients, but the factors associated with adenoma detection were not analyzed.

STUDY

Post hoc multiple logistic regression analyses were performed based on pooled data from 2 randomized controlled trials to assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

RESULTS

Propofol-sedated patients (n=510) were randomized to AI and WE. The baseline characteristics were comparable. Multiple logistic regression analyses show that age, withdrawal time, indications (screening vs. diagnostic), and WE were significantly and independently associated with higher ADR. WE had fewer patients with inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of <6. Despite a significantly shorter inspection time, WE had significantly higher overall ADR than AI, especially in those with adequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥6. Right colon ADR (17.5% vs. 10.5%), flat ADR (32.3% vs. 19.4%), combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR (13.1% vs. 7.4%) of WE were significantly higher than those of AI.

CONCLUSIONS

WE enhanced quality of colonoscopy in propofol-sedated patients by significantly improving colon cleanliness and overall ADR. Colonoscopists with patients under propofol sedation might consider evaluating WE method for performance improvement.

Propofol sedation in colonoscopy: from satisfied patients to improved quality indicators

Background

Propofol-mediated sedation is safe and clearly associated with increased patient satisfaction. However, whether it results in a favorable effect on colonoscopy outcomes and performance compared to standard sedation with benzodiazepines/opiates remains unclear.

Objectives

To determine the effect of propofol-mediated sedation on colonoscopy-quality measures compared to traditional sedation.

Methods

A large cohort of 44,794 patients who had undergone sedated colonoscopies were included. Colonoscopy-quality indicators were examined in benzodiazepine/opiate-sedated patients and compared with a propofol-mediated sedation group. Adjustment for potential confounders, such as age, sex, quality of bowel preparation, procedural setting, and indication was performed.

Results

Patients who received propofol-mediated sedation were more likely, and in a dose-dependent manner, to have an enhanced polyp-detection rate (22.8% vs 20.9%, P<0.001), cecal intubation rate (90.4% vs 87.3%, P<0.001), and terminal ileum-intubation rate (6.4% vs 1.6%, P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, these findings were maintained, as propofol-mediated sedation use was significantly associated with improved colonoscopy indicators.

Conclusion

Propofol-mediated sedation during colonoscopy is associated with better examination performance and improved outcomes. Further prospective or randomized trials to support these findings are warranted.

Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 is associated with the metabolism and development of advanced colonic polyps

Implications of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) in colonic polyps remain elusive. A prospective study was conducted with 188 consecutive subjects who underwent colonoscopy at a tertiary referral center. Biochemical parameters, serum PAI-1 levels, PAI-1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (rs-1799889), and colonic polyp profiles were analyzed at baseline and 24 and 48 weeks postpolypectomy. Of 188 patients (mean age: 56.8 years), 78.7% had adenomas; the median polyp number and size were 2 and 1.2cm, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed the following baseline associations: PAI-1 levels (95% confidence interval [CI] for estimated β: 0.012-0.223) and polyp pathology (0.294-0.63) with polyp size; polyp size (0.085-0.498) and platelet count (0.013-0.027) with PAI-1 levels. At 24 weeks postpolypectomy, homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and platelet count were independently associated with PAI-1 levels. Among patients with colonic adenomas, baseline PAI-1 levels (95% CI odds ratio: 1.06-1.686; cut-off value: >10.65 ng/mL, area under curve: 0.662, P = 0.032) and the PAI-1-rs-17998894G/4G genotype (0.036-0.912) were associated with high-grade dysplasia. Compared with baseline levels, repeated measures analysis of variance showed that PAI-1 levels increased, with concurrent increased HOMA-IR indexes, but decreased alanine transaminase levels and polyp size in follow-up colonoscopies at 24 weeks postpolypectomy. PAI-1 returned to baseline levels, and HOMA-IRs and triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol ratios decreased at 48 weeks postpolypectomy. Taken together, serum PAI-1 levels were positively associated with colonic polyp size and high-grade dysplasia, which was modulated by the PAI-1-rs-17998894G/4G genotype. The beneficial postpolypectomy inflammatory and metabolic alterations might be transiently counter regulated by elevated PAI-1 levels, with a link to HOMA-IR.