Comparison of adenoma detection by colonoscopy between polypectomy performed during both insertion and withdrawal versus during withdrawal only: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

Effect of bowel preparation completion time on bowel cleansing efficacy: Prospective randomized controlled trial of different bowel preparation completion times precolonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

The elapse time between the completion of bowel cleansing and colonoscopy is one of the important factors for proper bowel cleansing. Although several studies have reported that a short time interval resulted in a favorable bowel cleansing, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted to determine the effect of the elapse time. Consequently, we performed an RCT to investigate the efficacy of bowel preparation of participants who underwent colonoscopy according to the different time intervals between the completion of bowel preparation and colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this single-center RCT, study participants were randomized to complete bowel preparation either 2-4 h or 4-8 h before colonoscopy. The primary end-point was successful bowel preparation, rated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

A total of 504 individuals were included (2-4 h, 255; 4-8 h, 249). The rate of successful bowel preparation in the 2-4 h group showed noninferiority compared with that of the 4-8 h group (97.6% vs. 95.2%; rate difference, 2.5% [-0.8% to 5.7%]; Pfor noninferiority < 0.001, Pfor superiority = 0.136). The rate for perfect cleansing (a BBPS score of 9) was higher in the 2-4 h group (56.5% vs. 39.8%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

When bowel cleansing was finished 2-4 h before the start of colonoscopy, the overall bowel cleansing was noninferior, and perfect cleansing was superior, compared to that when cleansing was finished 4-8 h before colonoscopy.

Comparison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60-79: A Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

The bowel-cleansing efficacy and safety of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (2L PEG + Asc) has rarely been studied in the elderly population. In this randomized trial, we compared the bowel cleanliness, safety, and tolerability of 2L PEG + Asc with those of 4 L PEG in an elderly population aged 60-79.

METHODS

Study participants were randomized either to 2L PEG + Asc or 4L PEG. The primary endpoint was the success rate of bowel preparation, using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Before colonoscopy, all participants were questioned about adverse events and tolerability regarding purgative ingestion.

RESULTS

A total of 347 individuals were enrolled (2L PEG + Asc, 174; 4L PEG, 173). Mean age in the 2L PEG + Asc and the 4L PEG was 69.3 ± 5.6 and 69.3 ± 5.0, respectively (P = 0.917). The rate for successful bowel cleansing was comparable between the 2L PEG + Asc (92%) and the 4L PEG (96%, P = 0.118). Total ingested liquid including purgative and water was lower in the 2L PEG + Asc group (2.9 L) than in the 4L PEG group (4.2 L, P < 0.001). The tolerability of purgative was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc (overall satisfaction, P < 0.001; willingness to reuse, P < 0.001). There were no serious adverse events during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The bowel-cleansing efficacy of 2L PEG + Asc was comparable to that of 4L PEG. Tolerability was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc group. For older people, 2L PEG + Asc is an efficacious and safe bowel cleanser. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0004123).

Linked color imaging, mucosal exposure device, their combination, and standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

By different mechanisms, image-enhancement techniques (linked color imaging [LCI]) and mucosal exposure devices (Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy [EAC]) can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during screening colonoscopy. The impact of the combination of the 2 techniques has never been studied. This study aimed to compare the ADR between the combination of LCI and EAC (LCI+EAC), LCI alone, EAC alone, and standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled trial included participants who underwent screening colonoscopy. Participants were randomized to LCI+EAC, LCI, EAC, and standard HD colonoscopy. All colonoscopies were performed by endoscopists with a recorded ADR ≥35%. The primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were proximal ADR (pADR) and the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC).

RESULTS

One thousand participants were included in the study. The LCI+EAC group provided the highest ADR and pADR. The ADRs in the LCI+EAC, LCI, EAC, and standard HD colonoscopy groups were 57.2%, 52.8%, 51.6%, and 47.6%, respectively, with pADRs of 38.4%, 34.8%, 33.6%, and 28.0%, respectively. The mean numbers of APC were 1.28, 1.20, 1.16, and .89, respectively. After a multiple comparison adjustment, a significant difference in pADR was only observed between the LCI+EAC and standard HD colonoscopy groups (difference, 10.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, .02%-17.4%; P = .05). The incidence rate ratios of the adenoma numbers were significantly higher in the LCI+EAC (1.43), LCI (1.34), and EAC (1.30) groups relative to the standard HD colonoscopy group (.89) (P < .009 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of LCI and EAC can significantly improve the detection of pADR and APC but not ADR by high-ADR performers. (Clinical trial registration number: TCTR20190319001.).

Effect of prophylactic clip application for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding of large pedunculated colonic polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic application of a hemoclip has been suggested as an alternative to the use of an endoloop for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) when resecting large, pedunculated colorectal polyps. Therefore, this multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigated the efficacy of prophylactic hemoclip application to reduce PPB during the resection of large pedunculated polyps.

METHODS

Large pedunculated polyps (≥10 mm in head diameter) were eligible for inclusion. Polyps were randomized into a study arm (where clips were applied before resection) and a control arm (without pretreatment). The primary outcome was the rate of PPB in each group. PPB included immediate PPB (IPPB) and delayed PPB (DPPB). IPPB was defined as blood oozing (≥1 minute) or active spurting occurring immediately after polyp resection. DPPB was defined as rectal bleeding, occurring after completion of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In total, 238 polyps from 204 patients were randomized into the clip arm (119 polyps) or the control arm (119 polyps). Overall bleeding adverse events were observed in 20 cases (IPPB, 16; DPPB, 4). The rate of overall PPB, IPPB, and DPPB was 8.4%, 6.7%, and 1.7%, respectively, for all polyps. The rate of overall PPB (clip 4.2% vs control 12.6%, P = .033) and IPPB (clip 2.5% vs control 10.9%, P = .017) was significantly lower in the clip arm than the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping before resecting large pedunculated polyps can reduce overall PPB and IPPB compared with no prior treatment. Therefore, prophylactic clipping may be considered before resection of large pedunculated polyps. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02156193.).

Polypectomy During Both Insertion and Withdrawal Phase Versus During Withdrawal Phase Only: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: This study aimed to compare polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase versus during withdrawal phase only. Method: We performed literature searching in PubMed and Ovid for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase versus during withdrawal phase only on April 3, 2020. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: Five RCTs published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2694 individuals were included in this meta-analysis. No significant difference was observed between the two groups for ADR (P = .99, odds ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.19, I² = 0%), or average number of adenomas per individuals (P = .53, weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.17, I² = 30%). Besides, polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal group showed significantly longer time for insertion phase (P = .01, WMD = 2.16, 95% CI 0.47-3.84, I² = 95%), and shorter time for withdrawal phase (P = .010, WMD = -2.32, 95% CI -4.09 to -0.56, I² = 94%), although the total procedure time was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: No obvious advantages were observed for polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal phase. We are looking forward to the long-term outcomes of these studies. More studies are warranted in the future for further exploration, especially the detection rate of small lesions.

Inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal of colonoscopy?: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current evidence supporting additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion of colonoscopy is limited. We plan to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the yield of inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials evaluating inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, from database inception to 31 May 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are adenoma detection rate. Secondary outcomes include polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per patient, polyp miss rate, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, procedure duration, cecal intubation rate, procedure difficulty, patient discomfort, sedation dose, and adverse events. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 statistical software. Data will be combined with random effect model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and weighted/standard mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualized using funnel plots.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY202050051.