Anesthesia Assistance in Screening Colonoscopy and Adenoma Detection Rate Among Trainees

Impact of an artificial intelligence-aided endoscopic diagnosis system on improving endoscopy quality for trainees in colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to evaluate whether the use of CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) for colonoscopy improves colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.

METHODS

The patients in this multicenter randomized controlled trial were divided into Group A (observation using CAD EYE) and Group B (standard observation). Six trainees performed colonoscopies using a back-to-back method in pairs with gastroenterology experts. The primary end-point was the trainees' adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the secondary end-points were the trainees' adenoma miss rate (AMR) and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool scores. Each trainee's learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 231 patients (Group A, n = 113; Group B, n = 118). The ADR was not significantly different between the two groups. Group A had a significantly lower AMR (25.6% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.033) and number of missed adenomas per patient (0.5 vs. 0.9, P = 0.004) than Group B. Group A also had significantly higher ACE tool scores for pathology identification (2.26 vs. 2.07, P = 0.030) and interpretation and identification of pathology location (2.18 vs. 2.00, P = 0.038). For the CUSUM learning curve, Group A showed a trend toward a lower number of cases of missed multiple adenomas by the six trainees.

CONCLUSION

CAD EYE did not improve ADR but decreased the AMR and improved the ability to accurately locate and identify colorectal adenomas. CAD EYE can be assumed to be beneficial for improving colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044031).

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 .

Sedation Is Associated with Higher Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rates during Colonoscopy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Aims

Currently sedation is a common practice in colonoscopy to reduce pain of patients and improve the operator satisfaction, whereas its impact on examination quality, especially adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still controversial. Thus, we aimed to investigate the association of sedation with ADR.

Methods

Consecutive patients receiving colonoscopy between January 2017 and January 2020 at the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China, were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were performed to investigate the association between sedation and ADR. Subgroup analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, as sensitivity analysis, were performed to validate the independent effect.

Results

The ADR was significantly higher in cases with sedation (ADR: 36.9% vs. 29.1%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-1.55, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the sedation was an independent factor associated with ADR (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.35-1.65, P < 0.001). The effect was consistent in subgroup analyses (P > 0.05) and PSM analysis (ADR: 37.6% vs. 29.1%, OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33-1.63, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Sedation was associated with a higher polyp and ADR s during colonoscopy, which can promote the quality of colonoscopy.

Effect of anesthesia assistance on the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early esophageal squamous cell cancer in esophagogastroduodenoscopy screening: A retrospective study based on propensity score matching

Background

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening is vital for the early diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC). However, improvement in the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC with anesthesia assistance (AA) has not yet been investigated. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effect of AA on the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC in patients undergoing EGD screening and identify risk factors affecting the detection rate.

Methods

We reviewed patients' electronic medical records who underwent EGD screening between May 2019 and August 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received AA: those in Group A underwent EGD screening with AA, and patients in Group O underwent EGD screening without AA. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Detection rates of precancerous lesions and early ESCC were compared between the two groups following PSM. Binary logistic regression was used to identify risk factors affecting the detection rate.

Results

The final analysis included 21,835 patients (Group A = 13,319, Group O = 8,516) from 28,985 patients who underwent EGD screening during the study period. Following PSM, 6009 patients remained in each group for analysis. There was no significant difference in the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC between Groups A and O (1.1% vs. 0.8%, p > 0.05). Binary logistic regression showed that age (50-59 years, 60-69 years and 70-79 years), higher endoscopist seniority, high-definition (HD) endoscopy, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and number of endoscopic images were all independent risk factors that affected the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC.

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant difference in the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC between patients who underwent EGD screening with and without AA. All independent risk factors that affected the detection rate of precancerous lesions and early ESCC included the following: age (50-59 years, 60-69 years and 70-79 years), higher endoscopist seniority, HD endoscopy, NBI, and number of endoscopic images. Endoscopists should consider all these factors as much as possible when performing EGD screening.

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.

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.

Real-time, computer-aided, detection-assisted colonoscopy eliminates differences in adenoma detection rate between trainee and experienced endoscopists

Background and study aims  Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-accepted quality indicator of screening colonoscopy. In recent years, the added value of artificial intelligence (AI) has been demonstrated in terms of ADR and adenoma miss rate (AMR). To date, there are no studies evaluating the impact of AI on the performance of trainee endoscopists (TEs). This study aimed to assess whether AI might eliminate any difference in ADR or AMR between TEs and experienced endoscopists (EEs). Patients and methods  We performed a prospective observational study in 45 subjects referred for screening colonoscopy. A same-day tandem examination was carried out for each patient by a TE with the AI assistance and subsequently by an EE unaware of the lesions detected by the TE. Besides ADR and AMR, we also calculated for each subgroup of endoscopists the adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), polyp detection rate (PDR), polyp per colonoscopy (PPC) and polyp miss rate (PMR). Subgroup analyses according to size, morphology, and site were also performed. Results  ADR, APC, PDR, and PPC of AI-supported TEs were 38 %, 0.93, 62 %, 1.93, respectively. The corresponding parameters for EEs were 40 %, 1.07, 58 %, 2.22. No significant difference was found for each analysis between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). AMR and PMR for AI-assisted TEs were 12.5 % and 13 %, respectively. Sub-analyses did not show any significant difference ( P  > 0.05) between the two categories of operators. Conclusions  In this single-center prospective study, the possible impact of AI on endoscopist quality training was demonstrated. In the future, this could result in better efficacy of screening colonoscopy by reducing the incidence of interval or missed cancers.

Thoughts on factors related to colonoscopy quality

With the increase in health consciousness and the prevalence of early gastrointestinal cancer screening, the number of diagnosed cases of colorectal polyps and adenomas in the Chinese general population has substantially increased. However, the overall adenoma detection rate (ADR) in China remains lower than the global standard of 30%. High quality colonoscopy is pivotal for increasing the ADR and reducing the risk of interval colon cancer. A few factors are related to the quality of colonoscopy, including preoperative evaluation of examinees, bowel preparation, techniques for intubation, use of image enhancement endoscopy, withdraw time, and prevention of adverse events.

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.