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

Adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: how can it be improved?

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of widespread colonoscopy screening programs has helped in decreasing the incidence of Colorectal Cancer (CRC). However, 'back-to-back' colonoscopies revealed relevant percentage of missed adenomas. Quality indicators were created to further homogenize detection performances and decrease the incidence of post-colonoscopy CRC. Among them, the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR), defined as the percentage obtained by dividing the number of endoscopic procedures in which at least one adenoma was resected, by the total number of procedures, was found to be inversely associated with the risks of interval colorectal cancer, advanced-stage interval cancer, and fatal interval cancer.

AREAS COVERED

In this paper, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature focusing on promising new devices and technologies, which are meant to positively affect the endoscopist performance in detecting adenomas, therefore increasing ADR.

EXPERT OPINION

Considering the current knowledge, although several devices and technologies have been proposed with this intent, the recent implementation of AI ranked over all of the other strategies and it is likely to become the new standard within few years. However, the combination of different device/technologies need to be investigated in the future aiming at even further increasing of endoscopist detection performances.

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.

Adding Low-Dose Propofol to Limit Anxiety during Target-Controlled Infusion of Remifentanil for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Respiratory Issues and Safety Recommendations

Backgroundand Objectives: Remifentanil-based sedation is one of many protocols proposed for endoscopy procedures in spontaneous ventilation, alone or in combination with propofol. However, the effect of these small doses of propofol on the efficacy and safety of remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) deserves to be examined in this context. The objective of this study was to assess the adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects of small boluses of propofol combined with remifentanil, in comparison with remifentanil alone, and balanced with the quality of sedation and recovery. Materials andMethods: This was an observational bicenter study, representing a subgroup of a larger study describing remifentanil-based procedural sedation. In center 1, patients scheduled for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy had remifentanil TCI alone. In center 2, patients had a 10 mg propofol bolus before TCI and other boluses were allowed during the procedure. Remifentanil TCI was started at a target of 2 ng/mL then adapted by 0.5 ng/mL steps according to patient response to endoscopy stimulations. Results: Center 1 included 29 patients, while center 2 included 60 patients. No difference was found in the patients’ characteristics, incidence of success, average remifentanil consumption, or cardiovascular variables. Light sedation was achieved when propofol was added. The incidence of respiratory events, such as bradypnea, desaturation < 90%, and apnea requiring rescue maneuvers, were significantly higher with propofol. Conclusions: Adding propofol boluses to a remifentanil TCI for GI endoscopy ensures light sedation that may be necessary for anxiolysis but increases respiratory events, even after administration of small-dose boluses. Its safety is acceptable if the procedure is performed in an equipped environment with sedation providers trained to manage respiratory events and drugs titrated to minimal doses.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

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.

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.

The Impact of Sedation on Adenoma Detection Rate and Cecal Intubation Rate in Colonoscopy

Purpose

To explore the effect of sedation on the quality of colonoscopy.

Methods

The data collected from the Digestive Endoscopy Center of Shanghai Tongji Hospital from March 2012 to June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The rate of sedation and quality metrics of colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR) were calculated. The logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between sedation and quality metrics of colonoscopy. The interaction effects between experience of endoscopists and sedation on quality of colonoscopy was also investigated in subgroups stratified by total number of colonoscopies during career using the logistic regression model.

Results

A total of 63,417 colonoscopies including 11,417 colonoscopies without sedation and 52,000 colonoscopies with sedation were enrolled in our study. The proportion of colonoscopy with sedation was 82.0%. The ADR and CIR were all significantly higher in cases with sedation compared with cases without sedation (ADR, 22.5% vs. 17.0%, p < 0.001; CIR, 94.7% vs. 91.2%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the sedation was an independent factor associated with adenoma detection (OR = 1.448, 95% CI: 1.372~1.529, p < 0.001) and cecal intubation (OR = 1.560, 95% CI: 1.446~1.683, p < 0.001). A total of 14 endoscopists with complete colonoscopy data in our database and corresponding 20,949 colonoscopies data were enrolled for further analysis. The logistic regression model yielded a similar result that sedation was an independent factor on adenoma detection and cecal intubation when the factor, experience of endoscopists, was also entered into the model as a confounder (adenoma detection, OR = 1.408, 95% CI: 1.333~1.487, p < 0.001; cecal intubation, OR = 1.601, 95% CI: 1.482-1.729, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Colonoscopy with sedation has a positive effect on ADR and CIR in all endoscopists with different experience of colonoscopy, which makes the quality of colonoscopy better.

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.

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.