Water exchange vs. water immersion during colonoscope insertion

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.

Effectiveness and safety of underwater techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comprehensive review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), represent the standard of care for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal lesions. In 2012 a novel technique called underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) was described by Binmoeller and colleagues. This substantial variation from the standard procedure was afterwards applied at endoscopic submucosal dissection (U-ESD) and recently proposed also for peroral endoscopic myotomy (U-POEM) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (U-EFTR).

METHODS

This paper aims to perform a comprehensive review of the current literature related to supporting the underwater resection techniques with the aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Based on the current literature U-EMR appears to be feasible and safe. Comparison studies showed that U-EMR is associated with higher "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for colonic lesions, but lower "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for duodenal non-ampullary lesions, compared to standard EMR. In contrast to U-EMR, little evidence supporting U-ESD are currently available. A single comparison study on gastric lesions showed that U-ESD had shorter procedural times and allowed a similar "en-bloc" resection rates compared to standard ESD. No comparison studies between U-ESD and ESD are available for colonic lesions. Finally, only some anecdotal experiences have been reported for U-POEM or U-EFTR, and the feasibility and effectiveness of these techniques need to be further investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Further prospective studies are necessary to better explore the advantages of underwater techniques compared to the respective standards of care, especially in the setting of U-ESD where consistent data are lacking and where standardization of the technique is needed.

The WASh Trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Programme: study protocol for a randomized multicenter trial

Background and study aims  The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants' comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods  This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO 2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO 2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO 2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion  This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020. Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

Reduction of multitasking distractions underlies the higher adenoma detection rate of water exchange compared to air insufflation - blinded analysis of withdrawal phase videos

BACKGROUND

Experts have hypothesized that a reduction of multitasking distractions and improved bowel cleanliness can explain why insertion water exchange enhances adenoma detection rate.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test the role of both distractions during withdrawal and bowel cleanliness in enhancing adenoma detection rate using coded video records of colonoscopy.

METHODS

The withdrawal phase of videos of 299 consecutive colonoscopies from two randomized controlled trials comparing water exchange versus air insufflation at a regional hospital in Taiwan were coded. The primary outcome was distractions; activities that preclude full attention being paid to inspection of the mucosa for polyps. A single blinded reviewer collected the data.

RESULTS

There were significant agreements in inter-rater reliability indexes. Compared to air insufflation, water exchange had significantly fewer distractions; higher diagnostic yield (intervention time and number), adenoma detection rate, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score. Water exchange had a higher withdrawal technique score (predominantly adequacy of cleaning). The association between increased adenoma detection rate and water exchange was mediated by the number of distractions and withdrawal time, but not the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score.

CONCLUSION

The speculation by experts that a reduction of multitasking distractions underlies the significantly higher adenoma detection rate of water exchange is supported by the current study. Increased bowel cleanliness did not contribute to the increased adenoma detection rate by use of water exchange.

Comparing adenoma and polyp miss rates for total underwater colonoscopy versus standard CO2: a randomized controlled trial using a tandem colonoscopy approach

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although water exchange may improve adenoma detection compared with CO₂, it is unclear whether water is a better medium to fill the lumen during withdrawal and visualize the mucosa. Total underwater colonoscopy (TUC) involves the use of water exchange with the air valve off during insertion followed by the inspection of the mucosa under water. Our goal was to compare miss rates for TUC with standard CO₂ for polyps and adenomas using a tandem colonoscopy design.

METHODS

We randomized participants to undergo tandem colonoscopies using TUC or CO₂ first. In TUC, water exchange was performed during insertion, and withdrawal was performed under water. For the CO₂ colonoscopy, both insertion and withdrawal were performed with CO₂. The main outcomes were miss rates for polyps and adenomas for the first examination calculated as the number of additional polyps/adenomas detected during the second examination divided by the total number of polyps/adenomas detected for both examinations. Inspection times were calculated by subtracting the time for polypectomy, and care was taken to keep the times equal for both examinations.

RESULTS

A total of 121 participants were randomized with 61 having CO₂ first. The overall miss rate for polyps was higher for the TUC-first group (81/237; 34%) compared with the CO₂-first cohort (57/264; 22%) (P = .002). In addition, the overall miss rate for all adenomas was higher for the TUC-first group (52/146; 36%) compared with the CO₂ group (37/159; 23%) (P = .025). However, 1 of the 3 endoscopists had higher polyp/adenoma miss rates for CO₂, but these were not statistically significant differences. The insertion time was longer for TUC than for CO₂. After adjusting for times, participant characteristics, and bowel preparation, the miss rate for polyps was higher for TUC than for CO₂.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that TUC had an overall higher polyp and adenoma miss rate than colonoscopy performed with CO₂, and TUC took longer to perform. However, TUC may benefit some endoscopists, an issue that requires further study. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03231917.).

Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on endoscopy room efficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Separate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed water exchange (WE) colonoscopy outperformed other techniques in minimizing insertion pain and optimizing adenoma detection rate. Longer insertion time required for removal of infused water, residual air, and feces might have hampered its wider adoption. We evaluate the impact of WE compared with air or carbon dioxide insufflation (GAS) on room turnaround efficiency measured by cecal intubation, withdrawal, and total procedure times.

METHODS

With a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, we identified RCTs (published before March 18, 2018) that compared WE with GAS. We focused on parameters of turnaround efficiency and patient-centered outcomes.

RESULTS

We analyzed 8371 subjects from 17 studies. Demographics and indications were comparable. Mean cecal intubation time (± standard deviation) was WE 12.5 ± 6.1 minutes versus GAS 11.1 ± 7.0 minutes, with a mean difference of 1.4 ± 3.4 minutes. Six studies showed significant differences in insertion time, with mean cecal intubation times of 11.6 ± 5.1 minutes for WE versus 7.7 ± 5.2 minutes for GAS, with a mean difference of 3.9 ± 1.1 minutes. Mean withdrawal time was similar. Mean total procedure time was WE 26.0 ± 9.7 versus GAS 24.2 ± 9.6, with a mean difference of 1.8 ± 6.2 minutes. All mean procedure times were significantly different. Patient-centered outcomes revealed that patients examined with WE had significantly lower real-time insertion pain score, less need for sedation, and higher willingness to repeat the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on parameters of procedural time, the impact of WE colonoscopy on endoscopy room turnaround yields an increase in total procedure time of about 2 minutes and is associated with significant improvement in specific patient-centered outcomes.

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 for colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/Aims

Recently, water exchange (WE) instead of water immersion (WI) for colonoscopy has been proposed to decrease pain and improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to assess whether WE is superior to WI based on the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Materials and Methods

We searched studies from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Only RCTs were eligible for our study. The pooled risk ratios (RRs), pooled mean difference (MD), and pooled 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model based on heterogeneity.

Results

Five RCTs consisting of 2229 colonoscopies were included in this study. WE was associated with a significantly higher ADR than WI (RR = 1.18; CI = 1.05-1.32; P = 0.004), especially in right colon (RR = 1.31; CI = 1.07-1.61; P = 0.01). Compared with WI, WE was confirmed with lower pain score, higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, but more infused water during insertion. There was no statistical difference between WE and WI in cecal intubation rate and the number of patients who had willingness to repeat the examination. Furthermore, both total procedure time and cecal intubation time in WE were significantly longer than that in WI (MD = 2.66; CI = 1.42-3.90; P < 0.0001; vs MD = 4.58; CI = 4.01-5.15; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in improving ADR, attenuating insertion pain and providing better bowel cleansing, but inferior in time and consumption of infused water consumption during insertion.

Increase your adenoma detection rate without using fancy adjunct tools

The correlation between a low adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval cancers (ICs) has made ADR one of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy. Data from nation-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs showed that there is room for improvement in ADR in order to reduce ICs in Taiwan. Measures with and without adjunct tools have been shown to have the potential to increase ADR, with the latter being more convenient to apply without additional cost. Optimal withdrawal techniques coupled with sufficient withdrawal time, training endoscopists with emphasis on recognition of subtle characteristics of flat lesions, dynamic position changes during the withdrawal phase, removing small polyps found during insertion, and retroflexion in the right colon have all been associated with increased ADR. In particular, water exchange (WE), which is characterized using water in lieu of air and suction removal of infused water during insertion, appears to meet the needs of colonoscopy patients in Taiwan. Analyses of both primary and secondary outcome variables of recently published studies have consistently shown that WE yields higher ADR than traditional air insufflation, even in propofol-sedated patients. Colonoscopists participating in the nationwide CRC screening program in Taiwan should consider applying one or more of the above measures to improve ADR and hopefully reduce ICs.

Recent advances in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is an important and frequently performed procedure. It is effective in the prevention of colorectal cancer and is an important test in the investigation of many gastrointestinal symptoms. This review focuses on developments over the last 5 years that have led to changes in aspects of colonoscopy, including patient preparation, technical factors, therapeutic procedures, safety, and quality.

Water-aided colonoscopy

The successful intubation of the cecum during screening or surveillance colonoscopy is vital to ensure complete mucosal inspection of the colon on withdrawal. Even when performed by an experienced endoscopist, colonoscope insertion can sometimes be challenging. Water-aided colonoscopy can be used to assist the endoscopist in navigating colons with anatomies that may be challenging owing to severe angulation or redundancy. Water-assisted colonoscopy involves the infusion of water without air and subsequent suctioning during insertion (exchange) or withdrawal (immersion or infusion). This review discusses the technique, effectiveness, safety of water-assisted colonoscopy as well as the application in sedationless endscopy.

Can I improve my adenoma detection rate?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has emerged as a key quality metric for colonoscopy. Despite limitations, its major strength is based on its proven correlation with interval colorectal cancer. This has prompted extensive efforts to identify factors and interventions that improve ADR. Potentially modifiable factors that may influence ADR can be patient related (eg, bowel preparation), endoscopist related (eg, withdrawal time, quality of mucosal inspection, additional observers), or procedure related (eg, water infusion, additional examination of right colon, change in position, antispasmodics, colonoscopic equipment, and accessories). Providing endoscopists with educational material and/or feedback also seems to improve ADR.