Effect of Dynamic Position Changes on Adenoma Detection During Colonoscope Withdrawal: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

Lower adenoma detection rate in anesthesia assisted colonoscopy: a retrospective study

Objectives

As anesthesia assisted (AA) colonoscopy becomes increasingly popular, there has been concern about its impact on the quality of colonoscopy examinations. We aimed to clarify the impact of anesthesia assistance on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and non-adenomatous polyp detection rate (PDR) of colonoscopy.

Methods

We collected data from patients undergoing colonoscopy throughout the year 2023 at our institution, with a total of 16,465 cases identified for potential analysis. After using propensity score matching (PSM) to minimize the influence of other variables on the study outcomes, there were 6,094 cases remaining for analysis in both the AA group and non-AA group, respectively. Then, we compared the ADR and PDR between the two groups and analyzed the colon location and size of adenomas or polyps found in different groups.

Results

The ADR in the non-AA group (36.94%) was significantly higher than that in the AA group (26.40%) (p<0.0001), while there was no statistically significant difference in the PDR between the two groups. AA could also affect the probability of discovering adenomas or polyps in some colon segments, but had no significant effect on the size of the discovered adenomas or polyps. In addition, there were more significant advantages of ADR in the non-AA group among the more experienced endoscopists' cohort.

Conclusions

Non-AA colonoscopy had a higher ADR, suggesting that while AA may potentially reduce patient stress responses to some extent, it confers few benefits in terms of adenoma detection.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=232248.

Association Between Longer Cecal Intubation Time and Detection and Miss Rate of Colorectal Neoplasms

Background/Aims: A longer cecal intubation time (CIT) occurs during colonoscopy under difficult insertion conditions, which may hinder meticulous mucosal observation. However, whether a longer CIT has detrimental effects on the detection of adenomas remains unclear. We evaluated the effects of CIT on the detection and miss rates of colorectal neoplasms in asymptomatic participants. Methods: Healthy examinees who underwent colonoscopy between March and July 2011, August 2015, and December 2016 were retrospectively enrolled. The primary outcome was the adenoma detection rate (ADR) across CIT quartiles, while the secondary outcomes included the mean number of adenomas, advanced ADR (AADR), clinically significant serrated lesion (CSSP) detection, adenoma miss rate (AMR), miss rate of CSSPs and any colorectal neoplasms, and the mean number of missed colorectal neoplasms in relation to CIT. Results: Overall, 12,402 participants were classified into quartiles according to the CIT. The longer the CIT, the lower the ADR (p < 0.001), AADR (p = 0.004), and mean number of adenomas (p < 0.001). The CSSP detection rate was not associated with CIT. On follow-up colonoscopy, AMR showed marginal increase with longer CIT (p = 0.065). The missed rates of CSSPs (p = 0.002) and colorectal neoplasms (p = 0.001) also increased with longer CIT. In the multivariate analysis, CIT was significantly associated with ADR, AADR, and AMR. Conclusions: Longer CIT was associated with lower ADR and higher AMR. Meticulous inspection is important for high-quality colonoscopy, particularly in patients requiring a longer CIT.

Unsedated or On-Demand Minimally Sedated Water-Aided Outpatient Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: A Step Forward or Backward? Experience from Daily Practice in a Regional (Nonacademic) Hospital

Background: By using optimal insertion techniques with water infusion and dynamic position changes, pain during colonoscopy is greatly reduced and the procedures can usually be performed without sedation. We investigated whether the excellent results with water-aided colonoscopy reported by experts are reproducible in daily practice in a regional hospital. Methods: During the year 2023, 500 consecutive outpatients 50-75 years old presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance could choose between unsedated or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy, moderate sedation with midazolam, or deep sedation with propofol. A total of 57% opted for unsedated colonoscopy, and of those patients, 250 consecutive patients were included. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the procedure. Cecal intubation rate (CIR), pain scores, use of midazolam, and willingness to repeat future procedures in the same way were registered periprocedural. Additional outcomes were cecal intubation time (CIT), detection rate of lesions, polyp resection rate, rate of adequate bowel preparation, and volume of water aspirated during insertion. Results: 250 consecutive sedation-free or on-demand minimally sedated water-based colonoscopies were analyzed. The CIR was 98%. A total of 96.5% completed without sedation and 5% of the procedures were perceived as moderately painful, but none had severe pain. The willingness to repeat was 97%. The mean CIT was 8.2 min. Conclusions: Using water-aided insertion techniques, comfortable sedation-free, or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy in daily practice in a regional hospital is feasible in the vast majority of patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, and the willingness to repeat is very high.

Efficacy of colonoscopic re-examination across the entire colon: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In standard colonoscopic examinations, some polyps may be missed during the withdrawal phase. Re-examination of the right colon can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the effectiveness of applying this re-examination strategy to the entire colon remains unknown. We investigated whether re-examination could increase the detection rate of polyps and adenomas throughout the colon.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled, single-center trial (NCT03268200) was conducted in a university hospital. Patients aged 45-75 years were randomly assigned to either the study or control group. For patients in the control group, observation and polypectomy were performed once using the standard colonoscopy method. For patients in the study group, polypectomy was repeated twice during the withdrawal phase after the initial insertion of the colonoscope. These examinations were performed in the right transverse and left colons. The primary endpoints were the polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR, defined as the proportion of patients with ≥ 1 polyp and ≥ 1 adenoma, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, 406 patients were enrolled (study group, n = 210; control group, n = 196) and analyzed. Generally, PDRs and ADRs were similar between the study (withdrawal 1 + 2) and control groups (withdrawal 1), except for the right colon. However, the second withdrawal review increased number of polyps and adenomas in the overall, right, mid, and left colon, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of this trial indicated that re-examination of the entire colon during colonoscopy could be beneficial for detecting concealed polyps in patients at risk of interval cancer.

An estimation of the endoscopist's musculoskeletal injury risk for right and left lateral decubitus positions during colonoscopy: a field-based ergonomic study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy exposes endoscopists to awkward postures and prolonged forces, which increases their risk of musculoskeletal injury. Patient positioning has a significant impact on the ergonomics of colonoscopy. Recent trials have found the right lateral decubitus position is associated with quicker insertion, higher adenoma detection rates, and greater patient comfort compared to the left lateral decubitus position. However, this patient position is perceived as more strenuous by endoscopists.

METHODS

Nineteen endoscopists were observed performing colonoscopies during a series of four-hour endoscopy clinics. Durations of each patient position (right lateral decubitus, left lateral decubitus, prone, and supine) were recorded for all observed procedures (n = 64). Endoscopist injury risk was estimated by a trained researcher for the first and last colonoscopies of the shifts (n = 34) using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), an observational ergonomic tool that estimates risk of musculoskeletal injury by scoring postures of the upper body and factors such as muscle use, force, and load. The total RULA scores were compared with a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test for patient position (right and left lateral decubitus) and time (first and last procedures) with significance taken at p < 0.05. Endoscopist preferences were also surveyed.

RESULTS

The right lateral decubitus position was associated with significantly higher RULA scores than the left lateral decubitus position (median 5 vs. 3, p < 0.001). RULA scores were not significantly different between the first and last procedures of the shifts (median 5 vs. 5, p = 0.816). 89% of endoscopists preferred the left lateral decubitus position, primarily due to superior ergonomics and comfort.

CONCLUSION

RULA scores indicate an increased risk of musculoskeletal injury in both patient positions, with greater risk in the right lateral decubitus position.

Improving polyp detection at colonoscopy: Non-technological techniques

Colonoscopy and polypectomy remain the gold standard investigation for the detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Halting the progression of colonic adenoma through adequate detection of pre-cancerous lesions interrupts the progression to carcinoma. The adenoma detection rate is a key performance indicator. Increasing adenoma detection rates are associated with reducing rates of interval colorectal cancer. Endoscopists with high baseline adenoma detection rate have a meticulous technique during colonoscopy withdrawal that improves their adenoma detection. This minireview article summarizes the evidence on the following simple operator techniques and their effects on the adenoma detection rate; minimum withdrawal times, dynamic patient position change and proximal colon retroflexion.

Comparison of missed adenomas in deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Deep-sedated colonoscopy with propofol is widely used in China. However, its impact on quality metrics remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the effects of deep-sedated colonoscopy on missed adenomas, specifically in each colorectal segment.

METHODS

Data of 3710 individuals from seven hospitals in China who underwent an initial colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation and a second colonoscopy without sedation within six months for surveillance or polypectomy by endoscopist of the same level between October 2020 and September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1113 missed adenomas in 3710 patients were evaluated. The adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscop [19.14% (578/3020) vs. 16.15% (535/3313), P < 0.05]. The risk of missing adenomas in deep-sedated colonoscopy was 1.229 times higher than in unsedated colonoscopy (OR, 1.229; 95% CI: 1.080-1.399). AMRs of the splenic flexure (26.02% [96/369] vs. 16.04% [47/293], P < 0.05) and descending colon (20.86% [102/489] vs. 13.37% [54/404], P < 0.05) were significantly higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy when performed by middle-level endoscopists rather than high-level endoscopists (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

AMR was higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy. Furthermore, adenomas in the splenic flexure and descending colon were more frequently missed in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy, particularly when performed by less experienced endoscopists.

Study on the effectiveness of modified colonoscopy nursing pads in colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of modified colonoscopy nursing pads in colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 262 subjects who underwent colonoscopy at our endoscopy center between September 1, 2021 and February 28, 2022 were selected and randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group, with 131 cases in each group. The control group used conventional nursing pads, while the experimental group used modified nursing pads. The success rate of the first correct position, the time spent by the nurse to guide the correct position, the bed unit contamination rate, the contamination rate of the operator's protective equipment, the privacy protection of the examinees and the satisfaction degree after the examination were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The success rate of the first correct position of the examinees in the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the time spent by the nurses to guide the correct position in the experimental group was less than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The bed unit contamination rate and operator's protective equipment contamination rate of the experimental group were lower than those of the control group, and the satisfaction degree of the examinees was higher in the experimental group than in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The modified colonoscopy nursing pad can save the time of correct colonoscopy positioning of examinees, improve the efficiency of colonoscopy, reduce the workload of nursing staff, effectively protect the privacy of patients, reduce the bed unit contamination and protective equipment contamination, and then improve the comfort and satisfaction of patients.

Interventions to improve the quality of screening-related colonoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy quality can vary depending on endoscopist-related factors. Quality indicators, such as adenoma detection rate (ADR), have been adopted to reduce variations in care. Several interventions aim to improve ADR, but these fall into several domains that have traditionally been difficult to compare. We will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacies of interventions to improve colonoscopy quality and report our findings according to clinically relevant interventional domains.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Evidence-Based Medicine from inception to September 2022. Four reviewers will screen for eligibility and abstract data in parallel, with two accordant entries establishing agreement and with any discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be ADR. Two authors will independently conduct risk of bias assessments. The analyses of the network will be conducted under a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte-Carlo simulation, with 10 000 burn-ins and 100 000 iterations. We will calculate the ORs and corresponding 95% credible intervals of network estimates with a consistency model. We will report the impact of specific interventions within each domain against standard colonoscopy. We will perform a Bayesian random-effects pairwise meta-analysis to assess heterogeneity based on the I2 statistic. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for network meta-analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our study does not require research ethics approval given the lack of patient-specific data being collected. The results will be disseminated at national and international gastroenterology conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021291814.

Comparison of adenoma detection in different colorectal segments between deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy

To investigate if deep-sedated colonoscopy affects adenoma detection in certain colorectal segment. Review of colonoscopy reports, electronic images and medical records of individuals underwent screening colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation between October 2020 and March 2021 from seven hospitals in China. A total of 4500 individuals were analyzed. There was no significant difference in ADR between deep-sedated colonoscopy and unsedated colonoscopy [45.4% vs. 46.3%, P > 0.05]. The APP of deep-sedated colonoscopy was lower than unsedated colonoscopy (1.76 ± 0.81 vs. 2.00 ± 1.30, P < 0.05). Both average number of adenomas and luminal distention score of splenic flexure and descending colon were lower in deep-sedated colonoscopy (P < 0.05), and average number of adenomas was positively correlated with an improved distension score in splenic flexure and descending colon (splenic flexure r = 0.031, P < 0.05; descending colon r = 0.312, P < 0.05). Linear regression model showed deep-sedated colonoscopy significantly affected luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon as well as average number of adenomas detected in splenic flexure (P < 0.05). Deep-sedated colonoscopy decreased adenoma detection in splenic flexure and the luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon compared with unsedated colonoscopy.

Optimizing cecal views during colonoscopy using patient position change

BACKGROUND

Patient positioning has been found to be a simple technique to improve luminal distention and visualization during colonoscopy. This study examined which position provided the cleanest image of the cecum using the Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS) and the best view of the cecum overall as ranked by blinded assessors.

METHODS

A sample of 90 sets of cecal images were obtained from patients undergoing a non-urgent colonoscopy. Each set included cecal images of patients while lying in three positions-right lateral decubitus, left lateral decubitus, and supine. Two authors reviewed these sets of images and excluded those that were unclear. A third author, blinded to the position, selected the final 33 sets of images. Two experienced endoscopists completed a blinded survey of each image set. They used the BBPS to assess and score each image as the primary outcome measure. The endoscopists also ranked each image set in terms of the best overall view of the cecum. Data were collected using Qualtrics software. Nonparametric tests were used to analyze the data using SPSS software (v.25). A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The BBPS showed a significant difference between patient positions when tested by Kruskal-Wallis. Subsequent Mann Whitney U tests indicated that the right lateral decubitus position was ranked higher than left lateral decubitus or supine positions. There was no significant difference in the left and supine positions. Cohen's Kappa suggested moderate agreement between raters. The raters also favored the right lateral position over the other positions when assessing overall image preference displaying the cecum.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that positioning patients in the right lateral decubitus position provides the best view of the cecum during colonoscopy.

Comparison of three sedation models for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We investigated the most beneficial propofol sedation model for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy (BDE).

METHODS

Asymptomatic participants scheduled for same-day painless BDE examination from October 2020 to September 2021 were randomized to three groups: sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy (Group A); sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated colonoscopy (Group B); and sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated insertion colonoscopy (Group C). Patient discomfort, colonoscopy performance, doses of propofol, cardiovascular stress, anesthesia resuscitation, and sedation-related adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 3200 participants were analyzed. Baseline demographics, patient discomfort, cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and sedation-related adverse events were similar in the three groups. Propofol dose was the lowest in Group A (137.65 ± 36.865 mg) compared with Group B (177.71 ± 40.112 mg, P < 0.05) and Group C (161.63 ± 31.789 mg, P < 0.05). Decline in vital signs was most obvious in Group B during the procedure (P < 0.05). Recovery time was the shortest in Group A (5.01 ± 1.404 min) compared with Group B (9.51 ± 2.870 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (5.83 ± 2.594 min, P < 0.05); discharge time was the shortest in Group A (3.53 ± 1.685 min) compared with Group B (11.29 ± 5.172 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (6.47 ± 2.338 min, P < 0.05). Adenomas per positive patient of Group A (2.29 ± 1.055) and Group C (2.28 ± 0.931) were more than that in Group B (2.11 ± 0.946, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy is the superior model for same-day painless BDE with the benefits of satisfactory patient comfort, reduced sedation dose, less cardiovascular stress, faster recovery, shorter discharge time and high colonoscopy quality.

Using a dark logic model to explore adverse effects in audit and feedback: a qualitative study of gaming in colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study.

METHODS

We undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour.

RESULTS

Data saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years' experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages' motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient.

CONCLUSION

Our dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11126923.

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age.

METHODS

Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Endocuff Vision improves adenoma detection rate in a large screening-related cohort

Background and study aims  Endocuff Vision (ECV) increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) in randomized clinical trials; however, observational effectiveness data are lacking. We evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and practical aspects of ECV use in a large screening-related real-world cohort. Patients and methods  In this observational study, patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy from November 2018 to April 2019 comprised the baseline period, and those undergoing it from June to November 2019 comprised the ECV period, where ECV use was discretionary. The primary outcome was ADR, compared: 1) between ECV use and standard colonoscopy across both periods; and 2) between time periods. Secondary outcomes included indication-specific ADR, sessile serrated ADR (SSADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), procedure times, patient comfort scores, and sedation use. Multilevel logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results  In 15,814 colonoscopies across both time periods, ADR was 46.7 % with standard colonoscopy and 54.6 % when ECV was used ( P  < 0.001). Endoscopists used ECV in 77.6 % of procedures in the ECV period, during which overall ADR rose to 53.2 % compared to 46.3 % in the baseline period ( P  < 0.001). ECV use was significantly associated with higher ADR (AOR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.40) after adjusting for relevant covariates including time period. ECV use did not result in lower CIR, longer procedure time, increased sedation use, or poorer comfort scores. Conclusions  ECV use is associated with improved ADR without negatively impacting other key procedure and patient-related factors. Future studies should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating ECV into routine screening-related practice.

Clinical practice standards for colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is considered as the most effective tool for preventing, screening, and diagnosing colorectal lesions. Effectiveness of colonoscopy was identified as a major priority, and it strictly depends on quality measures. Therefore, international guidelines were formulated on quality indicators for colonoscopy, aiming to reduce the rate of interval cancers related to missed lesions during colonoscopy. Quality indicators are divided into 3 time periods: preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure.  The main pre-procedural indicators are the assessment of the appropriateness of indication of colonoscopy and the prescription of adequate bowel preparation during a consultation prior to colonoscopy. Per-procedural criteria include all technical aspects of the procedure, which are "endoscopist-dependent" factors, particularly cecal intubation, detection of adenomas and withdrawal time. The main post-procedure indicators are the rate of complications, patient experience and optimal surveillance intervals following removal of colorectal polyps. The implementation of key performance measures in endoscopy practice is increasingly important as it can help improving our care of patients and optimize outcomes. In this review, the "Club d'endoscopie digestive" (CED) presented a summary of the main colonoscopy quality indicators, and suggested recommendations that took into account the particularities of our local conditions.

Comparison of left versus right lateral starting position on colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Modifying patient position during colonoscopy has been proposed as a simple and inexpensive technique to increase luminal distention and improve navigation through the large bowel. The left lateral (LL) decubitus starting position is commonly used during colonoscopy. However, reports indicate that other starting positions may offer additional benefit. We aimed to determine if the right lateral (RL) starting position compared to the standard LL starting position could improve outcomes in colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE through June 2020 to identify studies comparing RL and LL starting positions during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes included mean cecal insertion time and cecal intubation rate, and adverse events were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR), mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 5 randomized controlled trials, including 809 participants, that compared LL vs. RL colonoscopy. The pooled OR for cecal intubation rate was 1.3 (95%CI 0.8-2.3; P=0.3). The mean difference in mean cecal insertion time was 0.08 (95%CI -0.09 to 0.26; P=0.4). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I 2=0%). No complications were reported in either arm of the study. Pain scores assessed using a visual analog scale were comparable among both arms of the study.

CONCLUSION

The RL starting position for colonoscopy was comparable to the LL and offered no additional benefit in terms of cecal intubation time, intubation rate, or patient discomfort.

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.).

Effect of dynamic position changes on adenoma detection rate during colonoscope withdrawal: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality metric of colonoscopy. Higher ADR correlates with lower incidence of interval colorectal cancer. ADR is variable between endoscopists and depends upon the withdrawal technique amongst other factors. Dynamic position change (lateral rotation of patients with a view to keep the portion of the colon being inspected at a higher level) helps with luminal distension during the withdrawal phase. However, impact of this on ADR is not known in a pooled sample. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the impact of dynamic position changes during withdrawal phase of colonoscopy on ADR Methods  A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database was conducted from each database's inception to search for studies comparing dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal with static left lateral position (control). The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Other studied outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR) and withdrawal time. Outcomes were reported as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) with statistical significance ( P  < 0.05). RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results  Six studies were included in our analysis with 2860 patients. Of these, dynamic position change was implemented in 1177 patients while 1183 patients served as the controls. ADR was significantly higher in the dynamic position change group with pooled OR 1.36 (95 % CI, 1.15-1.61; P  < 0.01). There was low heterogeneity in inclusion studies (I ²  = 0 %). PDR was numerically higher in position change group (53.4 % vs 49.6 %) but not statistically significant ( P  = 0.16). Mean withdrawal time did not significantly change with dynamic position change (12.43 min vs 11.46 min, P  = 0.27). Conclusion  Position change during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy can increase the ADR compared to static left lateral position. This is an easy and practical technique that can be implemented to improve ADR.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In standard colonoscopy, the colonoscope is inserted into the cecum, and inspection of the colonic mucosa and polypectomy are performed during withdrawal. The colon configuration can differ between the insertion and withdrawal phases, and some polyps found in the insertion phase can be missed during withdrawal. A few single-center studies investigated whether detection of polyps during the insertion phase affects the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the effectiveness of this strategy is unknown because of conflicting results. We aimed to determine whether polypectomy together with careful inspection during insertion increases the ADR compared with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

A randomized, controlled, multicenter trial was conducted at three university hospitals. Patients aged 50 to 80 years were randomly assigned to the study group or control group. For patients in the study group, polypectomy was performed together with careful inspection during both colonoscope insertion and withdrawal. In the control group, polyps were inspected and removed only during colonoscope withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the ADR, which was defined as the percentage of patients with ≥ 1 adenoma.

RESULTS

A total of 1142 patients were enrolled (study group, n = 571; control group, n = 571). The ADR was similar in the 2 groups (study group, 44.1%; control group, 43.1%; P = 0.72). In the control group, 12 polyps that had been detected during colonoscope insertion were not found during withdrawal (polyp miss rate: 2.1%, 12/571).

CONCLUSION

Polypectomy and careful inspection during both colonoscope insertion and withdrawal did not improve the overall ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (NCT01925833).

Multidirectional Colonoscopy Quality Improvement Increases Adenoma Detection Rate: Results of the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Colonoscopy Quality Upgrade Project (Gangnam-CUP)

BACKGROUND

To prevent colorectal cancer, high-quality colonoscopy is advocated, undertaken by endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Despite reports that various factors may impact ADRs, the significance of such factors is still unclear.

AIMS

The analysis was aimed at quality-oriented interventions for boosting ADRs.

METHODS

Study enrollees were adults subjected to screening colonoscopy between September 2013 and August 2016 at the Gangnam Center of Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System. The investigation entailed six periods (P1-6) of 6 months each, during which serial multidirectional quality improvement efforts were instituted. In particular, we sought to further educate endoscopists, provide feedback on individual ADRs, and introduce a split-dose regimen, gauging results via the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Changes in polyp detection rates (PDRs) and ADRs were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,430 colonoscopies were undertaken by 15 experienced endoscopists. Overall, the ADR increased from 45.6% (P1) to 48.2% (P6, p < 0.001). The PDR, ADR, and advanced adenoma detection rate (AdvADR) showed the greatest increases between P3 and P4 [PDR 67.8% → 71.2% (p < 0.001); ADR 44.1% → 47.7% (p = 0.001); AdvADR 2.3% → 3.3% (p = 0.028)] in keeping with the introduction of a split-dose regimen. The sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) increased substantially from 2.1% (P1) to 7.9% (P6, p < 0.001), with the largest gain between P1 and P2, just after education (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful quality improvement in colonoscopy was achieved through comprehensive multidirectional efforts in education, feedback, and enhanced bowel preparation. Achieving high-level bowel preparation was paramount in ADR improvement. The SSADR was improved through education.

Proximal retroflexion versus second forward view of the right colon during screening colonoscopy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the detection of colorectal cancer, but the right colon is more difficult to examine than the left colon. A second examination of the proximal colon has the potential to reduce rates of missed pathology.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether proximal retroflexion improves the adenoma detection rate or other outcomes in the right colon compared with the forward view.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre randomized controlled trial of patients from the colorectal cancer screening programme with a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomized to a second right colon examination using proximal retroflexion or forward view.

RESULTS

A total of 692 patients were included. A second examination of the right colon, with an average additional procedure time of 1.62 min, increased the adenoma detection rate by 11%, regardless of the method used (9% proximal retroflexion vs. 12% second forward view, p = 0.21). The adenoma miss rate was 19% (17% proximal retroflexion vs. 20% forward view, p = 0.28) The success rate of retroflexion was 83%, without secondary complications. In the 15.6% of patients in whom lesions were detected during the second pass, endoscopic follow-up was modified by reducing the time of the next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

A second examination of the right colon, either from retroflexion or second forward view, can increase adenoma detection rate and shorten surveillance intervals in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. This should be emphasized during colonoscopy training and integrated into diagnostic colonoscopy practice.

Impact of new techniques on adenoma detection rate based on meta-analysis data

The high incidence of colorectal cancer and the occurrence of interval cancers after screening colonoscopy support the need to develop methods to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). This review focuses on the importance of ADR and the impact of new techniques on ADR based on meta-analysis data. The low-cost interventions (such as water-aided colonoscopy, second observation, and dynamic position change) were effective in increasing ADR. So were enhanced imaging techniques and add-on devices. Increase with higher cost interventions such as newer scopes is uncertain. Water exchange (WE) has the highest ADR compared with water immersion, air insufflation, and carbon dioxide insufflation. Second observation with forward or retroflexed views improved the right colon ADR. Add-on devices result in only modest improvement in ADR, of particular help in low performing endoscopists. The second-generation narrow-band imaging (NBI) provided a two-fold brighter image than the previous system. The improvement in ADR with NBI required the "best" quality bowel preparation. New endoscopic techniques incur various additional costs, nil for WE, small for tip attachments but large for the newer scopes. In conclusion, one or more of the above methods to improve ADR may be applicable in Taiwan. A comparison of these approaches to determine which is the most cost-effective is warranted.

Effect of dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopies are considered to be the primary screening test and gold standard test for colorectal cancer. Position changes during colonoscope withdrawal are believed to be associated with an increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). However, previous results conflicted, and this study aimed to elucidate the effectiveness of dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal.

METHODS

The relevant publications were identified by searching the medical databases. The primary outcomes were the ADR and PDR, which were pooled and analyzed. The secondary outcome was the withdrawal time. The studies that supplied the ADR and PDR for different segments of the colon were separated into subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis. The total ADR was higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (odds ratio, [OR] 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.59; p < 0.001), with low evidence of between-study heterogeneity (I₂ = 0%). Although the total PDR was slightly higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.88-1.73), there difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). The withdrawal time was only increased by 0.47 min (95% CI - 0.11 to 1.06) with dynamic position changes, without statistical significance (p = 0.11). The subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR for the transverse colon were higher with dynamic position changes, with pooled estimates of ADR (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.02-2.88; p = 0.04) and PDR (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.08-2.96; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increased the total ADR; however, no obvious increase was found in the total PDR. The withdrawal time was not significantly prolonged with dynamic position changes. Subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR in the transverse colon were obviously improved with dynamic position changes.

Practice recommendations for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy

Objective

Although sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.

Design

We recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.

Results

Twenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.

Conclusion

The recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Risk factors for peritonitis in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis who undergo colonoscopy: a retrospective multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is associated with a risk of peritonitis in patients on peritoneal dialysis. However, no study has yet described the risk factors in play.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicentre study. The medical records of patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) who underwent colonoscopy from January 2003 to December 2012 were analysed. We recorded demographic characteristics, colonoscopic factors, use of prophylactic antibiotics, and development of peritonitis. Colonoscopy-related peritonitis was defined as peritonitis developing within 1 week after colonoscopy. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between patients who did and those who did not develop peritonitis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 236 patients on CAPD underwent colonoscopy, of whom 9 (3.8%) developed peritonitis. The rates of polypectomy/endoscopic mucosal resection were significantly higher in the peritonitis group than in the no peritonitis group (66.7 vs. 23.4%, p = 0.009). Prophylactic antibiotics were prescribed before colonoscopy in 65 patients; none developed peritonitis. No patient who developed peritonitis received prophylactic antibiotics (p = 0.067).

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced procedures including polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection increase colonoscopy-related peritonitis in patients on CAPD. Randomized controlled trials to investigate whether prophylactic antibiotics are needed to prevent peritonitis in all CAPD patients are warranted.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

Optimizing Screening Colonoscopy: Strategies and Alternatives

Screening colonoscopy is the most effective screening procedure for the prevention of colorectal cancer. The efficacy of colonoscopy is highly dependent on the overall quality of how this procedure is indicated, planned, prepared, and performed. The quality is directly linked to the number of polyps and/or adenomas detected or, in other words, to the number of polyps or adenomas missed during the procedure. The quality has a direct impact on the rate of interval carcinoma and on the range of how the incidence and occurrence of colorectal cancer is reduced. This review summarizes the current status on general measures and procedure improvements and standards as well as technical advances which have been suggested and established to improve the quality of polyp and adenoma detection rate. This includes selection and preparation of the patients, planning, methodological and technical performance of the procedure, and technical advances of the endoscope technology in order to improve screening results. It also covers new technologies with wide angle endoscopes (Ewave) and IT-based approaches using artificial intelligence to such as ai4GI for the polyp detection and image analysis.

Impact of the supine position versus left horizontal position on colonoscopy insertion: a 2-center, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy insertion is painful for some patients and is one of the main barriers to screening colonoscopy. Few studies have assessed the impact of the supine position (SP) on colonoscopy insertion, especially for unsedated patients. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Unsedated patients were randomized to SP or left horizontal position (LHP) as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT), and the secondary outcome measures were descending colon intubation time (DIT), pain score of patients, difficulty score according to the endoscopist, and patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 347 patients were randomized to the SP group (175) or the LHP group (172). The CIT in the SP group was significantly shorter than that in the LHP group (275.0 seconds [interquartile range (IQR), 234.0-328.5 seconds] versus 316.0 seconds [IQR, 261.0-370.0 seconds], P < .001). The DIT was also shorter in the SP group (64.5 seconds [IQR, 52.0-86.3 seconds] versus 74.0 seconds [IQR, 62.0-92.0 seconds], P = .001). Compared with the LHP, the SP had a lower pain score (3.3 versus 3.9, P = .002), a lower difficulty score (3.1 versus 3.7, P < .001), a lower frequency of position change (7.1% versus 38.0%, P < .001), and less need for abdominal compression (39.1% versus 45.5%, P = .02). SP was the only modifiable and independent factor identified to reduce CIT and pain score and improve patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

As an economical and convenient method, SP can reduce CIT, ease pain, and improve patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03289442.).

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Belgium: characteristics and influencing factors

Background and study aims  Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is an important quality parameter of colonoscopy. Most studies have shown that the risk for colorectal cancer is reduced after an index colonoscopy for screening or diagnostic purposes with or without polypectomy. In this study, we aimed to quantify and describe PCCRC in Belgium, including the possible relationships with patient, physician, and colonoscopy characteristics. Patients and methods  Reimbursement data on colorectal related medical procedures from the Intermutualistic Agency (IMA-AIM) were linked with data on clinical and pathological staging of colorectal cancer (CRC) available at the Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR) over a period covering 9 years (2002 - 2010). Results  In total, 63 518 colorectal cancers were identified in 61 616 patients between 2002 and 2010. We calculated a mean PCCRC rate of 7.6 %. PCCRC was significantly higher in older people and correlated significantly with polyp detection rate and the number of resections and procedures performed per year per physician. Conditional observed survival, given still alive 3 years since first colonoscopy, for PCCRC was worse than for CRC. Older patients and patients with invasive carcinomas had a worse outcome. Conclusions  Although no quality register exists in Belgium, we were able to demonstrate that PCCRC in Belgium is directly related to the experience of the physician performing the procedure. In the absence of a quality register, utilization of population-based data sources proved to be a valuable tool to identify quality parameters.

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.

Effect of left lateral tilt-down position on cecal intubation time: a 2-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy insertion is technically challenging, time-consuming, and painful, especially for the sigmoid. Several pilot studies indicated that the (left) tilt-down position could facilitate the insertion procedure, but no formal trials have been published to demonstrate its efficacy. We performed this study to verify the benefits of the left lateral tilt-down position (LTDP) on the insertion process.

METHODS

This 2-center prospective trial randomized unsedated patients to the LTDP or left lateral horizontal position (LHP) to aid insertion. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcome measures included decending colon intubation time (DIT), pain score of insertion, acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy for future examinations, difficulty score for insertion, and the adverse event rate of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized to the LTDP (128) or LHP (130) in 2 centers. The median CIT and DIT were shorter with patients positioned in LTDP than in LHP (CIT, 280.0 vs 339.5 s, P < .001; DIT, 53.0 vs 69.0 s, P < .001, respectively) and patients with high and low body mass index (BMI) benefited more from LTDP than from LHP, as opposed to patients with normal BMI. In addition, colonoscopy insertion in LTDP was less painful (3.4 ± 1.6 vs 4.0 ± 1.7, P = .02) and less difficult (3.1 ± 1.9 vs 3.7 ± 1.4, P < .001), showing a higher tendency to acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy (82.9% vs 73.8%, P = .08). The rates of adverse events were extremely low and did not differ significantly in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LTDP for colonoscopy insertion can reduce insertion time and pain, and potentially improves patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02842489.).

Patient comfort scores do not affect endoscopist behavior during colonoscopy, while trainee involvement has negative effects on patient comfort

INTRODUCTION

Patient comfort is an important part of endoscopy and reflects procedure quality and endoscopist technique. Using the validated, Nurse Assisted Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS), this study aimed to determine whether the introduction of NAPCOMS would affect sedation use by endoscopists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted over 3 phases. Phase One and Two consisted of 8 weeks of endoscopist blinded and aware data collection, respectively. Data in Phase Three was collected over a 5-month period and scores fed back to individual endoscopists on a monthly basis.

RESULTS

NAPCOMS consists of 3 domains - pain, sedation, and global tolerability. Comparison of Phase One and Two, showed no significant differences in sedative use or NAPCOMS. Phase Three data showed a decline in fentanyl use between individual months ( P  = 0.035), but no change in overall NAPCOMS. Procedures involving trainees were found to use more midazolam ( P  = 0.01) and fentanyl ( P  = 0.01), have worse NAPCOMS scores, and resulted in longer procedure duration ( P  < 0.001). Data comparing gastroenterologists and general surgeons showed increased fentanyl use ( P  = 0.037), decreased midazolam use ( P  = 0.001), and more position changes ( P  = 0.002) among gastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a patient comfort scoring system resulted in a decrease in fentanyl use, although with minimal clinical significance. Additional studies are required to determine the role of patient comfort scores in quality control in endoscopy. Procedures completed with trainees used more sedation, were longer, and had worse NAPCOMS scores, the implications of which, for teaching hospitals and training programs, will need to be further considered.

Polyp detection at colonoscopy: Endoscopist and technical factors

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) has emerged as the most important quality measure in colonoscopy, as it predicts the risk of interval cancer after colonoscopy. Measuring and improving ADR is the central focus of the current quality movement in colonoscopy. High ADRs can be achieved by a colonoscopist with a thorough understanding of the wide range of endoscopic appearances of precancerous lesions in the colorectum, effective bowel preparation, and meticulous technique using high definition colonoscopes. The knowledgeable and effective examiner needs no adjunctive devices or techniques to achieve master level ADRs. However, measurement reveals that many colonoscopists have ADRs that are below recommended minimum thresholds or below master levels. These colonoscopists, and even master level performers, can choose from a variety of adjunctive tools to improve ADR. This review describes these tools according to whether they are non-device methods (e.g. double right colon examination, patient position change, water exchange), mucosal exposure devices (wide angle colonoscopy, fold flattening devices), and lesion highlighting techniques (e.g. chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy).

Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates

OPINION STATEMENT

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), i.e., the proportion of average risk patients with at least one adenoma detected during screening colonoscopy, is inversely associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer. Increasing the ADR is therefore an important proxy for increase in quality and efficacy of (screening) colonoscopy. Several potentially modifiable factors, such as, procedural and technological factors, and quality improvement programs, and their effect on the ADR will be reviewed. Procedural factors, such as, bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and position changes of the patient are associated with the ADR. While the relation of others, such as inspection during insertion, use of antispasmodic agents, and second inspection in the proximal colon, with the ADR is not completely clear. Many new colonoscopy technologies have been evaluated over recent years and are still under evaluation, but no unequivocal positive effect on the ADR has been observed in randomized trials that have mostly been performed by experienced endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Several quality improvement programs have been evaluated and seem to have a positive effect on endoscopists' ADR. Increase in ADR is important for the protective benefit of colonoscopy. There are now extensive methods to measure, benchmark, and improve ADR but increased awareness of these is critical. We have provided an overview of potential factors that can be used to increase personal ADRs in every day practice.

Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most robust colonoscopy quality metric and clinical studies have adopted it as the ideal method to assess the impact of technical interventions. Areas covered: We reviewed papers focusing on the impact of colonoscopy technical issues on ADR, including withdrawal time and technique, second evaluation of the right colon, patient positional changes, gastrointestinal assistant participation during colonoscopy, water-aided technique, optimization of bowel preparation and antispasmodic administration. Expert commentary: Overall, technical interventions are inexpensive, available worldwide and easy to implement. Some of them, such as the adoption of split dose regimen and slow scope withdrawal to allow a careful inspection, have been demonstrated to significantly improve ADR. Emerging data support the use of water-exchange colonoscopy. According to published studies, other technical interventions seem to provide only marginal benefit to ADR. Unfortunately, the available evidence has methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, the inclusion of expert endoscopists only and the evaluation of single technical interventions. Additionally, larger studies are needed to clarify whether these interventions might have a higher benefit on low adenoma detectors and whether the implementation of a bundle of them, instead of a single technical maneuver, might have a greater impact on ADR.

Can Technology Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

In order for screening colonoscopy to be an effective tool in reducing colon cancer incidence, exams must be performed in a high-quality manner. Quality metrics have been presented by gastroenterology societies and now include higher adenoma detection rate targets than in the past. In many cases, the quality of colonoscopy can often be improved with simple low-cost interventions such as improved procedure technique, implementing split-dose bowel prep, and monitoring individuals' performances. Emerging technology has expanded our field of view and image quality during colonoscopy. We will critically review several technological advances in the context of quality metrics and discuss if technology can really improve the quality of colonoscopy.