Is Dynamic Position Changes an Effective Way to Improve the Adenoma Detection Rate?

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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.).