Impact of propofol sedation versus opioid/benzodiazepine sedation on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Optimizing adenoma detection in screening-related colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Screening-related colonoscopy is a vital component of screening initiatives to both diagnose and prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), with prevention being reliant upon early and accurate detection of pre-malignant lesions. Several strategies, techniques, and interventions exist to optimize endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADR).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an overview of the importance of ADR and other colonoscopy quality indicators. It then summarizes the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the following domains in terms of improving ADR: endoscopist factors, pre-procedural parameters, peri-procedural parameters, intra-procedural strategies and techniques, antispasmodics, distal attachment devices, enhanced colonoscopy technologies, enhanced optics, and artificial intelligence. These summaries are based on an electronic search of the databases Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane performed on December 12, 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality of CRC, the quality of screening-related colonoscopy quality is appropriately prioritized by patients, endoscopists, units, and payers alike. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy should be up to date regarding available strategies, techniques, and interventions to optimize their performance.

Factors Associated with Difficulty Maintaining Insufflation of the Colon During Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Insufflation of the colon allows for adequate visualization of the mucosal tissue and advancement of the endoscope during colonoscopy. Most colonoscopies are performed with sedation to mitigate discomfort and enhance the colonoscopy experience for both the patient and the endoscopist.

AIM

We aimed to evaluate factors associated with difficulty maintaining insufflation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of individuals undergoing colonoscopy at the Oklahoma City Veterans Affairs Medical Center was performed. Experiencing difficulty maintaining air insufflation during colonoscopy was assessed with a questionnaire completed by the performing endoscopist at the end of procedure. Information regarding procedure times, sedation used, demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and medications used was extracted from the medical record. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with difficulty maintaining air insufflation. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

996 Patients were included for the analysis. Difficulty with insufflation was reported in 240 (24%) colonoscopies; mean age of 63.8 ± 10.4 years old and 13% were female. Fellow trainees were involved in 669 (67%) colonoscopies. Older age (OR 1.02, P 0.03, CI [1.00-1.04]), diabetes (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.03, 2.05]), fellow's involvement (OR 2.6. (95% CI [1.68, 4.09]), total procedure time (OR 1.02, 95% CI [1.00, 1.03]), mean number of adenomas (OR 1.05, 95% CI [1.00, 1.09]), and MAC use (OR 2.6, 95% CI [1.80, 3.85]) were independent predictors for difficulty in maintaining air insufflation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that endoscopists should be cognizant of colon insufflation issues in older, diabetic patients undergoing colonoscopies under deep sedation, particularly if prolonged procedure is anticipated or encountered.

Reduced Adenoma Miss Rate With 9-Minute vs 6-Minute Withdrawal Times for Screening Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Tandem Trial

INTRODUCTION

Although the 9-minute mean withdrawal time (m-WT) is often reported to be associated with the optimal adenoma detection rate (ADR), no randomized trials of screening colonoscopy have confirmed the impact of a 9-minute m-WT on adenoma miss rate (AMR) and ADR.

METHODS

A multicenter tandem trial was conducted in 11 centers. Seven hundred thirty-three asymptomatic participants were randomized to receive segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with a 9-minute withdrawal, followed by a 6-minute withdrawal (9-minute-first group, 9MF, n = 366) or vice versa (6-minute-first group, 6MF, n = 367). The primary outcome was the lesion-level AMR.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level (14.5% vs 36.6%, P < 0.001) and participant-level AMR (10.9% vs 25.9%, P < 0.001), advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR, 5.3% vs 46.9%, P = 0.002), multiple adenomas miss rate (20.7% vs 56.5%, P = 0.01), and high-risk adenomas miss rate (14.6% vs 39.5%, P = 0.01) of 6MF without compromising detection efficiency ( P = 0.79). In addition, a lower false-negative rate for adenomas ( P = 0.002) and high-risk adenomas ( P < 0.05), and a lower rate of shortening surveillance schedule ( P < 0.001) were also found in 9MF, accompanying with an improved ADR in the 9-minute vs 6-minute m-WT (42.3% vs 33.5%, P = 0.02). The independent inverse association between m-WT and AMR remained significant even after adjusting ADR, and meanwhile, 9-minute m-WT was identified as an independent protector for AMR and AAMR.

DISCUSSION

In addition to increasing ADR, 9-minute m-WT also significantly reduces the AMR and AAMR of screening colonoscopy without compromising detection efficiency.

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.

Impact of sedation type on adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas decreases the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. The available data concerning the relationship between the sedation type and adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) is inconclusive. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conscious vs. deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR/PDR in diagnostic and screening colonoscopies.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients aged 50-75 years old presenting for a first screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were included. Baseline demographic characteristics were collected, as well as PDR and ADR. Endoscopic withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation rated in a binary fashion were also collected. Two multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the independent predictors of endoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas.

RESULTS

574 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 59.26 ± 7.21 with 52.4% females and an average BMI of 28.08 ± 4.89. 374 patients (65.2%) underwent screening colonoscopies, and deep sedation was performed in 200 patients (34.8%). Only 4.7% had bad bowel preparation. PDR was 70% and ADR was 52%. On bivariate analysis, no significant difference was shown in PDR and ADR between conscious and deep sedation groups (0.70, 0.71; p = 0.712 and 0.50, 0.54; p = 0.394, respectively). On multivariate analysis for PDR, age and withdrawal time were independent predictors. For ADR, age, female sex, and withdrawal time were independent predictors. Sedation type and the indication did not reach statistical significance in both models.

CONCLUSION

The use of deep sedation didn't influence the ADR/PDR quality metrics in our mixed cohort of screening and diagnostic colonoscopies.

Progress in understanding of factors related to colonoscopic adenoma detection rate

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the proportion of average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in whom an adenoma is found, and it is an important quality indicator of colonoscopy. ADR is closely related to the risk of interval colorectal cancer. A deeply study of ADR is essential for endoscopists. In this paper, we review the progress in the understanding of factors related to ADR before, during, and after colonoscopy, as well as several issues worthy of attention.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of Dexmedetomidine/Ketamine with Propofol/Fentanyl for sedation in colonoscopy patients: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine [DK] with propofol and fentanyl [PF] for sedation in colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

In this study, 64 patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized into two groups: 1) A, which received PF, and 2) B, which received DK for sedation. Among 64 patients, 31 patients were included in PF, and 33 patients were included in the DK group. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics. Patients' sedation score (based on Ramsay sedation scale) and vital signs were recorded at 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes. Complications including apnea, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea, and vomiting, along with gastroenterologist satisfaction and patients' pain score (based on Wong-Baker faces pain assessment scale), were recorded by a checklist. Data were analyzed by SPSS v.18 software, using chi-square, independent t-tests, and repeated measures analysis with p<0.05 as the criterion for significant differences.

RESULTS

The mean score of sedation was 4.82±0.49 in the DK group and 5.22±0.45 in the PF group [p value=0.001]. Serious complications, including hypotension [p value=0.005] and apnea [p value=0.10] were significantly higher in the PF group. Satisfaction of gastroenterologist [p value= 0.400] and patients' pain score [p value = 0.900] were similar among groups.

CONCLUSION

Combination of DK provides sufficient sedation with fewer complications in comparison with PF in colonoscopy patients.