Factors affecting abdominal pain during colonoscopy

Development of a Burden Scale for Colonoscopy Experienced by Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Introduction

This study aimed to develop and validate a burden scale for colonoscopy-specific experiences among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and to assess its reliability and validity.

Methods

Building upon previous research on patient experiences and perceptions of colonoscopy, a 33-item pain scale was developed. Content validity was assessed to refine the questionnaire. An online survey was conducted through an IBD patient community. The reliability of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach's α coefficient and test-retest reliability. Validity was examined through factor analysis to assess construct validity and correlation coefficients with external criteria for criterion-related validity.

Results

Of the 371 distributed questionnaires, 176 were returned, and data from 173 participants were included in the analysis. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis yielded a 21-item scale with four distinct factors: pain during colonoscopy, burden with bowel preparation, anxiety and symptoms after colonoscopy, and difficulty in taking time off to receive colonoscopy. The scale demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.875) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.879). Criterion-related validity was supported by correlations with external measures, including the cognitive appraisal rating scale (r = 0.615), anxiety related to colonoscopy (r = 0.582), pain during colonoscopy (r = 0.544), and satisfaction with colonoscopy (r = -0.333).

Conclusion

The newly developed burden scale for colonoscopy in patients with IBD demonstrated robust reliability and validity, indicating its potential utility as a clinical instrument for assessing the burden in this patient population.

Causes of intraprocedural discomfort in colonoscopy: a review and practical tips

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed procedure in the United Kingdom and the gold standard for diagnosis and therapy in the gastrointestinal tract. Increased levels of pain during colonoscopy have been associated with reduced completion rates and difficulties in maintaining attendance for repeat procedures. Multiple factors play a role in causing discomfort intra-procedurally: patient factors, such as gender, anatomy and pre-procedure anxiety; operator factors, such as patient position and level of experience and other factors, such as bowel preparation and total procedure time. A literature search was performed to identify papers that explained how patient, operator and endoscopy factors influenced pain and discomfort in endoscopy. A further search then also identified papers describing solutions to pain and discomfort that have been explored. After review of the literature, key methods are selected and discussed in this paper. Solutions and aids that can resolve and improve pain and discomfort include endoscopic methods such as variable stiffness and ultrathin scopes. Operator improvements in techniques and ergonomics alongside the use of newer technologies such as propelled endoscopy, computer-assisted endoscopy and task distraction. To improve patient experience and outcomes, the investigation and research into improving techniques to reduce pain is crucial. This review aims to identify the modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with intra-procedural discomfort during colonoscopy. We discuss established methods of improving pain during colonoscopy, in addition to newer technologies to mitigate associated discomfort.

The Effect of Progressive Muscle Relaxation on Abdominal Pain and Distension in Colonoscopy Patients

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to examine the effect of progressive muscle relaxation on abdominal pain and distension in colonoscopy patients.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled experimental design.

METHODS

The experimental group was informed about progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) and an audio recording was provided. After the colonoscopy, abdominal pain (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain) and distension (VAS distension) scores were assessed, then PMR was applied for 30 minutes and pain scores were determined again. VAS pain and VAS distension scores of the control group were determined after colonoscopy and 30 minutes later. VAS abdominal pain and VAS distension scores were evaluated at the 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 24th hour after the procedure on all patients. The day after the colonoscopy, post-test data were collected.

FINDINGS

The pretest VAS pain and VAS distension mean scores were similar in the intervention and control groups (P > .05). The mean VAS pain and VAS distension scores decreased significantly in the intervention group post procedure (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PMR was determined to be effective in reducing abdominal pain and distension after colonoscopy.

Clinical application of self-adjustable seton in high complex anal fistula

BACKGROUND

Cutting seton is still one of the main methods for the treatment of high complex anal fistula at present. During the treatment, the thread should be tightened many times until it falls off. The traditional thread tightening method is not only complicated in operation and painful for patients, but also requires specialized equipment and doctors to operate, which is very inconvenient. The above problems can be solved by self-adjusting seton.

AIM

To explore the clinical feasibility of self-adjustable seton in the treatment of high complex anal fistula.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients with anal fistula who met the inclusion criteria at the Department of Anorectal Surgery of Yuyao People's Hospital from July 2019 to June 2022 were selected and randomly divided into an experimental group (n = 29) with self-adjustable seton and a control group (n = 32) with traditional cutting seton (tightening the seton by stages). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, educational level, or the nature of disease (P > 0.05). The main pipe of the anal fistula was all treated with cutting and seton, but the postoperative tightening methods were different: A self-adjustable seton was used in the experimental group, while a traditional cutting seton in the control group. Tightening-falling off time, total tightening times, outpatient tightening times, the degree of tightening-related pain, wound healing time, and efficacy were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

One patient in the experimental group and two in the control group were intraoperatively treated with drainage and seton, which was removed after surgery. There was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group in terms of the time of thread tightening off, total thread tightening times, wound healing time, or efficacy (P > 0.05). Outpatient tightening times were less, and the average degree of tightening-related pain was lower in the experimental group than in the control group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Self-adjustable seton can achieve the effect of traditional cutting seton in tightening-falling off time, wound healing time, and efficacy. However, it is more convenient than traditional seton tightening, and can be adjusted at home to reduce outpatient tightening times, with less cutting pain and lower medical costs. Therefore, it is a relatively suitable tightening method at present and can be popularized and applied in the medical service community and other grass-roots hospitals as a suitable technology in the future.

Risk factors for underestimation of patient pain in outpatient colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Adequate management of patient pain and discomfort during colonoscopy is crucial to obtaining a high-quality examination. We aimed to investigate the ability of endoscopists and endoscopy assistants to accurately assess patient pain in colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, cross-sectional study including patients scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy. Procedure-related pain, as experienced by the patient, was scored on a verbal rating scale (VRS). Endoscopists and endoscopy assistants rated patient pain likewise. Cohen's kappa was used to measure the agreement between ratings and logistic regression applied to test for potential predictors associated with underestimation of moderate-severe pain.

RESULTS

In total, 785 patients [median age: 54 years; females: n = 413] were included. Mild, moderate, and severe pain was reported in 378/785 (48%), 168/785 (22%), and 111/785 (14%) procedures respectively. Inter-rater reliability of patient pain comparing patients with endoscopists was κ = 0.29, p < .001 and for patients with endoscopy assistants κ = 0.37, p < .001. In the 279 patients reporting moderate/severe pain, multivariable analysis showed that male gender (OR = 1.79), normal BMI (OR = 1.71), no history of abdominal surgery (OR = 1.81), and index-colonoscopy (OR = 1.81) were factors significantly associated with a risk for underestimation of moderate/severe pain by endoscopists. Young age (OR = 2.05) was the only corresponding factor valid for endoscopy assistants.

CONCLUSIONS

In a colonoscopy, estimation of patient pain by endoscopists and endoscopy assistants is often inaccurate. Endoscopists need to pay specific attention to subgroups of patients, such as male gender, and normal BMI, among whom there seems to be an important risk of underestimation of moderate-severe pain.

Do difficulties in emotional processing predict procedure pain and shape the patient's colonoscopy experience?

OBJECTIVES

Pain and fear of colonoscopy are inter-related; they make the colonoscopy experience unpleasant and impede adherence to colorectal cancer screening and prevention campaigns. According to previous research, fear and pain have been found to depend on patients' maladaptive cognitions and exaggerated emotional responses. The present study investigated whether emotional processing difficulties predicted colonoscopy pain and the associated catastrophising thoughts.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational, blinded.

METHOD

A sample of 123 patients was assessed for specific emotional processing difficulties (ie, suppression of emotions, unprocessed emotions, failure to control emotions, avoidance of emotional triggers and impoverished emotional experience) and anxiety-related variables (ie, worry, anxiety and depression) before colonoscopy. A trained medical doctor rated patients' behavioural manifestations of pain during colonoscopy. After complete recovery from sedation, the patients rated the endoscopy experience using perceived pain and situation-specific pain catastrophising scales.

RESULTS

About half of the patients were above the cut-off for anxiety before the procedure. Notwithstanding sedation, behavioural manifestations of pain during colonoscopy indicated probable or moderate pain for about one-third of the patients. Failure to control emotions, poor emotional experience and avoiding emotional triggers were positively correlated with behavioural manifestations of pain, self-reported pain and pain catastrophising. Regression analyses, controlling for gender, age, colonoscopy experience and sedation, revealed that avoidance of emotional triggers uniquely contributed to predicting pain outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification of emotional processing difficulties associated with pain catastrophising can help define personalised psychological preparation paths to manage negative emotions in patients who fear colonoscopy pain.

Comparing Colon Capsule Endoscopy to colonoscopy; a symptomatic patient’s perspective

Background

Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) has proven efficacy in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases. Few studies have assessed patient-reported outcomes and preference between colonoscopy and CCE.

Methods

Patients from our centre who had both a CCE and colonoscopy within a 12-month period were identified. We performed over-the-phone interviews focused on satisfaction, comfort, and overall preference with a 10-point Likert scale. Electronic records were reviewed; reported Modified-Gloucester-Comfort-Scale (GCS) score, sedation, bowel preparation and endoscopist grade were documented. Data was compared between procedures. A Fishers exact test was used to compare proportions and a Student t-test was used to compare means, a p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

In all, 40 patients were identified, 57.5% (23/40) were female and the mean age was 48 years (24–78). All patients were referred for investigation of lower gastrointestinal symptoms as part of an ongoing study [Endosc Int Open. 2021;09(06):E965–70]. There was a significance difference in mean comfort (9.2 vs 6.7, p < 0.0001, 95% CI − 3.51 to − 1.44) but not satisfaction (8.3 vs 7.7, p = 0.2, 95% CI − 1.48 to 0.33) between CCE and colonoscopy. Main cause of dissatisfaction with CCE was bowel preparation and for colonoscopy was discomfort. Age and gender were not found to be variables. The correlation between GCS and patient reported values was weak (R = − 0.28). Overall, 77.5% (31/40) of patients would prefer a CCE if they required further bowel investigation. Of these, 77.4% (24/31) preferred a CCE despite the potential need for follow-up colonoscopy.

Conclusions

CCE has a high satisfaction rating (8.3 vs 7.7) and has a higher patient reported comfort rating (9.2 vs 6.7) than colonoscopy. Studies have confirmed CCE and colonoscopy have equivalent diagnostic yields. The majority of patients in our cohort prefer CCE to colonoscopy. CCE should be considered as an alternative to colonoscopy in selected individuals.

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).

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on alfentanil consumption during procedural sedation for colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used during colonoscopy to facilitate the procedure and relieve patient’s discomfort. The foremost risk of PSA is respiratory depression. Lidocaine could be a promising additional analgesic in IBD patients to minimise side effects of PSA. Objective: Our primary objective was to investigate whether i.v. lidocaine reduces the amount of alfentanil used during PSA in IBD patients. Additionally, we investigated whether lidocaine reduces cardiorespiratory incidents and the amount of propofol required during the procedure. Design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Setting: Single-center study from November 2016 to December 2018. Methods: Seventy-six patients with IBD, ASA 1 or 2, between 18 and 65 years, scheduled for colonoscopy with PSA were included. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy, emergency colonoscopy, allergies for study medication, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathy, BMI < 18 kg m -2 , BMI > 35 kg m -2 , obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and uncontrolled hypertension. Patients received lidocaine 1.5 mg kg -1 followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg -1 h -1 (intervention group, n=38) or 0.9% saline in equivalent volumes (control group, n=38) during colonoscopy. Main outcome measures: Amount of alfentanil and propofol used during the interventional procedure. Cardiorespiratory events as defined in methods during the colonoscopy. Results: There was a not statistically significant reduction in the use of alfentanil [327 µg (95%CI=-31-505, p=0.082)] and propofol [39 mg (95%CI=-5-83, p=0.083)] in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. Ten patients (26%) in the control group and 8 patients in the lidocaine group (21%) experienced a period of hypoxia (p=0.788). In both groups, no periods of hypotension were noted. Conclusion: Our investigation has shown a trend for reduced alfentanil and propofol consumption in patients receiving lidocaine during colonoscopy under sedation. The differences were not statistically significant. Lidocaine did not reduce the incidence of cardiorespiratory events.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Effect of carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation on post-colonoscopic pain: A prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Room air (RA) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are widely used to insufflate the colon to examine the mucosa in colonoscopy. Pain, discomfort, and bloating can be seen during and after colonoscopy secondary to bowel distention. This study aimed to investigate the effect of CO2 on post-procedure pain sensation (PPPS) in comparison with RA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to the RA and CO2 insufflation groups in a 1:1 ratio. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure the pain before and after the colonoscopy. VAS score of 0 was accepted as the absence of pain and above 0 was accepted as the presence of pain. The primary outcome was to investigate the effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS. Secondary outcomes were to investigate the other contributing factors affecting PPPS and the effect of CO2 on PPPS in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were enrolled in the study. No significant difference in PPPS was seen between the 2 groups at any point in time after the colonoscopy. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in pain sensation between the CO2 and RA groups in patients with IBD. When we investigated the other contributing factors to pain sensation, body-mass index (BMI) was found to be significant at 30 minutes and BMI and colonoscopy time were found to be significant at 6 hours afterwards.

CONCLUSION

We found no favorable effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS in colonoscopy, including in patients with IBD.

A Prospective Study of Factors Associated with Abdominal Pain in Patients during Unsedated Colonoscopy Using a Magnifying Endoscope

Objective With the advent of endoscopic treatment, the detailed diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms made using magnifying colonoscopy has become increasingly important. However, insertion difficulty causes pain in unsedated colonoscopy. The aim of this prospective observational study was to clarify the factors associated with a patient's pain in unsedated colonoscopy using a magnifying endoscope. Methods Patient pain was assessed using a numerical rating scale (0-10) immediately after the procedure. We defined 5 as mild enough pain that patients would not be reluctant to undergo another colonoscopy. Acceptable pain was defined as 5 or less and severe pain was defined as 8 to 10. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed using the pain scale score as a dependent variable. Results A total of consecutive 600 patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopies were evaluated to assess their abdominal pain. The completion rate was 99.5% (597/600). The mean pain scale score was 3.88±2.38. The rate of acceptable pain was 80.5% (483/600). The rate of severe pain was 6.7% (40/600) including the incomplete cases. A comparison of polyp-positive and polyp-negative cases revealed no marked difference in patient pain (3.82±2.24 vs. 3.94±2.49, respectively; p=0.590) or insertion time (6.62±3.98 vs. 6.29±4.21, p=0.090), while more observation time was needed in polyp-positive cases than in polyp-negative ones (16.30±4.95 vs. 13.08±4.69, p<0.01). Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that an older age, colectomy, antispasmodic agent use, and a small-diameter endoscope were significant factors associated with less patient pain. In particular, a small-diameter endoscope induces significantly more acceptable pain than a non-small diameter endoscope [85.63% (274/320) vs. 73.93% (207/280), p=0.00003]. Conclusion Unsedated colonoscopy using a magnifying endoscope by an expert may result in acceptable pain levels. The use of an antispasmodic agent, particularly hyoscine N-butyl bromide, and a small-diameter endoscope are recommended for reducing abdominal pain during unsedated colonoscopy.

The effect of premedication with peppermint oil capsules (Colpermin) prior to colonoscopy: A double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colonoscopy is the cornerstone of diagnosing colonic diseases. Investigators have evaluated the effectiveness of antispasmodic agents in colonoscopy with conflicting evidence. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of enteric coated peppermint oil capsules (Colpermin®), an antispasmodic agent, on outcomes during colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 80 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were recruited and randomized in a double blinded fashion to receive either placebo or peppermint oil capsules administered 4 h prior to the procedure.

RESULTS

Peppermint oil capsules did not affect caecal intubation time when compared with placebo. Patients' tolerance, endoscopist's satisfaction and demand on sedation were also not affected.

CONCLUSION

This randomized controlled trial does not support the routine use of peppermint oil capsules prior to colonoscopy as a tool for procedure optimization, and patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction.

Development and validation of an algorithm to complete colonoscopy using standard endoscopes in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Incomplete colonoscopy may occur as a result of colon angulation (adhesions or diverticulosis), endoscope looping, or both. Specialty endoscopes/devices have been shown to successfully complete prior incomplete colonoscopies, but may not be widely available. Radiographic or other image-based evaluations have been shown to be effective but may miss small or flat lesions, and colonoscopy is often still indicated if a large lesion is identified. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an algorithm to determine the optimum endoscope to ensure completion of the examination in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a prospective cohort study of 175 patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy who were referred to a single endoscopist at a single academic medical center over a 3-year period from 2012 through 2015. Colonoscopy outcomes from the initial 50 patients were used to develop an algorithm to determine the optimal standard endoscope and technique to achieve cecal intubation. The algorithm was validated on the subsequent 125 patients.

RESULTS

 The overall repeat colonoscopy success rate using a standard endoscope was 94 %. The initial standard endoscope specified by the algorithm was used and completed the colonoscopy in 90 % of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

 This study identifies an effective strategy for completing colonoscopy in patients with prior incomplete examination, using widely available standard endoscopes and an algorithm based on patient characteristics and reasons for prior incomplete colonoscopy.

A Study on the Effects of a Health Education Intervention on Anxiety and Pain During Colonoscopy Procedures

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is currently considered the best screening tool in the diagnosis of colon diseases. However, this procedure often causes pain and discomfort in patients, thus reducing patient willingness to undergo and comply with this procedure.

PURPOSE

This study explores the effects of providing procedure-related information to patients receiving colonoscopy in terms of anxiety and pain reduction and identifies factors that influence the pain and anxiety experienced by patients during this procedure.

METHODS

This study adopted a quasi-experimental design that targeted colonoscopy patients in outpatient clinics. Two hundred thirteen patients were recruited, with 103 patients in the experimental group and 110 in the control group. Participants were recruited between January and April 2011. All of the participants received standard care, and only those participants who were assigned to the experimental group were asked to watch "A Guide to the Colonoscopy Procedure," a multimedia health informatics CD-ROM.

RESULTS

Anxiety scores of the experimental group dropped from 48.7 ± 11.6 to 39.2 ± 8.7 after the intervention. The average pain score of the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group (3.8 ± 2.5 vs. 5.0 ± 2.7). Furthermore, trait anxiety, gender, and educational level were identified as the main predictors for state anxiety, and state anxiety was identified as an important predictor for pain during the colonoscopy examination.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study found that using a multimedia health informatics CD-ROM to provide information on the colonoscopy procedure effectively reduced the examination-related anxiety and pain of patients.

Effect of Previous Gastrectomy on the Performance of Postoperative Colonoscopy

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of a prior gastrectomy on the difficulty of subsequent colonoscopy, and to identify the surgical factors related to difficult colonoscopies.

Materials and Methods

Patients with a prior gastrectomy who had undergone a colonoscopy between 2011 and 2014 (n=482) were matched (1:6) to patients with no history of gastrectomy (n=2,892). Cecal insertion time, intubation failure, and bowel clearance score were compared between the gastrectomy and control groups, as was a newly generated comprehensive parameter for a difficult/incomplete colonoscopy (cecal intubation failure, cecal insertion time >12.9 minutes, or very poor bowel preparation scale). Surgical factors including surgical approach, extent of gastrectomy, extent of lymph node dissection, and reconstruction type, were analyzed to identify risk factors for colonoscopy performance.

Results

A history of gastrectomy was associated with prolonged cecal insertion time (8.7±6.4 vs. 9.7±6.5 minutes; P=0.002), an increased intubation failure rate (0.1% vs. 1.9%; P<0.001), and a poor bowel preparation rate (24.7 vs. 29.0; P=0.047). Age and total gastrectomy (vs. partial gastrectomy) were found to be independent risk factors for increased insertion time, which slowly increased throughout the postoperative duration (0.35 min/yr). Total gastrectomy was the only independent risk factor for the comprehensive parameter of difficult/incomplete colonoscopy.

Conclusions

History of gastrectomy is related to difficult/incomplete colonoscopy performance, especially in cases of total gastrectomy. In any case, it may be that a pre-operative colonoscopy is desirable in selected patients scheduled for gastrectomy; however, it should be performed by an expert endoscopist each time.

Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

To assess public preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance tests for intermediate-risk adenomas, using a hypothetical scenario.

METHODS

Adults aged 45-54 years without CRC were identified from three General Practices in England (two in Cumbria, one in London). A postal survey was carried out during a separate study on preferences for different first-line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). Individuals were allocated at random to receive a pack containing information on one first-line test, and a paragraph describing CRC surveillance recommendations for people who are diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas during screening. All participants received a description of two surveillance options: annual single-sample, home-based stool testing (consistent with Faecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy. Invitees were asked to imagine they had been diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas, and then complete a questionnaire on their surveillance preferences.

RESULTS

22.1 % (686/3,100) questionnaires were returned. 491 (15.8 %) were eligible for analysis. The majority of participants stated a surveillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no surveillance: 0.2 %). Women were more likely to prefer the stool test than men (66.7 % vs. 53.6 %; p = .011). The primary reason for preferring the stool test was that it would be done more frequently. The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of participants stated a preference for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy. Future research should test whether this translates to greater adherence in a real surveillance setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN85697880 , prospectively registered on 25/04/2013.

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy

GOAL

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines).

BACKGROUND

Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial.

STUDY

We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared.

RESULTS

There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.

A Response Surface Model Exploration of Dosing Strategies in Gastrointestinal Endoscopies Using Midazolam and Opioids

Classical midazolam-opioid combination for gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation has been adopted for decades. Dosing regimens have been studied but most require fixed dosing intervals. We intend to use a sophisticated pharmacodynamic tool, response surface model (RSM), to simulate sedation using different regimens. RSM can predict patient's response during different phases of the examination and predict patient's wake-up time with precision and without the need for fixed dosing intervals. We believe it will aid physicians in guiding their dosing strategy and timing.The study is divided into 2 parts. The first part is the full Greco RSMs development for 3 distinct phases: esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and intersession (the time lapse between procedures). Observer's Assessment of Alertness Score (OAA/S) is used to assess patient response. The second part simulates 6 regimens with different characteristics using the RSMs: midazolam only, balanced midazolam and opioids, high-dose opioids and midazolam, low-dose midazolam with high-dose opioids, high-dose midazolam and low-dose opioids, and finally midazolam with continuous opioid infusion. Loss of response at 95% probability for adequate anesthesia during examination and return of consciousness at 50% probability during intersession was selected for simulation purposes.The average age of the patient population is 49.3 years. Mean BMI is 21.9 ± 2.3 kg/m. About 56.7% were females and none received prior abdominal surgery. The cecal intubation rate was 100%. Only 1 patient (3%) developed temporary hypoxemia, which was promptly managed with simple measures. The RSMs for each phase showed significant synergy between midazolam and alfentanil. The balanced midazolam and alfentanil combination provided adequate anesthesia and most rapid return of consciousness. The awakening time from the final drug bolus was 7.4 minutes during EGD and colonoscopy stimulation, and 9.1 minutes during EGD simulation.Simulation of regimens with different characteristics gives insights on dosing strategies. A balanced midazolam-alfentanil regimen is adequate in providing good anesthetic depth and most rapid return of consciousness. We believe with the aid of our RSM, clinicians can perform sedation with more flexibility and precision.

[Risk factors of pain during colonoscopic examination]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk factorsthat predict pain during colonoscopy for decision of sedation or analgesia before the examination.

METHODS

A total of 283 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopicexamination at Nanfang Hospital between July, 2016 and September, 2016were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical data and visual analogue scale after the examination were analyzed to identify the risk factors for pain during colonoscopy using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression. A risk stratification model for predicting pain in colonoscopy was established.

RESULTS

The completion rate of the procedure was significantly lower in patients with a visual analogue scale ≥5 (P<0.000). Univariate analysis showed that female patients, previous abdominal surgery, no previous experience with colonoscopy, complaint of abdominal pain before colonoscopy, insufficient experience of the endoscopists, patient's anticipation of high painlevelbefore examination, and a low body mass index (BMI) were all associated with the experience of pain in colonoscopy (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regressionanalysis identified BMI index (X1), level of experience of the endoscopist (A1, A2, A3) and the patient's anticipation of painlevel (X2) as the risk factors of pain in colonoscopy(P<0.05), and the establishedmodel with the 3 variables was: P=eY/(1+eY),Y=0.049-0.124×X1-0.97×X2+1.713×A1+0.781×A2+0.147×A3, which showed a sensitivity of 70.3% and a specificity of 67.5%for predicting pain in colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The patient's anticipation of a high pain level in colonoscopy, insufficient experience of the endoscopist, and a low BMI are the independent risk factors for pain in colonoscopy, and evaluation of these factors can help in the decision-making concerning the use of sedation or analgesia before colonoscopy.

A randomized, controlled trial comparing real-time insertion pain during colonoscopy confirmed water exchange to be superior to water immersion in enhancing patient comfort

BACKGROUND

A recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Status Evaluation Report recommended comparative studies of water-aided colonoscopy methods to refine the optimal insertion technique.

OBJECTIVE

Air insufflation (AI), water immersion (WI), and water exchange (WE) were compared head-to-head to test the hypothesis that WE produces the least insertion pain.

DESIGN

Patient-blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trials.

SETTING

Two community hospitals in Italy.

PATIENTS

First-time diagnostic or screening colonoscopy in unsedated patients with the option of on-demand sedation.

INTERVENTION

Colonoscopy with AI, WI, or WE.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 10 = worst). To avoid interventional bias, the timing of recording was at the discretion of the nurse assistant. Adjunct measures were implemented to ensure patient perception of minimal discomfort. Recalled pain and patients' guess of insertion methods were recorded after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Results were merged for 576 randomized patients. Correct patient guesses lower than 33% confirmed adequate blinding. Significant correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.6, P < .0005) between real-time and recalled pain provided internal validation of the former as the primary outcome. Real-time pain (95% confidence interval [CI]: AI, 4.1 [3.7-4.5]; WI, 3.5 [3.0-3.9]; and WE, 2.5 [2.2-2.9] [P < .0005] was the lowest in the WE group. The proportions of patients completing unsedated colonoscopy based on the assigned methods were significantly different (WE, 74.7% vs WI, 62.4%; P = .009; vs AI, 65.3%; P = .04). WE required the least implementation of adjunct maneuvers.

LIMITATIONS

Unblinded colonoscopists.

CONCLUSION

The current findings with an internally validated primary outcome in adequately blinded patients support the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in attenuating real-time insertion pain and enhancing completion of unsedated colonoscopy.

A patient-blinded randomized, controlled trial comparing air insufflation, water immersion, and water exchange during minimally sedated colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Minimal sedation obviates patient recovery burdens, but intolerable pain limits success of cecal intubation. Painless or minimally uncomfortable insertion ensures success of cecal intubation, current patient satisfaction, and willingness to repeat future colonoscopy with minimal sedation. Water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), when separately compared with air insufflation (AI), significantly reduced insertion pain. To assess comparative effectiveness, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with head-to-head comparison of these three methods. We hypothesized that WE could produce the highest proportion of patients reporting painless insertion.

METHODS

This prospective patient-blinded trial (NCT01535326) enrolled minimally sedated (25 mg intramuscular meperidine) patients randomized to AI, WI, or WE (90 patients/group) to aid insertion. The previously validated primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting painless insertion.

RESULTS

Painless insertion was reported by 30.0% (AI), 43.3% (WI), and 61.1% (WE) of patients (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that, after adjusting for gender, body mass index, abdominal compression, position change, insertion time to cecum, and length of scope at cecum, only WE was significantly associated with painless insertion compared with AI (odds ratio (OR)=0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.03-0.24, P<0.001) or WI (OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.05-0.40, P<0.001). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right (cecum and ascending) colon was 11.1% (AI), 14.4% (WI), and 26.7% (WE) (P=0.015). The limitations included single site study with unblinded colonoscopist and assistant.

CONCLUSIONS

This head-to-head comparison of AI vs. WI vs. WE confirmed that WE was superior to WI and AI, with a significantly greater proportion of patients reporting painless insertion. The significantly higher ADR in the right colon in the WE group warrants further investigations.

Quality in colonoscopy: European perspectives and practice

Colonoscopy is the 'gold standard' investigation of the colon. High quality colonoscopy is essential to diagnose early cancer and reduce its incidence through the detection and removal of pre-malignant adenomas. In this review, we discuss the key components of a high quality colonoscopy, review methods for improving quality, emerging technologies that have the potential to improve quality and highlight areas for future work.

Patient-reported outcome measures after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, multicentre study

OBJECTIVE

While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in ERCP are scarce, these reports are important for making improvements in quality of care. This study sought to document patient satisfaction and specifically pain related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures and to identify predictors for these experiences.

METHODS

From 2007 through 2009, prospective data from consecutive ERCP procedures at 11 hospitals during normal daily practice were recorded. Information regarding undesirable events that occurred during a 30-day follow-up period was also reported. The patient-reported pain, discomfort and general satisfaction with the ERCP were recorded.

RESULTS

Data from 2808 ERCP procedures were included in this study. Patient questionnaires were returned for 52.6% of the procedures. Moderate or severe pain was experienced in 15.5% and 14.0% of the procedures during the ERCP and in 10.8% and 7.7% of the procedures after the ERCP, respectively. In addition, female gender, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and longer procedure times served as independent predictors of increased pain during the ERCP. The performing hospitals and sedation regimens were independent predictors of the procedural pain experience. In 90.9% of the procedures, the patients were satisfied with the information overall, and in 98.3% of the procedures, the patients were satisfied with the treatment provided. Independent predictors of dissatisfaction with the treatment included the occurrence of specific complications after ERCP and pain during or after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Female gender, the performance of EST and longer procedure times were independent predictors for increased procedure-related pain. The individual hospital and sedation regimen predicts the patient's pain experience.

Factors affecting colonoscope insertion time in patients with or without a colostomy after left-sided colorectal resection

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We examined whether the insertion time for colonoscopies performed after left-sided resection was different in patients with a colostomy from that in patients without a colostomy and identified factors that could impact colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy between July 2005 and March 2011 after left-sided colorectal resection for colorectal cancer. We classified surgical methods according to the presence or absence of a colostomy and evaluated colonoscope insertion time retrospectively. Furthermore, we analyzed factors that might affect insertion time.

RESULTS

A total of 1,041 patients underwent colonoscopy after left-sided colorectal resection during the study period. The colonoscopy completion rate was 98.6 %, and the mean insertion time was 6.1 ± 4.6 min (median 4.7 min, range 0.3-35.8 min). A shorter resection length of colon, the presence of a colostomy, and a lower endoscopist case volume were found to be independent factors associated with prolonged insertion time in patients with left-sided colorectal resection. Among experienced colonoscopists, no colonoscopy-associated or clinical factors were found to affect insertion time. However, a shorter resection length of colon, the presence of a colostomy, and poor bowel preparation were associated with prolonged insertion time among inexperienced endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified three factors that affect colonoscope insertion time after left-sided colorectal resection, including the presence of a colostomy. Inexperienced endoscopists were much more affected by the presence of a colostomy after left-sided colorectal resection. These findings have implications for the practice and teaching of colonoscopy after left-sided colorectal resection.

The water method is effective in difficult colonoscopy - it enhances cecal intubation in unsedated patients with a history of abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy in unsedated patients in the US is considered to be difficult. Success rate of cecal intubation is limited by discomfort. Colonoscopy in patients with a history of abdominal surgery is also considered to be difficult due to adhesion-related bowel angulations. The water method has been shown to significantly reduce pain during colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the water method enhances the completion of colonoscopy in unsedated patients with a history of abdominal surgery. DESIGN: The data bases of two parallel RCT were combined and analyzed. SETTING: Two Veterans Affairs endoscopy units. PATIENT AND METHODS: The water and air methods were compared in these two parallel RCT examining unsedated patients. Those with a history of abdominal surgery were selected for evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Completion of unsedated colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among patients with a history of abdominal surgery, the proportion completing unsedated colonoscopy in the water group (19 of 22) was significantly higher than that (11 of 22) in the air group (p=0.0217, Fisher's exact test). LIMITATIONS: Small number of predominantly male veterans, unblinded colonoscopists, not all types of abdominal surgery (e.g. hysterectomy, gastrectomy) predisposing to difficult colonoscopy were represented. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-principle assessment confirms that in patients with a history of abdominal surgery the water method significantly increases the proportion able to complete unsedated colonoscopy. The water method deserves to be evaluated in patients with other factors associated with difficult colonoscopy.

A hypothesis-generating review of the water method for difficult colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Several factors such as significant procedure-related discomfort, excessive intubation time or failed cecal intubation have been associated with difficult colonoscopy. An update of these factors and colonoscopy techniques reported to be efficacious in enhancing completion of cecal intubation in difficult colonoscopy patients is provided in this review.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Medline search (January 2006 to July 2010) was conducted using the following search terms: colonoscopy, difficult, abdominal pain, and discomfort.

RESULTS

Reviewed data are tabulated for presentation. Several water-related techniques have been described separately as adjuncts to usual air insufflation to minimize discomfort, reduce intubation time and improve success rate of cecal intubation. A combination of these techniques was subjected to trial-and-error modifications followed by randomized controlled comparisons. Progressive improvement in colonoscopy outcomes that paralleled stepwise incorporation of exclusion of air insufflation, removal of residual colonic air by suction and removal of residual feces by water exchange during the insertion phase has been described.

CONCLUSIONS

The water method is potentially important for improving results of colonoscopy (cecal intubation) especially in unsedated patients. The unsedated option may lower costs. The success of the water method in difficult cases should be evaluated in randomized controlled trials. The call should be considered and explored by endoscopists interested in improving the quality of colonoscopy. A multicenter study to optimize the number of cases will be most desirable. In pragmatic terms, the use of the water method in difficult (unsedated) colonoscopy in the United States did receive recent editorial endorsement.

Factors affecting insertion time for colonoscopy performed under intramuscular analgesia in patients with history of colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy can detect both early intraluminal recurrence and metachronous neoplasia after colorectal cancer resection. Because colon length and location change after colorectal resection, factors affecting insertion time during colonoscopy also might be altered. The goal of this study was to examine whether colonoscope insertion time differs between left-sided resection and right-sided resection and to identify factors that impact the performance of colonoscopy after colorectal resection.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy between November 2005 and November 2009 after colorectal resection for colorectal cancer. We classified surgical methods into left-sided resection (left hemicolectomy, low anterior resection, anterior resection, Hartman, and Mile's operation) or right-sided resection (right hemicolectomy) and retrospectively evaluated the colonoscope insertion time. Moreover, we analyzed factors that might affect the insertion time.

RESULTS

A total of 1,260 patients underwent colonoscopy after colorectal resection during the study period. Of these, 1,248 patients (771 men) who underwent complete colonoscopy were evaluated in this study. The colonoscopy completion rate was 99%, and the mean insertion time was 6.5±5.1 min (median, 5 min; range, 0.3-61 min). Right-sided resection, female gender, poor quality of bowel preparation, lower endoscopist case volume, open laparotomy, and colonoscopy performed more than 1 year after colorectal resection were found to be independent factors associated with prolonged insertion time.

CONCLUSIONS

This large study identified six factors that affect colonoscope insertion time after colorectal resection. These findings have implications for the practice and teaching of colonoscopy after colorectal resection.

Significant hypercapnia either in CO(2)-insufflated or air-insufflated colonoscopy under deep sedation

BACKGROUND

previous reports showed that CO(2)-insufflated colonoscopy is safe and less discomfortable. However, hypercapnia remains a vital concernment if deep sedation is necessary for difficult colonoscopy with prolonged CO(2) insufflation. This observational study is to measure bodily CO(2) subjected to colonoscopy facilitated by CO(2)- and air- or air-insufflation in conscious-sedation, deep-sedation and awake patients.

OBJECTIVE

to investigate if CO(2)-insufflated colonoscopy could increase the risk of hypercapnia in awake, conscious-sedation and deep-sedation patients.

METHODS

104 patients in our health center undergoing sequential esophagogastroscopy and colonoscopy screening were included. At patients' request, incremental intravenous sedatives were given in order that the air-insufflated esophagogastroscopy could be carried out without the molestation of gag and cough reflexes. The sedation levels were re-evaluated before proceeding colonoscopy and the patients were divided into conscious-sedation (respond purposefully to verbal commands) and deep-sedation groups and randomly allocated for air or CO(2) insufflation. Transcutaneous capnography (TcCO(2)) was recorded every minute throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

RESULTS

the baseline TcCO(2) in the air- (50.9 ± 5.7 mmHg) and CO(2)-insufflated (53.1 ± 6.5 mmHg) groups under deep sedation was significantly higher than the groups under conscious-sedation and the awake groups (p < 0.01). In both air- and CO(2)-insufflation groups there were also a statistically significant (p < 0.01) correlation in TcCO(2) between the start, the peak and the end of colonoscopy. TcCO(2) did not significantly change throughout the colonoscopy in awake and conscious-sedation groups, either with air or CO(2) insufflation. With deep sedation, TcCO(2) significantly increased and peaked around the time when the scope touching the cecum, and then returned to original state with suction and withdrawl of the colonoscope without significant interaction of CO(2) insufflation and deep sedation.

CONCLUSION

the TcCO(2) during colonoscopy was correlated to the data before inserting colonoscope but significantly different within awake, conscious-sedation and deep-sedation groups. TcCO(2) did not change significantly either with CO(2) insufflation or air insufflations in awake and conscious-sedation groups. However, in deep-sedation groups with significantly higher baseline TcCO(2), further increase of TcCO(2) were significant without interaction with CO(2) insufflation. We concluded that when patients need deep sedation for colonoscopic procedures facilitated by gas insufflation, hypercapnia is still considerably present, not only with CO(2) insufflation but also with air insufflation colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy as an adjunctive method for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome: focus on pain perception

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Visceral hypersensitivity is an important component of the pathophysiology of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In the present study, we investigated differences in pain perception during colonoscopy between IBS patients and non-IBS patients. We further assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of pain scores to diagnose IBS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colonoscopy for the evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms or for screening purposes were included. All patients completed Rome III criteria questionnaires and reported pain scores on 0-100-mm visual analog scales after colonoscopy. The patients were divided into three groups: (i) IBS; (ii) other functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID), including functional bloating, functional diarrhea, and functional constipation; and (iii) healthy controls.

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients were included. The pain scores (median, interquartile range) of IBS patients (52, 34-71) were higher than those of the healthy controls (22, 12-35) or other FGID patients (18, 10-29) (P < 0.001). Upper gastrointestinal symptoms were observed more often in the IBS group than in the non-IBS group (83.2% vs 34.5%, P < 0.001). At the pain score level of 31, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for IBS diagnosis were 86.1%, 75.9%, 75.7%, and 86.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The degree of pain perception during colonoscopy was higher in IBS patients than in non-IBS patients. We concluded that colonoscopy can be useful in identifying IBS patients, with the additional benefit of excluding organic disorders of the lower gastrointestinal tract.

Medication-free colonoscopy--factors related to pain and its assessment

AIM

This paper is a report of a study conducted to determine the possibility of performing colonoscopy without medication, elucidate the factors related to a painful colonoscopy experience and compare colonoscopy patients' reported pain assessment to nurses' and endoscopists' observations.

BACKGROUND

Sedation and pain medication are routinely administered for colonoscopies in many countries. However, medication-free colonoscopies have attracted attention because the use of medication requires a time commitment from patients and increases complications. Earlier studies show that, for instance, gender, age and pelvic operations may increase the risk of painful colonoscopy and those healthcare professionals and patients appear to assess pain differently.

METHOD

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in a Finnish university hospital using questionnaires developed for this study and analysed statistically. The sample of 138 colonoscopy patients, 11 nurses and 11 endoscopists was recruited in 2006.

RESULTS

Over three-quarters of patients reported mild pain or no pain at all. Patients' nervousness is a risk factor for experiencing pain during colonoscopy. Both nurses and endoscopists slightly underestimated the intensity of pain experienced by patients.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to perform colonoscopy without medication with most patients and focus sedation and pain medication on at-risk patients, especially those who are nervous. Before the procedure, nurses must devote time to discovering which patients are nervous and at risk of having a painful colonoscopy to present them for sedation. To improve pain management for patients having colonoscopy, endoscopists and nurses should participate systematically in pain education and use pain scales.

Factors associated with abdominal discomfort during colonoscopy: a prospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy can be uncomfortable. To increase safety, there is a trend, in the UK, towards reduced sedative use. We aimed to determine factors predictive of discomfort during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Prospectively recruited patients were asked to grade anticipated discomfort on a Numeric Rating Scale ranging from 0 to 10. Discomfort scores were recorded every 2 min during the procedure and during peaks of discomfort. An overall discomfort score was recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients [44 male, 65 female; median 61.5 (21-80) years] were recruited. One hundred and three procedures were completed. Forty-five patients received midazolam [median 2 (1.5-5) mg]. Mean overall Numeric Rating Scale score was 4.7 (men 4.0; women 5.2; P<0.01) and median peak score 7. Discomfort was usually greatest at the beginning of the procedure, while in the sigmoid colon. Discomfort scores were higher in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (P = 0.03); diverticular disease (P<0.01); midazolam (P = 0.02), buscopan (P<0.001) or nitrous oxide (P<0.001) use; endoscope tracker use (P = 0.01); incomplete procedures (P<0.001) or a preceding gastroscopy (P = 0.02), but were not correlated with discomfort during venous cannulation or digital rectal examination. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, high anxiety, anticipation of high discomfort, longer intubation time and higher endoscopist's grade of procedural difficulty were independent factors significantly related to overall discomfort scores. Recollected discomfort scores 2-3 months later were lower (P<0.01). Low-dose midazolam had no appreciable amnesic effect.

CONCLUSION

Factors indicative of difficult colonoscopy, and preceding gastroscopy, are associated with greater discomfort, as are the presence of female sex, irritable bowel, anxiety and anticipated discomfort. Low-dose midazolam neither relieves discomfort nor makes patients forget it. Selected patients may benefit from increased analgesia.

Colonoscopy: Art or science?

The focus on colorectal neoplasia has led to an exponential increase in the use of colonoscopy in many countries. Although colonoscopy facilitates the diagnosis and treatment of colonic disease, there are public health issues that include access, training, diagnostic accuracy, complications and additions to health-care costs. Because of this, colonoscopists have a responsibility to ensure that the procedure is appropriate, safe and of high-quality. This article addresses the issue of variation in technical skills that is known to exist within the endoscopic community, even among individuals with similar experience. While some of this variation reflects innate manual dexterity, another aspect is variation in the adoption of technical manoeuvers that facilitate various aspects of the procedure including rates for cecal intubation. Although technical manoeuvers are difficult to evaluate in controlled trials, there is persuasive data that high cecal intubation rates can be achieved by minimizing inflation and looping in the sigmoid colon and by the appropriate use of positional changes and abdominal pressure. In difficult settings, there is also benefit from the use of non-standard endoscopes and various accessories including overtubes.