Factors associated with abdominal discomfort during colonoscopy: a prospective analysis

Comparative efficacy and safety of nalbuphine and hydromorphone in painless colonoscopy techniques: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is essential for diagnosing colon lesions but is often associated with discomfort. Painless colonoscopy techniques are being increasingly used to improve the patient experience."However, in the case of painless colonoscopy, anesthesia is performed outside the operating room, which requires more significant peri-examination of hemodynamic changes and adverse postoperative reactions. This requires a more careful selection of narcotic analgesics, and there needs to be optimal analgesic drug guidance in clinical practice. This study compared the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine and hydromorphone in improving patient comfort and maintaining hemodynamic stability during elective colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial included 72 adult patients (aged 18-65) who underwent sedation colonoscopy. The 72 patients were randomly divided into two groups using a computer-generated random sequence. Body mass index 18.5-28.0 kg/m2; American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I to II. Then, the nalbuphine group was given 0.13 mg/kg nalbuphine, the hydromorphone group was given 0.016 mg/kg hydromorphone, and during the operation, 10-20 mg/time propofol could be appropriately injected according to the patient's examination and cooperation. All patients were continuously monitored for oxygen saturation, heart rate, and noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure. The colonoscopy time and anesthesia time were recorded. Adverse reactions such as hypotension, decreased oxygen saturation, nausea, and vomiting were recorded. Anesthesiologist satisfaction, gastroenterologist (operator), and patient satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Both nalbuphine and hydromorphone effectively maintained hemodynamic stability, with no significant differences in vital signs observed between the groups (P > 0.05). However, nalbuphine significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and headache compared to hydromorphone (P < 0.05). The reduced side effects of nalbuphine were marked, suggesting a better postoperative comfort profile.

CONCLUSIONS

While nalbuphine and hydromorphone effectively maintain intraoperative vital signs, nalbuphine offers superior postoperative comfort. This makes nalbuphine a preferable analgesic choice in outpatient colonoscopy settings. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal dosages for both drugs and to explore their mechanisms of action in procedural pain management.

REGISTER NUMBER

ChiCTR2300077446,November 9, 2023.

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.

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies

INTRODUCTION

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers.

METHODS

Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information.

CONCLUSION

The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.

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.

Longer withdrawal time is not associated with increased patient discomfort in colonoscopy: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Withdrawal time of sufficient length is a quality indicator for colonoscopies. Nonetheless, whether extending the withdrawal time contributes to patient discomfort remains unknown. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between colonoscopy withdrawal time and patient discomfort.

METHODS

A cohort of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at a single institution from October 2018 to January 2020 was retrospectively analyzed. Initially, the relationship between the mean withdrawal time for each colonoscopist in no-finding examinations and polyp detection rate was investigated in 2,043 patients. Subsequently, the primary outcome of association between withdrawal time and patient discomfort, as determined by patient questionnaire, was assessed for each examination in 481 patients from the initial cohort.

RESULTS

The mean withdrawal time was strongly correlated with polyp detection rate (correlation coefficient, 0.72; P<0.001). In contrast, longer withdrawal time was not associated with increased discomfort; however, there was a weak inverse correlation between patient discomfort and longer withdrawal time (correlation coefficient, -0.25; P<0.001). Similarly, multiple regression analysis adjusted for confounding variables revealed that longer withdrawal time was not associated with increased patient discomfort (regression coefficient, -0.04 for each 1-minute increase in the length of withdrawal time; P=0.45).

CONCLUSION

This study showed for the first time that longer withdrawal times did not result in increased discomfort, indicating that withdrawal time can be extended to sufficient length for optimal patient examination and polyp detection.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Anesthesiologist Assistance for Endoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has modified the activities of endoscopy units worldwide. Herein, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on anesthesiologist assistance for endoscopic procedures in Lombardy, Italy.

METHODS

A questionnaire concerning anesthesiologist assistance provided from October 26 to December 6, 2020, in comparison with the same period in 2019, was sent to endoscopic units in Lombardy.

RESULTS

Approximately 54% (34/63) of the units responded. A reduction in the number of all endoscopies (-33.5%; 18792 in 2020 vs. 28264 in 2019) and anesthesiologist-assisted endoscopies (-15.3%; 2652 in 2020 vs. 3132 in 2019) was reported. A greater reduction in anesthesiologist assistance was observed in government community units (-29.5%) than in academic (-14%) and private community units (-4.6%). Among all units, 85% reported a reduction in anesthesiologist assistance; 65% observed a delay/cancellation of procedures; 59%, a restricted patient selection; 17%, the need to transfer some patients to other hospitals; and 32%, a related worsening of procedure quality.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic compromised the anesthesiologist assistance for endoscopic procedures in Lombardy, which worsened the procedure quality mainly in government community units. The COVID-19 "stress test" suggests a more balanced allocation of anesthesiologic resources in the future.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Position Statement on the Use of Hyoscine-n-butylbromide (Buscopan) During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Hyoscine butylbromide, also known as hyoscyamine or scopolamine, and sold under the trade name Buscopan, is an antimuscarinic agent commonly used to induce smooth muscle relaxation and reduce spasmodic activity of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract during endoscopic procedures. However, the balance between desirable and undesirable (adverse) effects is not clear when used during GI endoscopy. The Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) conducted systematic reviews and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations for the use of Buscopan during GI endoscopy. To summarize, we recommend against the use of Buscopan before or during colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). We suggest against the use of Buscopan before or during gastroscopy (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). We suggest the use of Buscopan before or during ERCP (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). More research is needed to determine whether patients undergoing advanced procedures such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection benefit from its use. Buscopan should be used with caution in patients with cardiac comorbidities. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is contraindicated in patients with tachycardia, angina, and cardiac failure. Thus, Buscopan should be used very cautiously in patients with these conditions, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Such patients require careful cardiac monitoring in an environment where resuscitation equipment and appropriately trained staff to use it are readily available. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is also contraindicated in patients with prostatic hypertrophy with urinary retention, and therefore, should be used very cautiously in such patients as well, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Obtaining a preprocedural history of glaucoma is unlikely to be of value when considering Buscopan use. However, in cases where Buscopan has been used, patients should be counselled postprocedurally and told to present to an emergency facility should they experience eye pain, redness, decreased vision, nausea and vomiting or headache.

High-flow nasal oxygenation or standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation in patients at risk of hypoxaemia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (ODEPHI trial)

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen could reduce the incidence of decreased peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) compared with standard oxygen in patients at risk of hypoxaemia undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with blinded assessment of the primary outcome evaluating high-flow nasal oxygen (gas flow 70 L min^-1, inspired oxygen fraction 0.50) or standard oxygen delivered via nasal cannula or face mask (6 L min^-1) or nasopharyngeal tube (5 L min^-1) in patients at risk of hypoxaemia (i.e. >60 yr old, or with underlying cardiac or respiratory disease, or with ASA physical status >1, or with obesity or sleep apnoea syndrome) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The primary endpoint was the incidence of SpO₂ ≤92%. Secondary outcomes included prolonged or severe desaturations, need for manoeuvres to maintain free upper airways, and other adverse events.

RESULTS

In 379 patients, a decrease in SpO₂ ≤92% occurred in 9.4% (18/191) for the high-flow nasal oxygen group, and 33.5% (63/188) for the standard oxygen groups (adjusted absolute risk difference, -23.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), -28.9 to -16.7]; P<0.001). Prolonged desaturation (>1 min) and manoeuvres to maintain free upper airways were less frequent in the high-flow nasal oxygen group than in the standard oxygen group (7.3% vs 14.9%, P=.02, and 11.1% vs 32.4%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients at risk of hypoxaemia undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation, use of high-flow nasal oxygen significantly reduced the incidence of peripheral oxygen desaturation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03829293.

Impact of cumulative experience on the quality of screening colonoscopy: A 13-year observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trends in quality of screening colonoscopy (using the Global Rating Score) in the 13 years since introduction of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.

SETTING

An English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy service from 2007 to 2019.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was undertaken using a prospectively collected database in order to analyse trends in screening endoscopies (including patients following positive faecal occult blood test or with high-risk findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy). The Global Rating Score quality indicators for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy were used as outcome measures, and trends over time were analysed. These included caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, colorectal cancer detection rate, proportion of patients with minimal or mild discomfort scores, proportion of patients who required intravenous sedation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 5352 colonoscopies included, performed by 3 endoscopists; 73.8% were index procedures (i.e. first Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy) and the remainder were follow-up or surveillance colonoscopies. The mean age of patients was 66 (standard deviation 5) years, and 59.8% were male. Mean age increased over time (R²=0.033; p < 0.001). There were significant trends over time towards higher caecal intubation rate (p = 0.015), higher adenoma detection rate (p < 0.001), lower proportion requiring intravenous sedation (p < 0.001). There were no significant trends in comfort scores (p = 0.606), adverse events (p = 0.503) or colorectal cancer detection (p = 0.089).

CONCLUSION

There was a consistent improvement in the Global Rating Score for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopies since the start of the programme, even when quality was already high at the start. Patients can expect high-quality colonoscopy when participating in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

A novel intubation discomfort score to predict painful unsedated colonoscopy

Pain during colonoscopy is a critical quality indicator and often a limiting factor for unsedated colonoscopy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with pain during colonoscopy and establish a model for predicting a painful colonoscopy.Patients aged 18 to 80 who underwent unsedated colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 2 tertiary endoscopic centers in China. The primary outcome was the rate of painful colonoscopy and then we identify high-risk factors associated with painful colonoscopy. A prediction model with an intubation discomfort score (IDS) was developed and validated.Totally 607 patients participated in this study, including 345 in the training cohort and 262 in the validation cohort. Body mass index (BMI) of <18.5 kg/m2 (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.09-4.37), constipation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.25-4.80), and anticipating moderate or severe pain (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.12-3.79) were identified as independent predictive factors for painful colonoscopy and used to develop the IDS (all P < .05). Patients with IDS ≥1 had increased insertion time [9.32(6.2-13.7)] minutes vs 6.87(5.1-10.4) minutes, P = .038) and decreased cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 99.6%, P = .044). Abdominal compression (48.4% vs 19.9%, P < .001) and position change (59.7% vs 32.1%, P < .001) were more frequently required in the group of patients with IDS ≥1. These results were externally validated in a validation cohort.The intubation discomfort score developed in this study was useful for predicting pain during colonoscopy, with IDS ≥1 indicating painful colonoscopy.

Feasibility of a transmucosal sublingual fentanyl tablet as a procedural pain treatment in colonoscopy patients: a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study

Since patients often experience pain and unpleasantness during a colonoscopy, the present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingually administered fentanyl tablets for pain treatment. Furthermore, since the use of intravenous drugs significantly increases colonoscopy costs, sublingual tablets could be a cost-effective alternative to intravenous sedation. We conducted a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study of 158 patients to evaluate the analgesic effect of a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl administered before a colonoscopy. Pain, sedation, nausea, and satisfaction were assessed during the colonoscopy by the patients as well as the endoscopists and nurses. Respiratory rate and peripheral arteriolar oxygen saturation were monitored throughout the procedure. There were no differences between the fentanyl and placebo groups in any of the measured variables. The median pain intensity values, as measured using a numerical rating scale, were 4.5 in the fentanyl group and 5 in the placebo group. The sedation and oxygen saturation levels and the respiratory rate did not differ between the groups. The majority of the colonoscopies were completed.Our results indicate that a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl is not beneficial compared to the placebo in the treatment of procedural pain during a colonoscopy.

Gender, having a positive FIT and type of hospital are important factors for colonoscopy experience in colorectal cancer screening - findings from the SCREESCO study

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the experience of screening procedures is crucial for improving the quality and acceptance of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. The aim of the study was to investigate the colonoscopy experience and associated factors among individuals who underwent a colonoscopy in the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study.

METHODS

Participants in the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO; n = 7593) randomized clinical trial (colonoscopy vs. faecal immunochemical test (FIT)) were enrolled. The primary outcome was overall colonoscopy experience measured with a study-specific questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were measured using multiple regression analyses with factors that included sex, randomization group, geographical regions, university hospital, complications, sedation, clean bowel, time to cecum, and presence of polyps or cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 6572 (87%) individuals responded to the questionnaire. The majority was satisfied with the information, care and treatment. Women reported more worry, discomfort and pain, but also better information, care and treatment compared with men. The FIT group was more worried and perceived more discomfort and pain than the colonoscopy group. Type of hospital (geographical region; university hospital vs. not university hospital) was also a significant predictor for the colonoscopy experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most participants were satisfied with the colonoscopy experience, the study has highlighted areas for improvement. Important factors for colonoscopy experience were gender, randomization group, and type of hospital and therefore crucial to bear in mind when designing screening programs.

Pain perception during colonoscopy in relation to gender and equipment: a clinical study

Objectives A trend for gender-related differences in pain perception during colonoscopies has previously been observed. No consecutive clinical studies have been conducted to confirm such a relation. We aimed to investigate gender-related differences during the colonoscopy procedure, and the impact of endoscopic equipment and psychological factors on pain management. Methods In a consecutive clinical study, 391 patients referred for colonoscopy reported pain perception on a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS) after the procedure. A sub-group of patients (n=38) were given alternate instructions expertly tailored by a psychologist and their VAS scores were compared with those from the main study population. Data from a previous study from the same specialist practice and same source patient population using previous-generation equipment was included for comparison. Results No overall gender-related difference in VAS reports was found. There was no reduction in VAS when alternate instructions were given. Female patients were, however, more likely to benefit from light sedation (p=0.012). When compared with previous-generation endoscopes, the current generation equipment resulted in a VAS drop of 1.9 points for women and 1.6 for men (p<0.009) and washed out a previously observed gender-related difference. Conclusion No overall gender-related differences were found for pain experience during the colonoscopy procedure. Access to up-to-date endoscopic equipment can reduce procedure-related patient discomfort considerably, even at the expert level of a consultant physician. Implications Gastroenterologists should consider utilizing high-end endoscopic equipment to improve pain management and reduce VAS to very acceptable levels.

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.

Comparison of acceptance of PET/MR enterography and ileocolonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare PET/MR enterography with ileocolonoscopy regarding patients' acceptance and their future preference.

METHODS

Between October 2014 and February 2018 one-hundred-eleven patients underwent PET/MR enterography and ileocolonoscopy within 2 weeks. Overall acceptance of each modality was rated using a 10-point Likert scale with higher score indicating worse experience. Wilcoxon test was used to assess difference. Patients' acceptance of bowel cleansing and oral intake of contrast agent was analyzed in the same way. Furthermore, to find out if diagnosis, gender and age might influence patients' acceptance and future preference, Mann-Whitney U test for ordinal and Chi-squared test for categorical parameters were applied.

RESULTS

77 patients (47 females) with a mean age of 44.5 years and diagnosed ulcerative colitis (UC; n = 46) and Crohn's disease (CD; n = 31), were included in the analysis. Overall, ileocolonoscopy was significantly better rated than PET/MR enterography (p < 0.001). Bowel cleansing was worse tolerated than oral intake of liquid (p < 0.001). Patients with CD preferred PET/MR enterography as future screening method, while UC patients favored ileocolonoscopy (p = 0.012). PET/MR enterography tended to be better accepted by CD patients (p = 0.08). Females tolerated both bowel cleansing and oral contrast agent worse than males (p = 0.05 and 0.047). No significant difference between different age groups was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Ileocolonoscopy was rated as better tolerable than PET/MR and the overall rate for future preference was very similar. Optimization of both modalities might enhance patients' acceptance.

High-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation. The prospective multicentre randomised controlled ODEPHI study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Hypoxaemia is a major complication during gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) procedures (upper/lower) when performed under deep sedation in the procedure room. Standard oxygen therapy (SOT) is used to prevent hypoxaemia. Data suggest that risk factors for hypoxaemia under deep sedation during GIE are obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, a body mass index above 30 kg/m², high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, age over 60 years old, high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class and the association of upper and lower GIE. High-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) may potentially improve oxygenation during GIE under deep sedation. We hypothesised that HFNO could decrease the incidence of hypoxaemia in comparison with SOT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ODEPHI (High-flow nasal oxygenation versus standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation. The prospective multicentre randomised controlled) study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFNO to SOT during GIE (upper and/or lower) under deep sedation administered by anaesthesiologists in the procedure room. Three hundred and eighty patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two parallel groups.The primary outcome is the occurrence of hypoxaemia, defined by a pulse oximetry measurement of peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) below or equal to 92% during the GIE procedure. Secondary outcomes include prolonged hypoxaemia, severe hypoxaemia, need for manoeuvres to maintain upper airway patency and other adverse events.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the ethics committee (CPP Sud Est Paris V, France), and patients are included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. As provided for by French law, patients participating in the study are informed that they have the possibility to ask the investigators, once the study is completed, to be informed of the overall results of the study. Thus, a summary of the results will be sent by post to the participants on request.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03829293).

Predictors of Failed Conscious Sedation in Patients Undergoing an Outpatient Colonoscopy and Implications for the Adenoma Detection Rate

Guidelines to triage patients to conscious sedation (CS) or monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for colonoscopy do not exist. We aimed to identify the CS failure rate, predictors of failure, and its impact on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Strict (based on patient experience) and expanded (based on doses of sedative medications) definitions of CS failure were used. Patient and procedure-related variables were extracted. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors for CS failure and the ADR. Among 766 patients, 29 (3.8%) and 175 (22.8%) patients failed CS by strict and expanded definitions, respectively. Female gender (OR 3.50; 95% CI: 1.37–8.94) and fellow involvement (OR 4.15; 95% CI: 1.79–9.58) were associated with failed CS by the strict definition. Younger age (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07–1.49), outpatient opiate use (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.03–2.84), use of an adjunct medication (OR 3.34; 95% CI: 1.94–5.73), and fellow involvement (OR 2.20; 95% CI: 1.31–3.71) were associated with failed CS by the expanded definition. Patients meeting strict failure criteria had a lower ADR (OR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12–0.77). Several clinical factors may be useful for triaging to MAC. The ADR is lower in patients meeting strict criteria for failed CS.

Interobserver variability in comfort scores for screening colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the agreement in comfort scores between patients, endoscopist and specialist screening practitioner (SSP) for colonoscopy, and which factors influence comfort.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Single-centre UK Bowel Cancer Screening Program colonoscopy service from April 2017 to March 2018.

PATIENTS

498 patients undergoing bowel cancer screening colonoscopy, with median age of 68 (IQR 64-71). 320 (64.3%) were men.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent screening colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Comfort scores on a validated 1 (best) to 5 (worst) ordinal scale were assigned for each colonoscopy by the patient, endoscopist and SSP. Inter-rater agreement of discomfort scores between endoscopist, patient and SSP was investigated using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression was used to investigate the effects of patient and colonoscopy factors on comfort scores.

RESULTS

SSPs had superior comfort score agreement with patients (0.638; 'moderate agreement') than endoscopists had with the same patients (0.526; 'weak agreement'). Male patients reported lower scores than female patients (OR 0.483, OR 0.499 [95% CI 0.344 to 0.723]; p<0.001). Endoscopists reported lower scores when there was better bowel prep (OR 0.512 [95% CI 0.279 to 0.938]; p=0.030). Agreement was worse at higher levels of discomfort.

CONCLUSION

There is variability in perceived comfort levels between healthcare providers and patients during screening colonoscopy, which is greater at worse levels of discomfort. Endoscopists who undertake screening colonoscopies may wish to consider both patient and healthcare provider comfort scores in order to improve patient experience while ensuring optimal quality assurance.

Magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy in suspected acute upper GI bleeding versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy in detecting focal lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute upper GI bleeding is common and requires investigation with EGD, but endotherapy is not always necessary. Magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) uses a capsule steerable by an external magnet and allows examination of the upper GI tract and small bowel, but its role in acute upper GI bleeding has not been assessed.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing the diagnostic yield of MACE and EGD in patients with suspected acute upper GI bleeding. Patient tolerance, mucosal visibility by MACE, and frequency of small-bowel bleeding were assessed. Whether or not MACE could safely predict discharge of patients was also determined.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included for analysis (median age, 60 years; 75.8% male). MACE detected more focal lesions (peptic, vascular, and fresh/altered blood without a clear source) than EGD (40 versus 25, respectively, P = .02) but statistical significance was not reached for significant lesions (considered to be the bleeding source; 14 vs 13, respectively, P = 1). Capsule endoscopy identified an additional cause for bleeding in the small bowel in 18%. Visualization by MACE was excellent in most areas; views of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, fundus, and duodenal bulb were suboptimal. MACE was better tolerated than unsedated EGD and correctly identified patients who were safe for discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

MACE had higher diagnostic yield for focal lesions and was better tolerated than EGD. It also correctly predicted safe discharge for patients with acute upper GI bleeding. (Clinical trials registration number: NCT02690376.).

Deep sedation and anaesthesia in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: a joint position statement endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Advisory Group (JAG) and Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA)

In the UK, more than 2.5 million endoscopic procedures are carried out each year. Most are performed under conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids administered by the endoscopist. However, in prolonged and complex procedures, this form of sedation may provide inadequate patient comfort or result in oversedation. As a result, this may have a negative impact on procedural success and patient outcome. In addition, there have been safety concerns on the high doses of benzodiazepines and opioids used particularly in prolonged and complex procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy has evolved rapidly over the past 5 years with advances in technical skills and equipment allowing interventions and procedural capabilities that are moving closer to minimally invasive endoscopic surgery. It is vital that safe and appropriate sedation practices follow the inevitable expansion of this portfolio to accommodate safe and high-quality clinical outcomes. This position statement outlines the current use of sedation in the UK and highlights the role for anaesthetist-led deep sedation practice with a focus on propofol sedation although the choice of sedative or anaesthetic agent is ultimately the choice of the anaesthetist. It outlines the indication for deep sedation and anaesthesia, patient selection and assessment and procedural details. It considers the setup for a deep sedation and anaesthesia list, including the equipment required, the environment, staffing and monitoring requirements. Considerations for different endoscopic procedures in both emergency and elective setting are also detailed. The role for training, audit, compliance and future developments are discussed.

Short article: Willingness to undergo colonoscopy with virtual reality instead of procedural sedation and analgesia

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the willingness of patients to start colonoscopy with virtual reality (VR) instead of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA), as well as their motives and characteristics. There is a growing interest in colonoscopy without PSA. Offering VR as a distraction technique instead of PSA may increase the percentage of colonoscopies without PSA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A survey with demographic, colonoscopy-related and psychology-related questions was completed by 326 adults referred for colonoscopy with PSA.

RESULTS

Overall, 25.7% reported to be willing to start with VR instead of PSA. Main reasons for this choice were receiving as little medication as possible, resuming daily life activities faster and participating in traffic independently afterwards. Logistic regression analysis showed that significant predictors of the willingness to use VR were male sex, higher educational level and absence of worries about the outcome of the colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

If VR turns out to be effective in the future, present results may be useful to customize patient information to help patients choosing VR.

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire (CSSQP) for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Development and Validation Study

Colonoscopy services working in colorectal cancer screening programs must perform periodic controls to improve the quality based on patients' experiences. However, there are no validated instruments in this setting that include the two core dimensions for optimal care: satisfaction and safety. The aim of this study was to design and validate a specific questionnaire for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test, the Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patients' experience (CSSQP). The design included a review of available evidence and used focus groups to identify the relevant dimensions to produce the instrument (content validity). Face validity was analyzed involving 15 patients. Reliability and construct and empirical validity were calculated. Validation involved patients from the colorectal cancer screening program at two referral hospitals in Spain. The CSSQP version 1 consisted of 15 items. The principal components analysis of the satisfaction items isolated three factors with saturation of elements above 0.52 and with high internal consistency and split-half readability: Information, Care, and Service and Facilities features. The analysis of the safety items isolated two factors with element saturations above 0.58: Information Gaps and Safety Incidents. The CSSQP is a new valid and reliable tool for measuring patient' experiences, including satisfaction and safety perception, after a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy.

Upper gastrointestinal tract capsule endoscopy using a nurse-led protocol: First reported experience

AIM

To test the feasibility and performance of a novel upper gastrointestinal (GI) capsule endoscope using a nurse-led protocol.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort analysis of patients who declined gastroscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, OGD) but who consented to upper GI capsule endoscopy. Patients swallowed the upper GI capsule following ingestion of 1 liter of water (containing simethicone). A series of positional changes were used to exploit the effects of water flow and move the upper GI capsule from one gravity-dependent area to another using a nurse-led protocol. Capsule transit time, video reading time, mucosal visualisation, pathology detection and patient tolerance was evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included in the study. The mean capsule transit times in the oesophagus and stomach were 28 s and 68 min respectively. Visualisation of the following major anatomical landmarks was achieved (graded 1-5: Poor to excellent): Oesophagus, 4.8 (± 0.5); gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), 4.8 (± 0.8); cardia, 4.8 (± 0.8); fundus, 3.8 (± 1.2); body, 4.5 (± 1); antrum, 4.5 (± 1); pylorus, 4.7 (± 0.8); duodenal bulb, 4.7 (± 0.7); second part of the duodenum (D2), 4.7 (± 1). The upper GI capsule reached D2 in 64% of patients. The mean video reading time was 48 min with standard playback mode and 20 min using Quickview (P = 0.0001). No pathology was missed using Quickview. Procedural tolerance was excellent. No complications were seen with the upper GI capsule.

CONCLUSION

The upper GI capsule achieved excellent views of the upper GI tract. Future studies should compare the diagnostic accuracy between upper GI capsule and OGD.

Paradigm shift: should the elderly undergo propofol sedation for DBE? A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety of propofol-assisted double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in elderly patients against a younger cohort.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

All patients undergoing DBE over a 30-month period were recruited at our tertiary centre.

PATIENTS

215 procedures in 161 patients were performed. An age cut-off of 65 years and above was used to define those who were elderly.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were subcategorised into four groups: elderly or young undergoing DBE with propofol or conventional sedation (with midazolam±fentanyl).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural data, complications, diagnostic and therapeutic yield were compared.

RESULTS

Cardiovascular disease and a higher American Society of Anaethesiologists (ASA) status were more prevalent in elderly patients undergoing DBE with propofol (p<0.05). Common indications for DBE were occult and overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and suspected Crohn's disease (elderly vs young: 50.7% vs 42.3%, 17.8% vs 12% and 19.2% vs 26.1%, respectively). Diagnostic yield was higher in elderly compared with young patients (75.3% vs 58.5%, p=0.016). The most common findings in elderly and young patients were angioectasia (30.1% and. 18.3%, respectively) and ulcers (17.8% and 9.2%, respectively), while therapeutic intervention rates were comparable (42.5% vs 32.4%, p=0.18). ASA status did not affect propofol dose (p=0.55) or procedure duration (p=0.31). Tolerance scores were favourable in those receiving propofol compared with conventional sedation (p<0.05). There was no difference in complications between the four groups (p=0.17).

CONCLUSION

Compared with young patients, propofol-assisted DBE in the elderly is safe and has a high diagnostic yield.

Patient tolerance and acceptance of different colonic imaging modalities: an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Less invasive alternatives to optical colonoscopy (OC) may improve patient compliance with investigation, but study of patient preference is limited.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to determine patient tolerance and acceptability of OC, computed tomography colonography (CTC) and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and also to determine the choice of investigation made by fully informed members of the lay public.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients assigned a Gloucester Comfort Score (GCS, 1-5; as did endoscopists), an overall test experience score (visual analogue scale, 0-10) and completed a 'Friends and Family Test' following OC, CTC or CCE. In the second part of the study, members of the public were given information detailing the nature, tolerance, acceptability, risks and outcomes and invited to choose which test they would prefer in the event that one was needed.

RESULTS

Assessed by endoscopist and patient, respectively, 24.2 and 49.3% (P<0.005) of symptomatic and 27.3 and 22.1% (P=0.4) of Bowel Cancer Screening Programme patients suffered moderate to severe discomfort (GCS: 4-5) [GCS (mean±SEM): 3.32±0.085, 1.96±0.083 and 1.30±0.088 (P<0.001); overall experience: 5.43, 2.35 and 3.80 (P<0.001)]. In all, 93.6, 96.1 and 85.7% of OC, CTC and CCE patients, respectively, were willing to undergo the same test under the same circumstances. The lay public (n=100) chose a noninvasive test (CTC or CCE) in 55% of the cases to investigate symptoms and chose a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme test in 29% of the cases (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patient tolerance and experience favours CTC and CCE over OC and informed about all aspects of each procedure; a noninvasive option is commonly chosen by the lay public.

Prospective study of the factors associated with poor tolerance to ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opiates for colonoscopy is a widespread clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

to determine the patient's tolerance to colonoscopy and identify the factors associated with lower tolerance.

METHODS

a prospective, single-center, descriptive study of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation. The pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale with a score of 0 to 100 and also qualitatively.

RESULTS

three hundred patients with a median age of 54 years completed the study (p25-75: 45-64); 138 were men (46%). Tolerance was good in 273 cases (91%). The median value of tolerance was 13 (p25-p75: 4-33). Pain was considered as mild in 215 (71.7%), moderate in 57 (19%) and intense in 28 (9.3%). In the univariate study, greater pain was associated with females, anxiety, the indication for the procedure, the length of time and difficulty of the examination, and the doses of sedatives. In the multivariate study, both the indication (OR 2.92, 95% CI = 1.03-8.2, p < 0.05) and the difficulty of the examination (OR 4.68, 95% CI = 1.6-13.6, p < 0.01) were significant. Complications were found in 16 patients (5.3%), although all of them were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

tolerance of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation is good in most cases and complications are infrequent and minor. A worse tolerance to the test is associated with women patients, individuals with anxiety prior to colonoscopy, indication, difficult and longer exploration and lower doses of sedatives.

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.

A prospective randomised study comparing double-balloon colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy in pre-defined technically difficult cases

BACKGROUNDS AND AIM

Technically 'difficult' (TD) colonoscopy is associated with incomplete colonoscopy, discomfort and longer procedures. Double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) may facilitate TD colonoscopy. The primary outcome was to compare the time taken to achieve caecal intubation during conventional colonoscopy (CC) and DBC in patient with a TD colon.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, randomised study comparing DBC and CC for TD colonoscopy. Patients were screened for parameters predictive of TD colonoscopy using an original scoring system and randomised to DBC or CC. Pain, sedation dose, colonoscopy completeness, time taken for cecal intubation, procedure completion, recovery time and patient satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were recruited (DBC=22; CC=22). DBC facilitated total colonoscopy in 22 cases whereas 9 CC procedures were incomplete (P=0.019). Median pre-procedure difficulty scores were equal for both groups (4.0 vs. 4.0). Mean patient discomfort, pain scores and recovery time were significantly lower for the DBC group (2.3 vs. 5.5, P=0.001; 2.0 vs. 5.9, P=0.005; 5 vs. 20min, P=0.014 respectively). Mean time taken for cecal intubation was similar (17.5 vs. 14min, P=0.18); CONCLUSION: DBC facilitates colonoscopy completion and may be a more comfortable alternative to CC for TD cases although the time taken to achieve caecal intubation was similar.

Patients with computed tomography-proven acute diverticulitis require follow-up to exclude colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Traditionally, patients with acute diverticulitis undergo follow-up endoscopy to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC). However, its usefulness has been debated in this era of high-resolution computed tomography (CT) diagnosis. We assessed the frequency and outcome of endoscopic follow-up for patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis, according to the confidence in the CT diagnosis.

METHODS

Records of patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis between October 2007 and March 2014 at Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust were retrieved. The National Cancer Registry confirmed the cases of CRC. Endoscopy quality indicators were compared between these patients and other patients undergoing the same endoscopic examination over the same period.

RESULTS

We identified 235 patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis, of which, 187 were managed conservatively. The CT report was confident of the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis in 75% cases. Five of the 235 patients were subsequently diagnosed with CRC (2.1%). Three cases of CRC were detected in the 187 patients managed conservatively (1.6%). Forty-eight percent of the conservatively managed patients underwent follow-up endoscopy; one case of CRC was identified. Endoscopies were often incomplete and caused more discomfort for patients with diverticulitis compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC was diagnosed in patients with CT-proven diverticulitis at a higher rate than in screened asymptomatic populations, necessitating follow-up. CT reports contained statements regarding diagnostic uncertainty in 25% cases, associated with an increased risk of CRC. Follow-up endoscopy in patients with CT-proven diverticulitis is associated with increased discomfort and high rates of incompletion. The use of other follow-up modalities should be considered.

The role of colonoscopy and CT colonography in patients presenting with symptoms of constipation

OBJECTIVE

There is controversy whether constipation as a primary presenting complaint is an indication for diagnostic colonoscopy. CT colonography (CTC) is a less invasive and more acceptable alternative. We compared the completion and sensitivity of colonoscopy with CTC in patients who presented with the primary symptom of constipation.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted which examined the first 100 colonoscopies and 100 CTCs carried out for the primary symptom of constipation from June 2012 to December 2013. The primary outcome measure was failure rate of the investigations. Secondary outcomes included reasons for failure and comparison of cost effectiveness between the two modalities.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were included in this study. Of these, the first consecutive 100 colonoscopies and 100 CTCs were included. One colonic cancer was detected in each of the CTC and the colonoscopy arm, respectively. 37 (37%) attempted colonoscopies were incomplete examinations. The most common reasons were discomfort (51.4%) and poor bowel preparation (27%). There was no failure of CTC. For 100 patients, CTC as a primary investigation was a more cost-effective investigation (p ≤ 0.01) costing £55,016 as compared with colonoscopy costing £73,666.

CONCLUSION

There is an unacceptably high failure rate of colonoscopy in patients who presented with the primary symptom of constipation. Hence, we propose that CTC may be an acceptable first-line investigation with a further colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy if lesions are detected. Advances in knowledge: First study to examine the use of CTC in patients with constipation.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

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.

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.

The Current Role of Radiologic and Endoscopic Imaging in the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Colonic Diverticular Disease

OBJECTIVE

Colonic diverticular disease is among the most prevalent conditions in Western society and is a common cause for outpatient visits and hospitalizations. The role of imaging is in evolution, but it has proven useful in confirming clinically suspected disease, assessing severity and complications, and directing patient management.

CONCLUSION

This review focuses on the current role of radiologic and endoscopic imaging in distinct clinical scenarios of diverticular disease, with emphasis on diverticulitis and its follow-up.

Evidence to suggest adoption of water exchange deserves broader consideration: Its pain alleviating impact occurs in 90% of investigators

AIM: To determine whether observations were reproducible among investigators.

METHODS: From March 2013 through June 2014, 18-85-year-old diagnostic and 50-70-year-old screening patients were enrolled at each center to on-demand sedation colonoscopy with water exchange (WE), water immersion (WI) and insufflation with air or CO₂ for insertion and withdrawal [air or carbon dioxide (AICD)]. Data were aggregated for analysis. Primary outcome: Variations in real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 1-2 = discomfort, 10 = worst).

RESULTS: One thousand and ninety-one cases analyzed: WE (n = 371); WI (n = 338); AICD (n = 382). Demographics and indications were comparable. The WE group had the lowest real-time maximum insertion pain score, mean (95%CI): WE 2.8 (2.6-3.0), WI 3.8 (3.5-4.1) and AICD 4.4 (4.1-4.7), P < 0.0005. Ninety percent of the colonoscopists were able to use water exchange to significantly decrease maximum insertion pain scores. One investigator had high insertion pain in all groups, nonetheless WE achieved the lowest real-time maximum insertion pain score. WE had the highest proportions of patients with painless unsedated colonoscopy (vs WI, P = 0.013; vs AICD, P < 0.0005); unsedated colonoscopy with only minor discomfort (vs AICD, P < 0.0005), and completion without sedation (vs AICD, P < 0.0005).

CONCLUSION: Aggregate data confirm superiority of WE in lowering colonoscopy real-time maximum insertion pain and need for sedation. Ninety percent of investigators were able to use water exchange to significantly decrease maximum insertion pain scores. Our results suggest that the technique deserves consideration in a broader scale.

Improving the utility of colonoscopy: Recent advances in practice

Colonoscopy is a frequently performed diagnostic and therapeutic test and the primary screening tool in several nationalized bowel cancer screening programs. There has been a considerable focus on maximizing the utility of colonoscopy. This has occurred in four key areas: Optimizing patient selection to reduce unnecessary or low yield colonoscopy has offered cost-benefit improvements in population screening. Improving quality assurance, through the development of widely accepted quality metrics for use in individual practice and the research setting, has offered measurable improvements in colonoscopic yield. Significant improvements have been demonstrated in colonoscopic technique, from the administration of preparation to the techniques employed during withdrawal of the colonoscope. Improved techniques to avoid post-procedural complications have also been developed-further maximizing the utility of colonoscopy. The aim of this review is to summarize the recent evidence-based advances in colonoscopic practice that contribute to the optimal practice of colonoscopy.

How does tolerability of double balloon enteroscopy compare to other forms of endoscopy?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastrointestinal endoscopy can be difficult for patients to tolerate. Studies on endoscopic tolerability mainly focus on gastroscopy or colonoscopy with a paucity of data on double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). We aimed to prospectively evaluate tolerability in patients undergoing several forms of endoscopy including DBE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, gastroscopy, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP), capsule endoscopy (CE) and DBE were prospectively recruited. A questionnaire recorded demographics, procedural data, patient tolerability (pain, discomfort and distress recorded on numerical rating scales) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

956 patients were recruited (512 women; median age 57 years). The median pain score for DBE was poor with a score of 5 compared with 1 and 0 for oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and ERCP, respectively (p<0.001). Colonoscopy and retrograde DBE scores were not dissimilar. CE was well tolerated with a median pain score of 0. Patients with DBE required significantly higher doses of sedation and analgesia than other patients. The HADS Anxiety Score was also associated with poorer tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

DBE is poorly tolerated when compared with other forms of endoscopy despite higher doses of sedation. Increasing demand to improve tolerability of DBE in the UK may be addressed with the use of propofol.

Unravelling nocebo effect: the mediating effect of anxiety between anticipation and pain at wound dressing change

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine the mediating effect of anxiety in the relationship between anticipation and pain in people with chronic wounds.

BACKGROUND

Pain is common in people with chronic wounds. Anticipation or negative expectation of discomfort has been shown to have an augmenting effect on pain; also known as nocebo hyperalgesia.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study with repeated measures.

METHODS

Prior to dressing change, anticipatory pain level was evaluated by a 11-point numerical rating scale and anxiety by the Six-items State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6). During wound dressing changes, pain was measured before dressing removal, at dressing removal, at cleansing and dressing application using the numerical scale.

RESULTS

Analysis was completed based on the data from a convenience sample of 96 patients. Participants reported more pain at cleansing and dressing removal than baseline. High levels of anticipation, anxiety and pain at dressing change for wounds were related to heavy exudate and wound that were covered with necrotic tissue. Finally, the relationship between anticipation and pain perception was mediated by anxiety.

CONCLUSION

Anticipation of pain triggers anxiety that can lead to increased pain.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

There is a need to incorporate evaluation of anxiety and personal expectations as part of comprehensive pain assessment. Clinicians should be aware of the impact of emotions and anticipation on overall pain experience.

Visual distraction alone for the improvement of colonoscopy-related pain and satisfaction

AIM: To evaluate the effect of a relaxing visual distraction alone on patient pain, anxiety, and satisfaction during colonoscopy.

METHODS: This study was designed as an endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial with 60 consecutively enrolled patients who underwent elective colonoscopy at Yokohama City University Hospital, Japan. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 watched a silent movie using a head-mounted display, while group 2 only wore the display. All of the colonoscopies were performed without sedation. We examined pain, anxiety, and the satisfaction of patients before and after the procedure using questionnaires that included the Visual Analog Scale. Patients were also asked whether they would be willing to use the same method for a repeat procedure.

RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were allocated to two groups. Two patients assigned to group 1 and one patient assigned to group 2 were excluded after the randomization. Twenty-eight patients in group 1 and 29 patients in group 2 were entered into the final analysis. The groups were similar in terms of gender, age, history of prior colonoscopy, and pre-procedural anxiety score. The two groups were comparable in terms of the cecal insertion rate, the time to reach the cecum, the time needed for the total procedure, and vital signs. The median anxiety score during the colonoscopy did not differ significantly between the two groups (median scores, 20 vs 24). The median pain score during the procedure was lower in group 1, but the difference was not significant (median scores, 24.5 vs 42). The patients in group 1 reported significantly higher median post-procedural satisfaction levels, compared with the patients in group 2 (median scores, 89 vs 72, P = 0.04). Nearly three-quarters of the patients in group 1 wished to use the same method for repeat procedures, and the difference in rates between the two groups was statistically significant (75.0% vs 48.3%, P = 0.04). Patients with greater levels of anxiety before the procedure tended to feel a painful sensation. Among patients with a pre-procedural anxiety score of 50 or higher, the anxiety score during the procedure was significantly lower in the group that received the visual distraction (median scores, 20 vs 68, P = 0.05); the pain score during the colonoscopy was also lower (median scores, 23 vs 57, P = 0.04). No adverse effects arising from the visual distraction were recognized.

CONCLUSION: Visual distraction alone improves satisfaction in patients undergoing colonoscopy and decreases anxiety and pain during the procedure among patients with a high pre-procedural anxiety score.

A randomized controlled trial comparing continuous and as-required nitrous oxide use during screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Entonox is a 50 : 50 combination of nitrous oxide and oxygen, which may be used to manage pain during colonoscopy. The optimal mode of Entonox administration is unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to compare continuous and as-required Entonox use.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients attending for screening colonoscopy at a single centre were randomized to continuous or as-required Entonox use. The primary outcome measure was the patient's overall pain rating at the time of discharge (verbally administered numerical ratings scale, 0=no pain and 10=extreme pain). Secondary outcome measures included the patients' experience of pain during the colonoscopy (rated every 2 min), side effects and the need for rescue intravenous medications.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were randomized, and 100 completed the study (46 continuous, 54 as required). The overall pain scores at discharge did not differ between those who used Entonox continuously and as required (mean=2.4 vs. 3.2, P=0.08). There were also no differences in the experience of pain during colonoscopy (mean=1.8 vs. 2.2, P=0.28; peak=4.2 vs. 4.8, P=0.26; and area under curve=23 vs. 30, P=0.24). Patients with high anxiety had greater overall pain scores (mean=3.7 vs. 2.4, P=0.03). Light headedness occurred more often with continuous Entonox use (48 vs. 21%, P=0.009).

CONCLUSION

Among patients attending for screening colonoscopy, comfort ratings were similar in those using Entonox continuously and as required, but light headedness was more common with continuous use (NCT identifier: 01865721).

Development and validation of a clinical prediction score (the SCOPE score) to predict sedation outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Use of anaesthesia services during endoscopy has increased, increasing cost of endoscopy.

AIM

To identify risk factors for and develop a clinical prediction score to predict difficult conscious sedation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of all patients who underwent oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) and colonoscopy with endoscopist-administered conscious sedation. The endpoint of difficult sedation was a composite of receipt of high doses (top quintile) of benzodiazepines and opioids, or the documentation of agitation or discomfort. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to measure association of the outcome with: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), procedure indication, tobacco use, self-reported psychiatric history, chronic use of benzodiazepines, opioids or other psychoactive medications, admission status and participation of a trainee. A clinical prediction score was constructed using statistically significant variables.

RESULTS

We identified 13,711 OGDs and 21,763 colonoscopies, 1704 (12.4%) and 2299 (10.6%) of which met the primary endpoint, respectively. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with difficulty during OGD were younger age, procedure indication, male sex, presence of a trainee, psychiatric history and benzodiazepine and opioid use. Factors associated with difficulty during colonoscopy were younger age, female sex, BMI <25, procedure indication, tobacco, benzodiazepine, opioid and other psychoactive medication use. A clinical prediction score was developed and validated that may be used to risk-stratify patients undergoing OGD and colonoscopy across five risk classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the Stratifying Clinical Outcomes Prior to Endoscopy (SCOPE) score, patients may be risk stratified for difficult sedation/high sedation requirement during OGD and colonoscopy.

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.

Body mass index, age, and gender affect prep quality, sedation use, and procedure time during screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Body mass index (BMI), age, and gender influence colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenoma risk. Their effects on colonoscopy characteristics are unclear, but might inform the screening approach in patient subgroups.

AIMS

The aims of this study were to assess the effect of BMI, age, and gender on prep quality, amount of sedation, procedure time, and adenoma prevalence for screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a review of 773 eligible colonoscopies performed for average-risk CRC screening. We performed multivariable regression analyses to assess the outcomes of prep quality, amount of fentanyl and midazolam used, procedure time, and the adenoma prevalence rate (APR).

RESULTS

Obese patients were less likely (p = 0.01) to have a good or excellent prep, had similar procedure times, and received similar amounts of fentanyl and midazolam. Increasing age had no effect on prep quality or procedure time, but was associated with decreased fentanyl and midazolam (both p ≤ 0.001). Women had similar prep quality, longer procedure times (increased by 2.8 ± 0.7 min, p < 0.001) for colonoscopies in which no polyps were detected, and received more fentanyl and midazolam (both p = 0.01). Increasing BMI, increasing age, and male gender were associated with an increased APR. The APR for women aged 50-59 with a normal BMI was 17.9 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Normal-weight females, particularly those under age 60, have the lowest APR but have longer procedure times and require higher amounts of sedation. Screening options other than colonoscopy might be well-suited to this population.

No effect of perianal application of topical anaesthetic on patient comfort during nonsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

AIM

A literature review revealed no data on the effects of topical anaesthetic on patient comfort during flexible sigmoidoscopy. We therefore aimed to evaluate this in a randomized manner.

METHOD

One hundred and forty-six patients who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy were randomly allocated to one of three groups. Vaseline (n = 49), 2% lidocaine gel (n = 51) or a cream of 2.5% lidocaine plus 2.5% prilocaine (n = 46) were applied to the patients 30 min before the procedure. Demographic data and haemodynamic monitoring during procedures were recorded. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and anxiety levels by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I and STA-II).

RESULTS

Median pre-procedural STAI-I scores were 45, 46 and 40.5 and median post-procedural STAI-I scores were 35, 34 and 33.5 for the vaseline, lidocaine, and lidocaine/prilocaine treatments, respectively. There was no statistical difference among the groups in terms of STAI-I and II scores. However, post-procedural STAI-I scores were significantly lower than pre-procedural values in each group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in VAS scores among the groups. In all groups there were statistically higher VAS scores during the procedure compared with the pre- and post-procedural scores (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Perianal application of topical anaesthetic does not influence patient comfort during sigmoidoscopy.