Role of intravenously administered hyoscine butyl bromide in retrograde terminal ileoscopy: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Impact of Hyoscine Bromide Use on Polyp Detection Rate During Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) are key focus in endoscopic research for CRC screening and prevention. Use of anti-spasmodic agents during colonoscopy to help identify adenomas and polyps has remained a controversial topic. Hyoscine butyl bromide (HBB) is the most commonly used anti-spasmodic agent in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have questioned the clinical efficacy and safety of routine use of HBB for polyp and adenoma detection rates.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and MEDLINE from inception until February 10, 2018, for studies which compared HBB with placebo. We used RevMan version 5.3 for analysis. Procedural end-points were polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenoma detection rates, mean number of polyps detected and cecal intubation time.

Results

We included seven RCTs with 2,588 patients in our analysis. A total of 1,301 patients were randomized to HBB arm and 1,287 to the placebo arm. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of polyp detection rate, 654 in HBB group vs. 616 in the placebo group, (odds ratio (OR) = 1.11, confidence interval (CI) = 0.93 - 1.34, P = 0.25). There was no difference in secondary outcomes of adenoma detection rate, 430 in HBB group vs. 396 in the placebo group, (OR = 1.06, CI = 0.89 - 1.26, P = 0.51), advanced adenoma detection rate, 92 in HBB vs. 95 in placebo group (OR = 0.95, CI = 0.70 - 1.30, P = 0.76), mean number of polyps detected (point estimate = 0.12, CI = 0.00 - 0.23, P = 0.05), adenomatous polyps (OR = 0.84, CI = 0.39 - 1.81, P = 0.65) and cecal intubation time (point estimate = 0.73, CI = -1.98 - 0.52, P = 0.25) between the two groups.

Conclusions

The use of HBB in patients undergoing colonoscopy does not appear to improve polyp or adenoma detection rates. It showed a non-significant trend of increased mean number of polyps detected with HBB.

Is ileocecal valve intubation essential for routine colonoscopic examination?

BACKGROUND

In this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic yield of terminal ileum intubation during routine colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We routinely performed terminal ileum intubation in all patients who underwent colonoscopy at Dokuz Eylul University Hospital between February 2014 and June 2015. Two gastroenterology fellows performed colonoscopies in the Central Endoscopy Unit. Demographic data of patients, indications of colonoscopies, cecum and ileum intubation rate/time, and endoscopic and histopathologic findings of the terminal ileum were all assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1310 consecutive patients (726 female and 584 male, median age: 55.79±14.29 years) underwent colonoscopy during this study period. The colonoscopy was successfully completed in 1144 (87.3%) cases. The terminal ileum was successfully intubated in 1032 (90.2%) cases. The mean time taken to reach the ileum from the cecum was 63.08±64.16 s. Endoscopic abnormalities on the terminal ileum were present in 62 (6%) cases, and biopsies were taken from these patients. However, endoscopic abnormalities were found in 7 and 3.3% of patients who were symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (P=0.02). Clinically significant histopathologic findings were observed in 22 cases, and 12 of the 22 cases were diagnosed as having Crohn's disease.

CONCLUSION

Terminal ileum intubation is particularly indicated in symptomatic patients. In cases of chronic diarrhea, iron-deficiency anemia, abdominal pain, and suspected inflammatory bowel disease, terminal ileum intubation should be done.

Antispasmodic drugs in colonoscopy: a review of their pharmacology, safety and efficacy in improving polyp detection and related outcomes

Antispasmodic drugs are cheap, effective and generally safe. They may improve outcomes in colonoscopy, however their use has not been consistent or widespread. This manuscript reviews the three most commonly used antispasmodics in colonoscopy, namely, hyoscine butylbromide (and related ammonium compounds), glucagon and peppermint oil. The pharmacology, action and safety of the agents, as well as the evidence for them improving colonoscopic outcomes will be discussed. In addition to polyp detection, other colonoscopic outcome endpoints of interest include cecal and ileal intubation, and patient comfort. The drugs studied were all found to be effective gastrointestinal antispasmodics with good safety profiles. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether antispasmodics improve cecal intubation rate, predominantly because the baseline rates are already high. Antispasmodics probably have efficacy in reducing cecal intubation time especially in those with marked colonic spasm. Antispasmodics do not offer significant benefit in polyp detection or improving patient comfort during colonoscopy. Future studies should focus on inexperienced colonoscopists as well as those with marked colonic spasm, in whom the greatest benefit seems to lie.

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.

The role of routinely given hyoscine-N-butylbromide in colonoscopy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Hyoscine-N-butylbromide (HBB) has been proposed to ease colonoscopy and improve mucosal visualization, yet the results from previous studies are conflicting. In our prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study we aimed at evaluating whether routine administration of HBB, before and during colonoscopy, ease the procedure or increase the detection rate for polyps.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred fifty outpatients scheduled for an elective colonoscopy were randomized to receive intravenous injections of either 10 mg hyoscine-N-butylbromide or saline before insertion and at cecum. Patient tolerance and technical ease of colonoscopy were evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS). Procedure times were recorded. Number of detected polyps per patient was evaluated as well. Heart rate was monitored with a pulse oximetry.

RESULTS

HBB did not improve patient tolerance or technically ease the procedure as evaluated by VAS. However, HBB led to faster ileal intubation (1.5 vs 2.0 min, p < 0.001) and shorter total procedure time (22.0 vs 24.0 min, p = 0.03). Patients who received HBB also needed less often external abdominal pressure (48.6 vs 66.7%, p = 0.03). HBB did not improve polyp detection rate (0.89 vs 0.91, p = 0.90). HBB induced a significant rise in heart rate (p < 0.001) and more often tachycardia (17.6 vs 0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine administration of HBB before and during colonoscopy yields only limited improvement in the technical performance of the examination compromised by high incidence of tachycardia.

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.

Terminal ileal intubation and biopsy in routine colonoscopy practice

This special report focuses on the current literature regarding the utility of terminal ileal (TI) intubation and biopsy. The authors reviewed the literature regarding the clinical benefit of TI intubation at the time of colonoscopy and also the evidence for TI intubation as a colonoscopy quality indicator. TI intubation is useful to identify ileal diseases such as Crohn's disease and additionally as a means of confirming colonoscopy completion when classical caecal landmarks are not confidently seen. Previous studies have demonstrated that TI intubation has variable yield but may be more useful in patients presenting with diarrhea. Reported rates of TI intubation at colonoscopy vary. The authors demonstrate that terminal ileoscopy is feasible in clinical practice and sometimes yields additional clinical information. Additionally it may be used as an indicator of colonoscopy completion. It may be particularly helpful when investigating patients with diarrhea, abnormalities seen on other imaging modalities and patients with suspected Crohn's disease. TIs reported as normal at endoscopy have a low yield when biopsied; however, biopsies from abnormal-looking TIs demonstrate a higher yield and have greater diagnostic value.

Effect of antispasmodic drugs on endoscopic ultrasound/endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Antispasmodic drugs (ADs) have been used to reduce examination time or improve the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy, although the practice is controversial. No evidence about the efficacy of AD for endoscopic ultrasonography/EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS/EUS-FNA) is available. This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of AD in EUS/EUS-FNA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 400 patients with pancreaticobiliary, peripancreatic, or peribiliary disease or disorder undergoing EUS/EUS-FNA were prospectively and evenly randomized to undergo EUS/EUS-FNA with AD (w-AD) or without AD (w/o-AD). The primary endpoint was total EUS/EUS-FNA examination time. The secondary endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of endoscopists (patient body motion, gastrointestinal peristalsis, and accomplishment of the purpose) and patients (pain, discomfort, and willingness to undergo re-examination), vital sign changes, adverse events, and sedative dose.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients in the w-AD group and 197 patients in the w/o-AD group were ultimately analyzed. The total examination time was similar between the groups (2299 ± 937 vs. 2259 ± 1019 s). The difference in total examination time from w/o-AD group to w-AD group was -40 s (95% confidence interval, -234-153 s), which was within the noninferiority margin. No statistical differences were observed in endoscopist and patient VAS scores, changes in vital signs, adverse events, or total sedative dose other than fentanyl between the groups.

CONCLUSION

EUS/EUS-FNA can be effectively and safely performed w/o-AD. Further, randomized controlled trials on EUS/EUS-FNA in various disease entities may be required to confirm the results of this study (UMIN000008047).

Patient-posture and Ileal-intubation during colonoscopy (PIC): a randomized controlled open-label trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient's posture change is commonly employed by a colonoscopist to achieve complete examination. We studied whether patient's posture (left-lateral decubitus vs supine) influenced the success rate of ileal intubation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective open-label randomized study performed in the Endoscopy Suite of a tertiary-care center, all adult outpatients referred for colonoscopy, in whom cecal intubation was achieved and who satisfied predefined inclusion criteria, were randomized to undergo ileal intubation in either of the above two postures. Colonoscopy (EC-201 WL, Fujinon) was performed after overnight poly-ethylene-glycol preparation, under conscious sedation and continuous pulse-oxymetry monitoring. After confirming cecal intubation, patients were randomized for ileal intubation. Success was defined by visualization of ileal mucosa or villi (confirmed by digital photography) and was attempted until limited by pain and/or time of ≥ 6 min.

RESULTS

Of 320 eligible patients, 217 patients (150 males) were randomized, 106 to left-lateral decubitus and 111 to supine posture. At baseline, the two groups were evenly matched. Successful ileal intubation was achieved in 145 (66.8 %) patients overall, significantly higher in the supine posture (74.8 % versus 58.5 %; P = 0.014). On multivariate analysis, supine posture (P = 0.02), average/good right-colon preparation (P < 0.01), non-thin-lipped ileocecal (IC) valve (P < 0.001) and younger age (P = 0.02) were independent predictors of success. Positive ileal findings were recorded in 13 (9 %) patients.

CONCLUSION

Ileoscopy is more successful in supine than in left-lateral decubitus posture. Age, bowel preparation and type of IC valve also determine success.

Administration of hyoscine- n-butylbromide during colonoscopy: a survey of current UK practice

OBJECTIVE

Current British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines suggest that hyoscine-n-butylbromide (Buscopan) should be avoided during colonoscopy in patients with a history of angle-closure glaucoma. Angle-closure glaucoma, however, is not very common, is asymptomatic before onset and is treated definitively by a single laser treatment (if spotted early). Open-angle glaucoma is not affected by hyoscine. The aim of this study was to assess the use of hyoscine among colonoscopists, with particular reference to glaucoma.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Following BSG endoscopy subcommittee approval, a short questionnaire was electronically administered to members of the BSG and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hyoscine use among colonoscopists, and effect of glaucoma history upon prescribing practice.

RESULTS

188 colonoscopists responded to some or all of the questions. 123/183 (67.2%) of respondents claimed they were aware of the BSG guidelines. 160/187 (85.6%) sometimes or always use hyoscine, while 27/187 (14.4%) never do. 137/177 (77.4%) always enquire about glaucoma history prior to administration, although 147/176 (83.0%) make no differentiation between open-angle or angle-closure forms. 126/178 (70.8%) would (incorrectly) withhold hyoscine if the patient declares a history of any form of glaucoma. 140/179 (78.2%) do not substitute glucagon as an antispasmodic. 4/180 (2.2%) had encountered ophthalmic complications post-administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Current BSG guidelines pertaining to hyoscine use and glaucoma are inappropriate; the authors recommend revision. Patients undergoing colonoscopy who have received hyoscine should, instead, be advised to seek urgent medical advice if they develop ophthalmic symptoms.

Hyoscine N-butylbromide does not improve polyp detection during colonoscopy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is used for the detection of neoplastic polyps, although a significant miss rate has been reported. Limited data suggest that the administration of the antispasmodic hyoscine N-butylbromide during colonoscopy improves polyp detection.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the use of 20 mg hyoscine N-butylbromide intravenously during colonoscopy improves polyp detection or removal.

DESIGN

A prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, clinical trial.

SETTING

Nonacademic teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

This study involved 674 patients who were routinely referred and accepted for either diagnostic or screening colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Intravenous injection of either 1 mL hyoscine N-butylbromide (n = 340) or 0.9% NaCl solution (n = 334) when withdrawal was started.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the advanced lesion detection rate (ALDR), 5% trimmed mean number of polyps, mean withdrawal time.

RESULTS

The cecal intubation rate was 96%. The PDR, ADR, and ALDR were 56% versus 60%, 30% versus 31%, and 14% versus 14% in the hyoscine N-butylbromide and placebo groups, respectively (all P values > .25). The means of the total number of detected, removed, and harvested polyps per patient were 1.13 versus 1.21, 1.03 versus 1.06, and 0.89 versus 0.89 in the hyoscine N-butylbromide and placebo groups, respectively (all P values > .37). Mean withdrawal time was 561 versus 584 seconds in the hyoscine N-butylbromide and placebo groups, respectively (P = .34). Multivariate analysis demonstrated no effect of hyoscine N-butylbromide on the investigated parameters.

LIMITATIONS

Only experienced colonoscopists participated in the study.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence to support the use of hyoscine N-butylbromide during withdrawal of the colonoscope to improve polyp detection or removal. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN25405865.).

Hyoscine butylbromide - a review on its parenteral use in acute abdominal spasm and as an aid in abdominal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures

BACKGROUND

Being a quaternary ammonium compound derived from scopolamine, the alkaloid hyoscine butylbromide (HBB) exerts anticholinergic effects without side effects related to the central nervous system because it does not pass the blood-brain barrier. Clinical experience with this antispasmodic dates back to the 1950s and led to its registration for treating abdominal cramps/spasm and for diagnostic imaging purposes. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE: This review focuses on the therapeutic efficacy and safety of the parenteral administration of HBB for treating biliary and renal colic and acute spasm in the genito-urinary tract. In addition, its value for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in the abdomen, as well as for labour and palliative care, is reviewed. With the generic and trade name of the drug combined with various search terms related to the relevant clinical applications, a thorough literature search was performed in the Medline and EMBASE databases in April 2008.

FINDINGS

In most clinical studies, recommended doses of 20-40 mg HBB were injected, mainly intravenously. Fast pain reduction was achieved by HBB in renal colic; about 90% of the patients showed good to moderate analgesic responses after 30 min and the onset of action was noticeable within 10 min. Similarly, a pain reduction of 42-78% was observed in patients with biliary colic within 30 min after a single intravenous injection of 20 mg. In contrast, no analgesic efficacy of a single injection of 20 mg was found after surgical or shock-wave procedures in the urogenital area. Administration of HBB prior to, or during, radiological imaging distended the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in double-contrast barium and computed tomographic colonography studies and reduced motion artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging. This improved diagnostic image quality and organ visualisation. Pre-medication led to shorter and easier endoscopy in some, but not all, studies. Because of cervical relaxation, HBB shortened total labour duration with 17-67%. It also relieved pain and reduced GI secretions in terminal cancer patients with inoperable bowel obstruction. With regard to its safety profile, parenteral administration of HBB is associated with mild and self-limiting adverse events, typical for anticholinergic drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical results of rapid action and beneficial efficacy combined with good tolerability support the use of HBB in a range of indications related to acute abdominal spasm, in labour and palliative care and for supporting diagnostic and therapeutic abdominal procedures, where spasm may be a problem.