The water method significantly enhances proximal diminutive adenoma detection rate in unsedated patients

ENDOANGEL versus water exchange for the detection of colorectal adenomas

Background

Recently, the ENDOANGEL (EN) system, a computer-assisted detection technique, and water exchange (WE) assisted colonoscopy have both been shown to increase the colorectal adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the ADR between EN- and WE-assisted colonoscopy.

Design

This was a retrospective study.

Methods

Data from patients who underwent either EN- or WE-assisted colonoscopy between October 2021 and August 2022 were analysed consecutively. The primary outcome measure was the ADR.

Results

The ADR was found to be similar between the EN and WE groups, with 80 out of 199 (40.2%) patients in the EN group compared to 78 out of 174 (44.8%) patients in the WE group [1.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80-1.83]. In the analysis using stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting after adjustment for confounding factors, both colonoscopy methods had similar performance in terms of ADR (1.41; 95% CI, 0.88-2.27).

Conclusion

EN was found to be comparable to WE in terms of ADR during colonoscopy, and both methods may be effectively used in clinical practice.

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

Background and study aims  Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods  Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results  Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P  = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P  = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions  UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

How to increase proximal adenoma detection rate: a meta-analysis comparing water exchange, water immersion and air/CO2 insufflation methods for colonoscopy

Background

Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated a higher adenoma detection rate using the water exchange method (WE), compared to water immersion (WI) and air/CO₂ insufflation (ACI). Proximal adenomas have a high miss rate owing to their location and appearance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the WE and WI methods to the ACI method, with a primary focus on proximal adenoma detection rate.

Methods

The following databases were searched for our systematic review: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences. We included both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The primary outcome was proximal adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes were right adenoma detection rate and cecal intubation rate.

Results

A total of 12 studies (17 arms) with 5660 patients (2260 ACI, 2281 WE, and 1119 WI) were included. A higher proximal adenoma detection rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.53; P=0.001) and right adenoma detection rate (RR 1.43, 95%CI 1.19-1.71; P≤0.001; I²=0%) were noted for the WE group compared to the ACI group. The WI group did not demonstrate a better detection rate of proximal or right adenomas.

Conclusions

The water exchange method for colonoscopy holds promise and should be encouraged in the clinical setting to increase proximal and right adenoma detection rates. This will in turn decrease the incidence of colorectal cancer.

Water Exchange Produces Significantly Higher Adenoma Detection Rate Than Water Immersion: Pooled Data From 2 Multisite Randomized Controlled Trials

GOALS

To test the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) significantly increases adenoma detection rates (ADR) compared with water immersion (WI).

BACKGROUND

Low ADR was linked to increased risk for interval colorectal cancers and related deaths. Two recent randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparison of WE, WI, and traditional air insufflation (AI) each showed that WE achieved significantly higher ADR than AI, but not WI. The data were pooled from these 2 studies to test the above hypothesis.

STUDY

Two trials (5 sites, 14 colonoscopists) that randomized 1875 patients 1:1:1 to AI, WI, or WE were pooled and analyzed with ADR as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The ADR of AI (39.5%) and WI (42.4%) were comparable, significantly lower than that of WE (49.6%) (vs. AI P=0.001; vs. WI P=0.033). WE insertion time was 3 minutes longer than that of AI (P<0.001). WE showed significantly higher detection rate (vs. AI) of the >10 mm advanced adenomas. Right colon combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR of AI (3.4%) and WI (5%) were comparable and were significantly lower than that of WE (8.5%) (vs. AI P<0.001; vs. WI P=0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with AI and WI, the superior ADR of WE offsets the drawback of a significantly longer insertion time. For quality improvement focused on increasing adenoma detection, WE is preferred over WI. The hypothesis that WE could lower the risk of interval colorectal cancers and related deaths should be tested.

Impact of Colonoscopy Insertion Techniques on Adenoma Detection

BACKGROUND

Low adenoma detection rate (ADR) predicts development of interval cancers, found mainly in the right (cecum-ascending) colon, where poor bowel preparation is an associated factor. Single-site studies reported increased detection of adenomas in the proximal colon segments by water exchange (WE). Data about colon cleansing revealed that WE had the greatest impact in the right colon.

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that WE had the greatest impact on ADR in colon segments with the most favorable bowel cleanliness scores, namely the right colon.

METHODS

We pooled right colon and overall ADR data of three similarly designed colonoscopy trials that compared WE, water immersion (WI) and insufflation of air or carbon dioxide (AICD) in a mixed gender European population.

RESULTS

In this study, 1200 (704 males) subjects and were included. 288 were screening cases. Demographic and procedural data were comparable. Water exchange achieved significantly higher right colon <10 mm ADR (11.9 %, vs WI 6.9 %, p = 0.016; vs AICD 7.2 %, p = 0.025). Water exchange achieved the lowest proportions of poor bowel preparation and the highest right colon and overall Boston bowel preparation scale scores (p range 0.003, <0.0005). In patients with right colon excellent bowel cleanliness, water exchange was the only method significantly associated with right colon adenoma detection. One of the limitations is unblinded colonoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

In a mixed gender European population, water exchange is confirmed to be a superior insertion technique showing a significant increase in <10 mm right colon adenoma detection, achieving the cleanest colon and lowest proportions of poor bowel preparation requiring repeat procedures. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV NO

NCT01781650, 01954862, 01780818.

Insertion water exchange increases right colon adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection rates during withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Single site studies in male Veterans in the U.S. reported increased detection of presumptive cancer precursors (adenomas, hyperplastic polyps) in the proximal colon (cecum-splenic flexure) by water exchange.

AIMS

Assess the reproducibility of the observation.

METHODS

Analysis of secondary outcomes collected prospectively in 3 similarly designed randomized controlled trials using water exchange, water immersion and insufflation (air or carbon dioxide).

MAIN OUTCOME

detection rates of adenomas and hyperplastic polyps in proximal, transverse and right colon (cecum-ascending).

RESULTS

704 males (173 screening) were evaluated. In the proximal colon, WE showed increased detection of small adenomas (p=0.009) and adenomas plus hyperplastic polyps (p=0.015) (vs insufflation); increased detection of adenomas plus hyperplastic polyps of any size (p=0.045) and of small size (p=0.04) (vs water immersion). In the right colon water exchange increased detection of small adenomas (19% vs 12.1%, p=0.04) (vs insufflation); small adenomas (19% vs 12%, p=0.038), adenomas plus hyperplastic polyps of any size (25% vs 16.7%, p=0.028) and of small size (23.7% vs 14.6%, p=0.012) (vs water immersion). Water exchange significantly improved bowel cleanliness. Sedation had no impact on lesion detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Water exchange is a superior insertion technique for detection of adenomas and hyperplastic polyps primarily in the right colon, especially those of small size.

What Influences the Quality of Prevention Colonoscopy?

Background

Colorectal cancer still has a high incidence and mortality. Although colonoscopy is considered as gold standard of colorectal cancer screening, there still exists an unsatisfactory level of adenomas missed in screening and surveillance colonoscopy. Furthermore, patients bear the burden of potentially unpleasant and painful examination and preparation procedures.

Method

A search of the literature using PubMed was carried out, supplemented by a review of the programs of the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) 2011-2013.

Results

Several new approaches to colonoscopy were described: water, CO₂ and cap colonoscopy, and application of spasmolytics such as hyoscine butylbromide and glucagon. The use of these methods does not necessitate the purchase of new endoscopes. They are feasible and safe, facilitate achieving the aim of more comfort and less pain, and perhaps allow lower doses of sedatives to be used. However, a clear effect on procedure time is lacking. Furthermore, the published data do not consistently answer the question of whether these techniques have a positive impact on the most important goal, the better detection of carcinoma precursors.

Conclusion

More efforts to optimize bowel preparation have to be made to improve visualization of the mucosal surface. The most reliable criteria for the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy remain a minimum cecal intubation rate of >90%, a withdrawal time of at least 6 or better 9 min, and an adenoma detection rate of >20%. These results should be achieved with a complication rate lower than 1%, including polypectomy.

Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on serum sodium and potassium levels: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Concerns over the hypothetical adverse effects of water absorption and the disturbance of serum sodium and potassium levels prompted a quality assurance evaluation of water exchange (WE) colonoscopy.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the balance of water infused and suctioned in WE colonoscopy, and to quantify the acute impact on serum levels of sodium and potassium.

METHODS

Prospectively collected quality monitoring data of patients undergoing screening and surveillance colonoscopy at the Sacramento Veterans Affairs Medical Center were analyzed. Measurements were made of volume infused and suctioned during, and blood samples drawn 10 min before the start of and 10 min after completion of WE colonoscopy. Outcome measures included volume of water infused and suctioned, and serum levels of sodium and potassium.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients (134M:6F), mean age of 59, underwent WE colonoscopy. Mean total volume of water infused was 1,839 mL. A negative balance of an average of 22 mL was documented. The mean (standard deviation) values (in meq/L) of serum levels of sodium 139.33 (2.27) and 139.28 (2.32), and potassium 3.86 (0.36) and 3.91 (0.39), before and after colonoscopy, respectively, showed no significant change.

CONCLUSION

The WE method allowed most of the water infused during colonoscopy to be recovered by suction at the completion of colonoscopy. Serum sodium and potassium levels did not change significantly within 10 min after completion. The WE method appears to be safe with minimal water retention and is devoid of acute fluctuations in serum levels of sodium and potassium.

Advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has undergone a remarkable expansion in its capabilities as a result of sophisticated technological advances in recent years. New imaging technologies, novel ablation and resection techniques, cutting-edge endoscope development and creative extraluminal applications have taken gastrointestinal endoscopy to an exciting new level. An update on some of these advances is presented for the physician audience.

Water-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Water-aided methods for colonoscopy are distinguished by the timing of removal of infused water, predominantly during withdrawal (water immersion) or during insertion (water exchange).

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the impact of these approaches on colonoscopy pain and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Randomized, controlled trial (RCT) that compared water-aided methods and air insufflation during colonoscope insertion.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Medline, PubMed, and Google searches (January 2008-December 2011) and personal communications of manuscripts in press were considered to identify appropriate RCTs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Pain during colonoscopy and ADR. RCTs were grouped according to whether water immersion or water exchange was used. Reported pain scores and ADR were tabulated based on group assignment.

RESULTS

Pain during colonoscopy is significantly reduced by both water immersion and water exchange compared with traditional air insufflation. The reduction in pain scores was qualitatively greater with water exchange as compared with water immersion. A mixed pattern of increases and decreases in ADR was observed with water immersion. A higher ADR, especially proximal to the splenic flexure, was obtained when water exchange was implemented.

LIMITATIONS

Differences in the reports limit application of meta-analysis. The inability to blind the colonoscopists exposed the observations to uncertain bias.

CONCLUSION

Compared with air insufflation, both water immersion and water exchange significantly reduce colonoscopy pain. Water exchange may be superior to water immersion in minimizing colonoscopy discomfort and in increasing ADR. A head-to-head comparison of these 3 approaches is required.

Indigocarmine added to the water exchange method enhances adenoma detection - a RCT

PURPOSE

Chromoendoscopy with dye spray and the water method both increase adenoma detection.

HYPOTHESIS

Adding indigocarmine to the water method will enhance further the effectiveness of the latter in adenoma detection.

METHODS

Screening colonoscopy was performed with the water method (control) or with 0.008% indigocarmine added (study) by two endoscopists. Randomization was based on computer-generated codes contained in blocks of pre-arranged opaque sealed envelopes. High resolution colonoscopes were used. Upon insertion into the rectum, air was suctioned. With the air pump turned off, water was infused using a blunt needle adaptor connected to the scope channel and a foot pump to facilitate scope insertion until the cecum was reached. Residual stool causing cloudiness was suctioned followed by infusion of clear or colored water (water exchange) to facilitate scope passage with minimal distention of the colonic lumen. Upon seeing the appendix opening under water, water was suctioned and air was insufflated to facilitate inspection on scope withdrawal.

STATISTICS

Sample size calculation revealed 168 patients (84/group) needed to be randomized. Study was IRB-approved and registered (NCT01383265).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in mean age, gender distribution, BMI, and family history of colon cancer. Cecal intubation success rate was 100% in both groups. The overall adenoma detection rate was 44% (water only) versus 62% (water with indigocarmine), respectively (p=0.03). One cancer was detected in each group.

CONCLUSION

In a RCT, indigocarmine at 0.008% concentration, added to the water method, significantly enhanced further the effectiveness of the latter in detecting adenomas.

A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The water method facilitates colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare quality indicators in sedated veterans. DESIGN: Performance improvement. SETTING: VA endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: 368 consecutive screening patients. INTERVENTION: Air or water method assignment (high definition colonoscope) was based on the last digit of social security number. MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate; intubation and withdrawal times; sedation requirements and external pressure used. RESULTS: ADR was higher with the water method (57.1% vs. 46.1%, p=0.04). After controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation, the odds of detecting an adenoma was 81% higher with the water method (OR 1.81; 95% cI: 1.12-2.90). In the proximal colon ADR was higher with the water method (45.8% vs. 34.6%, p=0.03), including adenomas <10 mm in size (41.8% vs. 31.4%, p=0.04). The water method showed significantly longer cecal intubation time (6.9±0.3 vs. 5.3±0.3 min, p=0.0001); less external pressure used (11.9% vs. 28.3%, p=0.0001); lower need for additional sedation (17.5% vs. 27.2%, p<0.03). LIMITATIONS: Predominance of males, single unblinded endoscopist with high ADR. CONCLUSIONS: The water method is an independent factor associated with significantly higher ADR. Replication by blinded colonoscopist(s) is indicated.

Feasibility of colonoscopy with water infusion in minimally sedated patients in an Asian Community Setting

BACKGROUND: Investigators in the US described large volume water infusion with marked benefits but acknowledged the limitation of male veteran predominance in the study subjects. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of large volume water infusion in Asian patients undergoing minimal sedation diagnostic colonoscopy in a community setting. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized to receive large volume (entire colon) (Group A, n=51), limited volume (rectum and sigmoid colon) (Group B, n=51) water infusion, or air insufflation (Group C, n=51). Pain during insertion, completion rate, cecal intubation and total procedure times, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Pain and satisfaction were assessed with a 0-10 visual analog scale. RESULTS: The mean pain scores during insertion were lower in the Group A and Group B than in Group C, 3.3±2.4, 3.0±2.2 and 4.4±2.6, respectively (p=0.028 and p=0.004). The completion rates and cecal intubation times were similar among the three groups. The procedure time was significantly longer in Group A than in group C (15.3±5.9 min vs. 13.1±5.4 min, p=0.049). Overall satisfaction with the procedure was greater in Group B than in Group C only (9.7±0.5 vs. 9.4±0.8, p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic colonoscopy with large volume water infusion without air insufflation appears to be feasible in minimally sedated Asian patients in a community setting. Measures to improve the outcome further are discussed.

The water method for aiding colonoscope insertion: the learning curve of an experienced colonoscopist

BACKGROUND: The water method has promising features for colonoscopy but the learning curve to master the technique is unknown. AIMS: To describe the learning phase, and pitfalls of the water method and its impact on procedural outcomes by an experienced colonoscopist. DESIGN: Review of prospectively collected data in a performance improvement project SETTING: endoscopy Unit at a VA medical center PATIENTS: 200 consecutive veterans undergoing colonoscopy METHODS: An experienced colonoscopist examined 4 consecutive groups of 25 patients each using the water method to define the learning curve. Outcomes were compared to a historical cohort (n=100) examined by the same colonoscopist using usual air insufflation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intent-to-treat (ITT) cecal intubation rate. RESULTS: ITT cecal intubation rate increased from 76% (first) to 96% (fourth quartile). Cecal intubation time in the first 2 quartiles was significantly longer (8.9±1.0 and 8.2±0.8 min, respectively) than that in the historical cohort (5.8±0.4 min) but decreased and became comparable to control values in the next 2 quartiles (7.2±0.9 and 6.6±0.6 min, respectively). Overall adenoma detection rate as a group (55%), compared favorably to the historical cohort (46%). CONCLUSIONS: The water method is relatively easy to learn for an experienced colonoscopist. Mastery of the method resulted in cecal intubation rate and overall adenoma detection rate meeting quality performance standards.

Removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (water exchange) is consistently associated with an increase in adenoma detection rate - review of data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of water-related methods

INTRODUCTION: Variation in outcomes in RcTs comparing water-related methods and air insufflation raises challenging questions regarding the new approach. This report reviews impact of water exchange - simultaneous infusion and removal of infused water during insertion on adenoma detection rate (ADR) defined as proportion of patients with a least one adenoma of any size. METHODS: Medline (2008-2011) searches, abstract of 2011 Digestive Disease Week (DDW) meeting and personal communications were considered to identify RcTs that compared water-related methods and air insufflation to aid insertion of colonoscope. RESULTS: Since 2008, eleven reports of RcTs (6 published, 1 submitted and 4 abstracts, n=1728) described ADR in patients randomized to be examined by air and water-related methods. The water-related methods differed in timing of removal of the infused water -predominantly during insertion (water exchange) (n=825) or predominantly during withdrawal (water immersion) (n=903). Water immersion was associated with both increases and decreases in ADR compared to respective air method patients and the net overall change (-7%) was significant. On the other hand water exchange was associated with increases in ADR consistently and the net changes (overall, 8%; proximal overall, 11%; and proximal <10 mm, 12%) were all significant. CONCLUSION: Comparative data generated the hypothesis that significantly larger increases in overall and proximal colon ADRs were associated with water exchange than water immersion or air insufflation during insertion. The hypothesis should be evaluated by RCTs to elucidate the mechanism of water exchange on adenoma detection.

A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The water method facilitates colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare quality indicators in sedated veterans. DESIGN: Performance improvement. SETTING: VA endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: 368 consecutive screening patients. INTERVENTION: Air or water method assignment (high definition colonoscope) was based on the last digit of social security number. MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate; intubation and withdrawal times; sedation requirements and external pressure used. RESULTS: ADR was higher with the water method (57.1% vs. 46.1%, p=0.04). After controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation, the odds of detecting an adenoma was 81% higher with the water method (OR 1.81; 95% cI: 1.12-2.90). In the proximal colon ADR was higher with the water method (45.8% vs. 34.6%, p=0.03), including adenomas <10 mm in size (41.8% vs. 31.4%, p=0.04). The water method showed significantly longer cecal intubation time (6.9±0.3 vs. 5.3±0.3 min, p=0.0001); less external pressure used (11.9% vs. 28.3%, p=0.0001); lower need for additional sedation (17.5% vs. 27.2%, p<0.03). LIMITATIONS: Predominance of males, single unblinded endoscopist with high ADR. CONCLUSIONS: The water method is an independent factor associated with significantly higher ADR. Replication by blinded colonoscopist(s) is indicated.

Removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (water exchange) is consistently associated with a greater reduction of pain score - review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of water method colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION: Variation in the outcomes in RcTs comparing water-related methods and air insufflation during the insertion phase of colonoscopy raises challenging questions regarding the approach. This report reviews the impact of water exchange on the variation in attenuation of pain during colonoscopy by water-related methods. METHODS: Medline (2008 to 2011) searches, abstracts of the 2011 Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and personal communications were considered to identify RcTs that compared water-related methods and air insufflation to aid insertion of the colonoscope. Results: Since 2008 nine published and one submitted RcTs and five abstracts of RcTs presented at the 2011 DDW have been identified. Thirteen RcTs (nine published, one submitted and one abstract, n=1850) described reduction of pain score during or after colonoscopy (eleven reported statistical significance); the remaining reports described lower doses of medication used, or lower proportion of patients experiencing severe pain in colonoscopy performed with water-related methods compared with air insufflation (Tables 1 and 2). The water-related methods notably differ in the timing of removal of the infused water - predominantly during insertion (water exchange) versus predominantly during withdrawal (water immersion). Use of water exchange was consistently associated with a greater attenuation of pain score in patients who did not receive full sedation (Table 3). CONCLUSION: The comparative data reveal that a greater attenuation of pain was associated with water exchange than water immersion during insertion. The intriguing results should be subjected to further evaluation by additional RcTs to elucidate the mechanism of the pain-alleviating impact of the water method.

The water method significantly enhances detection of diminutive lesions (adenoma and hyperplastic polyp combined) in the proximal colon in screening colonoscopy - data derived from two RCT in US veterans

PURPOSE: Emerging data indicate a colonoscopist-controlled method is needed to avoid missing proximal colon pre-malignant lesions. Screening colonoscopy does not prevent all proximal colon cancers. Even diminutive lesions in the proximal colon harbor dysplasia. In addition to adenomas (presumptive cancer precursors), recent proposals to reevaluate proximal colon hyperplastic polyps as serrated polyps which could be pre-malignant or harbingers of interval neoplasia dramatize the importance of attending to these lesions. The finding that the water method increased yield of proximal diminutive adenomas prompted assessment of the hypothesis that the water method increases yield of all proximal diminutive lesions (adenoma and hyperplastic polyp) in screening cases. METHODS: Two RCT assessed the water method with primary outcome of completion of unsedated colonoscopy when the option of scheduled, unsedated or sedation on demand was used. Diminutive (<10 mm) lesions proximal to the splenic flexure were tracked. RESULTS: In screening cases, 31% and 6% of the water and air group had at least one proximal diminutive lesion (p=0.0012). Regression analysis revealed withdrawal time, method and volume of water used were significant predictors of proximal diminutive lesions. Effect of the water method on detection of proximal diminutive lesions was independent of age, body mass index, endoscopist, sedation, cecal intubation rate, bowel cleanliness score on withdrawal and total procedure time. LIMITATION: Male subject predominance, analysis of secondary outcomes of pooled RCT data. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis that the water method effectively enhances proximal diminutive lesion detection in screening colonoscopy in diverse clinical settings should be tested.

The water method combined with chromoendoscopy enhances adenoma detection

BACKGROUND: The water method is easy-to-learn and improves colonoscopy outcomes. Dye-spray chromoendoscopy enhances ADR but has not been widely accepted for routine application in screening or surveillance colonoscopy. HYPOTHESIS: With dye added to the water used in the water method, ADR can be enhanced compared with the water or air method alone. OBJECTIVE: To compare ADR determined by the air method, water method alone, and water method with indigo carmine (0.008%) added. DESIGN: Review of prospectively collected data in a performance improvement program. SETTING: VA endoscopy unit. PATIENT: Screening or surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients (n=50/group) underwent colonoscopy with each of the three methods. Water method involved warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation coupled with removal of residual air by suction and residual feces by water exchange. ADR and procedural data were collected prospectively to monitor performance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADR. RESULTS: ADR in the air method, water method alone and water method with indigo carmine were 36%, 40% and 62%, respectively. Water method with indigo carmine produced significantly higher ADR than the air or water method alone (p<0.05). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized data, single VA site, retrospective comparison. Absence of significant difference between air and water methods could be a type II error due to small number of patients CONCLUSIONS: The approach with indigo carmine added to the water used in the water method yielded significantly higher ADR than the water or the air method alone. The data suggest that a prospective RCT to compare the different methods is warranted.

DDW 2011 cutting edge colonoscopy techniques - state of the art lecture master class - warm water infusion/CO(2) insufflation for colonoscopy

Pain limits the success of cecal intubation in unsedated patient. Carbon dioxide infusion instead of air insufflation and water infusion as an adjunction to air insufflation have both been investigated as modalities to minimize pain associated with colonoscopy. Multiple RCT support an effect of carbon dioxide in reducing pain after colonoscopy. A modern method of water infusion as the sole modality for aiding colonoscope insertion has been shown to reduce pain during and after colonoscopy. Favorable effects in reducing discomfort have been documented in both sedated and unsedated patients. Because of the need to perform water exchange in the patients with suboptimal bowel perparation, a serendipitous consequence of salvage cleansing is evident with application of the water method. The associated increase in adenoma detection especially in the proximal colon is most intriguing. The hypothesis that the water method during insertion combined with carbon dioxide insufflation during withdrawal will optimally decrease colonoscopy pain should be evaluated. The implications of increased adenoma detection by the water method also deserve to be studied.

Unsedated colonoscopy: is it feasible?

Unsedated colonoscopy has been an evolving subject ever since its initial description four decades ago. Failure in unsedated diagnostic cases due to patient pain led to the introduction of sedation. Extension to screening cases, albeit logical, created a sedation-related barrier to colonoscopy screening. In recent years a water method has been developed to combat the pain during unsedated colonoscopy in the US. In randomized controlled trials the water method decreases pain, increases cecal intubation success, and enhances the proportion of patients who complete unsedated colonoscopy. The salvage cleansing of suboptimal bowel preparation by the water method serendipitously may have increased the detection of adenoma in both unsedated and sedated patients. The state-of-the-art lecture concludes that unsedated colonoscopy is feasible. The hypothesis is that recent advances, such as the development of the water method, may contribute to reviving unsedated colonoscopy as a potentially attractive option for colon cancer screening and deserves to be tested.