Repeat colonoscopy’s value in gastrointestinal bleeding

Utility of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year: a patient-level analysis

Patients undergo colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening and for the evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms. Analysis of large administrative databases has demonstrated that some patients undergo repeat colonoscopies at intervals inconsistent with current recommendations, but these studies do not provide patient-level details. The medical records of 110 patients undergoing repeat colonoscopies within 1 year of their index colonoscopies at a tertiary care hospital-based endoscopy center were retrospectively reviewed to determine patient demographics, gastrointestinal symptoms, and endoscopic findings. Thirty-five patients had poor bowel preparations, and 11 patients had a history of colorectal cancer. Thirty-four patients had polyps identified during their index colonoscopies, and 28 patients had no polyps identified during their index colonoscopies. Eleven patients in the nonpolyp group had new endoscopic findings identified during the repeat colonoscopies. Twenty patients who had polyps identified on their index colonoscopies had 44 polyps identified on repeat colonoscopies. Repeat colonoscopies within 1 year occurred relatively infrequently in this endoscopy center. Indications included poor bowel preparation with incomplete studies, colonic polyps with incomplete resection, multiple polyps resulting in the possibility of missed polyps, and new gastrointestinal symptoms.

Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy adverse events in the prospective Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 colorectal cancer screening and surveillance cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data are limited regarding colonoscopy risk during long-term, programmatic colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. We aimed to describe adverse events during follow-up in a colonoscopy screening program after the baseline examination and examine factors associated with increased risk.

METHODS

Cooperative Studies Program no. 380 includes 3121 asymptomatic veterans aged 50 to 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997. Periprocedure adverse events requiring significant intervention were defined as major events (other events were minor) and were tracked during follow-up for at least 10 years. Multivariable odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for factors associated with risk of follow-up adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 3727 follow-up examinations in 1983 participants, adverse events occurred in 105 examinations (2.8%) in 93 individuals, including 22 major and 87 minor events (examinations may have had >1 event). Incidence of major events (per 1000 examinations) remained relatively stable over time, with 6.1 events at examination 2, 4.8 at examination 3, and 7.2 at examination 4. Examinations with major events included 1 perforation, 3 GI bleeds requiring intervention, and 17 cardiopulmonary events. History of prior colonoscopic adverse events was associated with increased risk of events (major or minor) during follow-up (OR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term programmatic screening and surveillance was safe, as major events were rare during follow-up. However, serious cardiopulmonary events were the most common major events. These results highlight the need for detailed assessments of comorbid conditions during routine clinical practice, which could help inform individual decisions regarding the utility of ongoing colonoscopy follow-up.

Diagnostic Value and Safety of Emergency Single-Balloon Enteroscopy for Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the diagnostic performance of emergency single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) under general anesthesia versus conscious sedation.

STUDY

The data of 102 OGIB in-patients from June 2015 to June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The diagnosis and detection rates and adverse events were calculated overall and in relation to age, gender, type of operation and anesthesia, bleeding type, different times of examination, and SBE route. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 24.0, and the diagnosis and detection rates were compared using the Chi-square test.

RESULTS

Among the 102 patients, 66 patients had positive findings, while 11 patients had suspected positive findings, and the diagnosis and detection rates were 64.7% and 75.5%, respectively. Ulcers (19.6%) and tumors (16.7%) were the most common causes of OGIB. There were no statistical differences in diagnosis and detection rates between the ages of ≥60 and <60 and between different genders. Patients with emergency SBE had higher diagnosis and detection rates (68.6% vs. 35.3%, P = 0.023; 80.0% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.016, respectively), when compared with nonemergency SBE patients. The diagnosis rate at 24 hours was higher than that at 2-7 days and one week (88.0% vs. 61.5%, P = 0.030; 88.0% vs. 53.8%, P = 0.007). For overt bleeding, the difference in diagnosis rates at 24 hours, 2-7 days, and one week was statistically significant (100.0% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.006; 100.0% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.006). For occult bleeding, the pairwise comparison revealed no statistical difference. Patients with general anesthesia had a higher detection rate, when compared to patients with conscious sedation (87.9% vs. 63.9%, P = 0.004). In addition, adverse events under general anesthesia were lower, when compared to adverse events under conscious sedation (28.8% vs. 69.4%, P = 0.020). There was no significant difference in adverse events at the different time points (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Emergency SBE under general anesthesia achieves higher diagnosis and detection rates, and fewer adverse events under conscious sedation, when compared to nonemergency SBE, regardless of the route. For patients with overt bleeding, it is easier to find lesions by emergency SBE within 24 hours.