Patient factors predictive of pain and difficulty during sedation-free colonoscopy: a prospective study in Korea

Factors of easy and difficult cecal intubation during unsedated colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

difficulty of cecal intubation should be a main indicator for the need of sedated colonoscopy and skilled endoscopists. The present study aimed to explore the factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation in unsedated colonoscopy.

METHODS

all consecutive patients who underwent unsedated colonoscopy at our department by the same endoscopist from December 3, 2020 to August 30, 2022 were retrospectively collected. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), reasons for colonoscopy, position change, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, cecal intubation time (CIT) and major colonoscopic findings were analyzed. CIT < 5 min, CIT 5-10 min and CIT > 10 min or failed cecal intubation were defined as easy, moderate and difficult cecal intubation, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation.

RESULTS

overall, 1,281 patients were included. The proportions of easy and difficult cecal intubation were 29.2 % (374/1,281) and 27.2 % (349/1,281), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that age ≤ 50 years, male, BMI > 23.0 kg/m2 and the absence of position change were independently associated with easy cecal intubation, and that age > 50 years, female, BMI ≤ 23.0 kg/m2, position change, and insufficient bowel preparation were independently associated with difficult cecal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

some convenient factors independently associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation have been identified, which will be potentially helpful to determine whether a colonoscopy should be sedated and a skilled endoscopist should be selected. The current findings should be further validated in large-scale prospective studies.

Double-contrast barium enema is no longer justified as a backup examination for colonoscopy in the population screening program: Population study in an organized fecal immunochemical test-based screening program

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Currently, some countries still acknowledge double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) as a backup confirmatory examination when colonoscopy is not feasible or incomplete in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. This study aims to compare the performance of colonoscopy and DCBE in terms of the risk of incident CRC after negative results in the fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based Taiwan Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

METHODS

Subjects who had positive FITs and received confirmatory exams, either colonoscopy or DCBE, without the findings of neoplastic lesions from 2004 to 2013 in the screening program comprised the study cohort. Both the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts were followed until the end of 2018 and linked to the Taiwan Cancer Registry to identify incident CRC cases. Multivariate analysis was conducted to compare the risk of incident CRC in both subcohorts after controlling for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 102 761 colonoscopies and 5885 DCBEs were performed after positive FITs without neoplastic findings during the study period. By the end of 2018, 2113 CRCs (2.7 per 1000 person-years) and 368 CRCs (7.6 per 1000 person-years) occurred in the colonoscopy and DCBE subcohorts, respectively. After adjusting for major confounders, DCBE had a significantly higher risk of incident CRC than colonoscopy, with an adjusted HR of 2.81 (95% CI = 2.51-3.14).

CONCLUSIONS

In the FIT screening program, using DCBE as a backup examination was associated with a nearly threefold risk of incident CRC compared with colonoscopy, demonstrating that it is no longer justified as a backup examination for incomplete colonoscopy.

Strategies to manage the difficult colonoscopy

During endoscopy, an endoscopist is inevitably faced with the occasional “difficult colonoscopy,” in which the endoscopist finds it challenging to advance the endoscope to the cecum. Beyond optimization of technique, with minimized looping, minimal insufflation, sufficient sedation, and abdominal splinting when needed, sometimes additional tools may be needed. In this review, we cover available techniques and technologies to help navigate the difficult colonoscopy, including the ultrathin colonoscope, rigidizing overtube, balloon-assisted colonoscopy and the abdominal compression device.

The Effects of Virtual Reality Glasses on Vital Signs and Anxiety in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Colonoscopy is a painful procedure that causes anxiety and changes in vital signs. Pain and anxiety may cause patients to avoid colonoscopy, which is a preventive and curative healthcare service. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of virtual reality glasses on the vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, respiration, oxygen saturation, and pain) and anxiety in patients undergoing colonoscopy. The population of the study consisted of 82 patients who underwent colonoscopy without sedation between January 2, 2020, and September 28, 2020. Post-power analysis was performed with 44 patients who agreed to participate in the study, met the inclusion criteria, and were followed up for pre- and post-tests. The experimental group participants (n = 22) watched a 360° virtual reality video through virtual reality glasses whereas the control group participants (n = 22) underwent a standard procedure. Data were collected using a demographic characteristics questionnaire, the Visual Analog Scale-Anxiety, Visual Analog Scale-Pain, Satisfaction Evaluation Form, and monitoring of vital signs. The experimental group participants had significantly lower levels of pain, anxiety, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate and significantly higher peripheral oxygen saturation during colonoscopy than the control group participants. The majority of the experimental group participants were satisfied with the application. Virtual reality glasses have a positive effect on vital signs and anxiety during colonoscopy.

Factors affecting cecal intubation time during colonoscopy

In recent years, the morbidity and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have increased significantly in China, and it has become one of the major malignancies that threaten the health of residents. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of CRC. High-quality colonoscopy can effectively reduce the mortality of CRC. Cecal intubation time (CIT) is one of the indicators to reflect the quality of colonoscopy. Studies have found that many factors can affect CIT. This paper reviews the literature to identify the factors that affect CIT, such as those related to doctors, patients, assistive technologies, and equipment, in order to improve the quality of colonoscopy performed by endoscopists.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of colonoscopies in overweight and obese patients: Results from a national database on gastrointestinal endoscopic outcomes

Background and study aims  Gastroenterologists are encountering a rising number of obese patients requiring colonoscopy. Existing literature regarding colonoscopy outcomes in this population is scant and conflicting. We analyzed a nationwide cohort of patients to identify the effects of body mass index (BMI) on colonoscopy success, efficacy, and tolerability. Patients and methods  The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) endoscopic database was queried for all colonoscopies in adults between 2008-2014. Patients were stratified into four cohorts based on BMI classification for comparison. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify the effect of BMI on procedure outcome, efficacy and tolerability. Results  Of 41,401 procedures, 27,696 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 49.4 % were performed for colorectal cancer screening, most commonly under anesthesia directed sedation. Patient discomfort was the reason for an incomplete colonoscopy in 18.7 % of all cases, and more frequent among the overweight and obese cohorts. An inadequate bowel preparation was most common in the class III obesity cohort. Compared to the normal BMI group, a BMI ≥ 30 and < 40 kg/m ² was associated with an increased odds of an incomplete colonoscopy ( P  = 0.001for overweight, P  = 0.0004 for class I/II obesity), longer procedure ( P  < 0.05 for all) and poorer tolerance ( P  < 0.0001 for class I/II obesity, P  = 0.016 for class III obesity). Anesthesia-administered sedation was more commonly used than endoscopist directed sedation amongst the obese cohort compared with the normal BMI cohort ( P  < 0.0001). Conclusions  Endoscopists should consider the increased odds of incomplete colonoscopy, longer procedures, and poorer tolerance when performing colonoscopy in obese patients to improve clinical management and procedural outcome.

Cecal intubation time in screening colonoscopy

The time required to intubate the cecum varies. The aim of this study was to determine whether demographic and anthropometric factors, such as body mass index (BMI), percent body fat, muscle mass, and fat mass, affect the cecal intubation time (CIT) during complete colonoscopy.A retrospective chart review of 1229 patients (aged 40-80 years) was performed. These patients underwent average-risk screening colonoscopies performed by expert gastroenterologists at Health Check-up Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, during a health check-up. We collected data on age, sex, BMI, percent body fat, muscle mass, fat mass, history of prior abdominal or pelvic surgery, CIT, and bowel preparation quality (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score).Of the 1229 patients, 62% were men. The mean age was 55 years, and the mean BMI was 24 kg/m2. The median CIT was 5 min. The patients were categorized into two groups according to CIT: easy colonoscopy (CIT ≤ 10 min) and difficult colonoscopy (CIT > 10 min). In univariate analysis, CIT was prolonged by the following factors: older age, poor bowel preparation, lower BMI, lower percent body fat, and less fat mass. Multivariate analysis showed that anthropometric indices including BMI, percent body fat, muscle mass, and fat mass were not significant factors for CIT. Older age (≥ 70 years) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.272, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.056-4.890, P = .036) and poor bowel preparation (BBPS score ≤ 5) (OR: 3.817, 95% CI: 1.866-7.808, P = .000) were found to be correlated with difficult colonoscopy.Our study suggests that anthropometric indices including BMI, percent body fat, muscle mass, and fat mass are not associated with significantly different CIT. Furthermore, sex and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery are not useful factors for a prolonged CIT. Older age (≥ 70 years) and poor bowel preparation (BBPS score ≤ 5) are significant variables predicting the CIT of expert gastroenterologists.

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.

Current status of water-assisted colonoscopy

Compared with the traditional air insufflation method, water-assisted colonoscopy has many advantages in clinical application with regard to reduced abdominal pain, increased cecal intubation rate, increased detection rate of colon adenoma, and increased complete resection rate of larger polyps. It has gradually attracted more and more attention both in China and other countries. The aim of this article is to elaborate the invention, development, and therapeutic applications of water-assisted colonoscopy, as well as its advantages and shortcomings.

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.

Efficacy of Sedation by Midazolam in Association With Meperidine or Fentanyl and Role of Patient Distress During Elective Colonoscopy

Meperidine and fentanyl are opioids currently used in addition to midazolam for sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy in Italy. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of patients' psychological state before elective colonoscopy on the efficacy of the sedation regimens. Eighty outpatients who underwent an elective colonoscopy were included in our study. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire was self-administered to evaluate basal anxiety and depression state. The rate of baseline discomfort was evaluated by a standard 100-mm visual analog scale. Sedation was obtained alternatively with a midazolam-meperidine or midazolam-fentanyl combination. There were no statistically significant differences between the fentanyl and meperidine groups on body mass index, age, and gender composition. Patients in the meperidine group reported less pain during colonoscopy than patients in the fentanyl group. There were statistically significant positive correlations in the meperidine group with the distress, anxiety, and depression. Our study has pointed out greater effectiveness of the midazolam plus meperidine regimen, equal recovery times, and no significant differences in the duration of the endoscopic examinations. The evaluation of patients' psychological status seems to predict the efficacy of sedation when the nociceptive component of pain is well controlled.

The advantages of water immersion colonoscopy in ambulatory service

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare patients' discomfort during water immersion (WI) colonoscopy without sedation or available on request, with that of patients during air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy with sedation, in the ambulatory setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in 100 patients who performed a colonoscopy between August 2015 and February 2016 in an Ambulatory Gastroenterology Center in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. They were divided into two branches A and B. Patients in Group A underwent a classic colonoscopy with AI and standard sedation (2 mg of midazolam and 50 mg of tramadol), while patients in Group B underwent an unsedated or on demand sedation colonoscopy with WI technique.

RESULTS

The patients in group A presented a higher discomfort (statistically significant) compared to those in group B, and had also the median total discomfort score higher than those in group B. The patients in group A had also a higher discomfort score after examination. The total time of examination was the same in the two groups, but in group B the progression to cecum time was 3 minutes lower than for those in group A. A greater discomfort of the patient was correlated with the longer time required to reach the cecum.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, WI colonoscopy is superior to AI technique in reducing insertion pain, progression-to-cecum time, minimizing sedation requirements and also in the willingness to repeat the technique.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: The Role of Psychological, Social and Background Factors in Decision-making Process

Since ColoRectal Cancer (CRC) remains the third cause of cancer death in the world, a better understanding of the reasons underlying poor adherence to and delay in undergoing CRC screening programs is important. CRC screening decision-making process can be conceptualized as the relationship between intention and behavior and needs to be investigated including the impact on patients' decision of a broad range of psychological factors and personal predisposition as fear of a positive screening test, poor understanding of the procedure, psychological distress, anxiety, anticipation of pain, feelings of embarrassment and vulnerability. Also socioeconomic, ethnic and sociological influences, and organizational barriers have been identified as factors influencing CRC screening adherence. Decision-making process can finally be influenced by the healthcare background in which the intervention is promoted and screening programs are carried out. However, there is still a gap on the scientific knowledge about the influences of diverse elements on screening adherence and this deserves further investigations in order to carry out more focused and effective prevention programs.

Factors Associated with Anxiety About Colonoscopy: The Preparation, the Procedure, and the Anticipated Findings

BACKGROUND

Previous research has assessed anxiety around colonoscopy procedures, but has not considered anxiety related to different aspects related to the colonoscopy process.

AIMS

Before colonoscopy, we assessed anxiety about: bowel preparation, the procedure, and the anticipated results. We evaluated associations between patient characteristics and anxiety in each area.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed to patients immediately prior to their outpatient colonoscopy in six hospitals and two ambulatory care centers in Winnipeg, Canada. Anxiety was assessed using a visual analog scale. For each aspect, logistic regression models were used to explore associations between patient characteristics and high anxiety.

RESULTS

A total of 1316 respondents completed the questions about anxiety (52% female, median age 56 years). Anxiety scores > 70 (high anxiety) were reported by 18% about bowel preparation, 29% about the procedure, and 28% about the procedure results. High anxiety about bowel preparation was associated with female sex, perceived unclear instructions, unfinished laxative, and no previous colonoscopies. High anxiety about the procedure was associated with female sex, no previous colonoscopies, and confusing instructions. High anxiety about the results was associated with symptoms as an indication for colonoscopy and instructions perceived as confusing.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer people had high anxiety about preparation than about the procedure and findings of the procedure. There are unique predictors of anxiety about each colonoscopy aspect. Understanding the nuanced differences in aspects of anxiety may help to design strategies to reduce anxiety, leading to improved acceptance of the procedure, compliance with preparation instructions, and less discomfort with the procedure.

An automatic measure of progression during colonoscopy correlates to patient experienced pain

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance programs depend on patient's tolerable experience, which is associated with competence of the endoscopist. The Colonoscopy Progression Score (CoPS) is an automated tool based on recording of the Magnetic Scope Imager (MEI) picture in order to track progression. CoPS deliver a numeric score and a graphic map. A high score expresses a rapid and smooth progression. Aims of study were to explore the correlation between CoPS and patient experienced pain and to identity locations associated with pain.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients listed for colonoscopy were included and asked to reply to pain by pressing a rubber ball. The signal was recorded simultaneous to CoPS. Patients evaluated the experience on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). CoPS and recorded pain events were used to create a pain sensitive CoPS-map (S-CoPS map).

RESULTS

A total of 58 complete recordings were used for evaluation. We demonstrated a moderate correlation between CoPS and patient experienced pain, Pearson's r = -0.47 (p < .001). A low CoPS was associated with a painful colonoscopy and a high CoPS excluded severe pain. Sensitivity and specificity was 0.79 and 0.60 and AUC was 0.61 Passage of the sigmoid colon, right and left flexures were associated with pain for 51%, 33% and 25% of the patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A moderate correlation between CoPS and patient experienced pain suggest that CoPS measure inserting skills but might also be a measure of a gentle performance. The graphic S-CoPS-map can be used to point-out painful passages and aid planning of future colonoscopies.

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.

Predictors for difficult cecal insertion in colonoscopy: The impact of obesity indices

AIM

To identify the factors influencing cecal insertion time (CIT) and to evaluate the effect of obesity indices on CIT.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data for participants who received both colonoscopy and abdominal computed tomography (CT) from February 2008 to May 2008 as part of a comprehensive health screening program. Age, gender, obesity indices [body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip circumference ratio (WHR), waist circumference (WC), visceral adipose tissue (VAT) volume and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) volume on abdominal CT], history of prior abdominal surgery, constipation, experience of the colonoscopist, quality of bowel preparation, diverticulosis and time required to reach the cecum were analyzed. CIT was categorized as longer than 10 min (prolonged CIT) and shorter than or equal to 10 min, and then the factors that required a CIT longer than 10 min were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 1678 participants were enrolled. The mean age was 50.42 ± 9.931 years and 60.3% were men. The mean BMI, WHR, WC, VAT volume and SAT volume were 23.92 ± 2.964 kg/m², 0.90 ± 0.076, 86.95 ± 8.030 cm, 905.29 ± 475.220 cm³ and 1707.72 ± 576.550 cm³, respectively. The number of patients who underwent abdominal surgery was 268 (16.0%). Colonoscopy was performed by an attending physician alone in 61.9% of cases and with the involvement of a fellow in 38.1% of cases. The median CIT was 7 min (range 2-56 min, IQR 5-10 min), and mean CIT was 8.58 ± 5.291 min. Being female, BMI, VAT volume and involvement of fellow were significantly associated with a prolonged CIT in univariable analysis. In multivariable analysis, being female (OR = 1.29, P = 0.047), lower BMI (< 23 kg/m²) (OR = 1.62, P = 0.004) or higher BMI (≥ 25 kg/m²) (OR = 1.80, P < 0.001), low VAT volume (< 500 cm³) (OR = 1.50, P = 0.013) and fellow involvement (OR = 1.73, P < 0.001) were significant predictors of prolonged CIT. In subgroup analyses for gender, lower BMI or higher BMI and fellow involvement were predictors for prolonged CIT in both genders. However, low VAT volume was associated with prolonged CIT in only women (OR = 1.54, P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Being female, having a lower or higher BMI than the normal range, a low VAT volume, and fellow involvement were predictors of a longer CIT.

Associations of Mental Health and Physical Function with Colonoscopy-related Pain

Objective To clarify the effects of mental health and physical function in association with colonoscopy-related pain. Methods The mental health and physical function were evaluated using the Japanese version of the SF-8 Health Survey questionnaire. Poor physical status was defined as a physical component summary (PCS) <40 and poor mental status as a mental component summary (MCS) <40. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS), with significant pain defined as VAS ≥70 mm and insignificant pain as VAS <70 mm. The background and colonoscopic findings were compared in patients with significant and insignificant pain. Patients This study evaluated consecutive Japanese patients who were positive on fecal occult blood tests and underwent total colonoscopy. Results Of the 100 patients, 23 had significant and 77 had insignificant colonoscopy-related pain. A multiple logistic regression analysis showed that MCS <40 [odds ratio (OR) 6.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-25.9, p=0.0156], PCS <40 (OR 5.96; 95% CI 1.45-24.5, p=0.0133), and ≥300 seconds to reach the cecum (OR 4.13; 95% CI 1.16-14.7, p=0.0281) were independent risk factors for colonoscopy-related pain. Conclusion The mental health and physical function are important determinants of colonoscopy-related pain. Evaluating the mental health and physical function of patients prior to colonoscopy may effectively predict the degree of colonoscopy-related pain.

Automatic and unbiased assessment of competence in colonoscopy: exploring validity of the Colonoscopy Progression Score (CoPS)

Background and aims: Colonoscopy is a difficult procedure to master. Increasing demands for colonoscopy, due to screening and surveillance programs, have highlighted the need for competent performers. Valid methods for assessing technical skills are pivotal for training and assessment. This study is the first clinical descriptive report of a novel colonoscopy assessment tool based on Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging (MEI) data and the aim was to gather validity evidence based on the data collected using the "Colonoscopy Progression Score" (CoPS). Methods: We recorded 137 colonoscopy procedures performed by 31 endoscopists at three university hospitals. The participants performed more than two procedures each (range 2 - 12) and had an experience of 0 - 10 000 colonoscopies. The CoPS was calculated for each recording and validity was explored using a widely accepted contemporary framework. The following sources of validity evidence were explored: response process (data collection), internal structure (reliability), relationship to other variables (i. e. operator experience), and consequences of testing (pass/fail). Results: Identical set-ups at all three locations ensured uniform data collection. The Generalizability coefficient (G-coefficient) was 0.80, and a Decision-study (D-study) revealed that four recordings were sufficient to ensure a G-coefficient above 0.80. We showed a positive correlation between CoPS and experience with Pearson's r of 0.61 (P < 0.001). A pass/fail standard of 107 points was established using the contrasting group method to explore the consequences of testing. Conclusion: This study provides evidence supporting the validity of the CoPS for use in assessing technical colonoscopy performance in the clinical setting.

STUDY REGISTRATION

NCT01997177.

Difficult colonoscopy score identifies the difficult patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy

Background

Many factors have been found to affect the difficulty of colonoscope insertion, such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), history of abdominal surgery and operator etc. However, a scoring system may be more useful to predict the difficulty during colonoscopy.

Methods

The individual and procedure-related data of 616 patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively collected from December 2013 through February 2014 in Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases. Cox regression analysis was used to identify high-risk factors associated with difficulty of colonoscopy. A predicting model with the difficult colonoscopy score (DCS) was developed.

Results

Total cecum intubation rate was 98.9% (609/616). Advanced age, lower BMI, inexperienced operator and fair or poor sleep quality were identified as independent factors of prolonged insertion time (all p < 0.05), which were used to develop the DCS. Based on the score, patients could be divided into high-risk and low-risk groups with distinct incomplete rates within 10 min (42.0% vs. 16.5%, p < 0.001). Compared with those with DCS ≤ 1, patients with DCS > 1 had increased insertion time (10.6 ± 0.7 min vs. 6.9 ± 0.2 min, p < 0.001) and pain score (1.9 ± 1.5 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4, p = 0.002). More abdominal compression (36.9% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001) and position change (51.4% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.001) were needed in this group of patients.

Conclusion

Patients with DCS > 1 had longer insertion time, higher pain score and needed more abdominal compression and position changes. DCS was useful for predicting the difficulty of colonoscope intubation.

(ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02105025 05/05/2014).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-015-0273-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The impact of chronic opioid use on colonoscopy outcomes

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed on patients chronically on opioids, raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of conventional sedation.

AIMS

We hypothesized that chronic opioid use is associated with longer procedure times, higher dosages of sedation medications, and an increase in adverse effects.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review from June 2012 to June 2013. Patients on chronic opioids (opioids use ≥ 12 weeks) were compared to randomly selected patients matched for age, race, and sex. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors that were independently predictive of longer procedure times.

RESULTS

Patients on chronic opioids required higher doses of fentanyl (122.0 ± 45.3 vs. 105.8 ± 47.2 µg; P < 0.0001) and midazolam (5.3 ± 5.3 vs. 4.4 ± 2 mg; P = 0.0037) and were more likely to receive diphenhydramine (42.8 vs. 22.6 %; P < 0.001). The induction period (11.3 ± 8.8 vs. 7.5 ± 4.0 min), duration of procedure (39.1 ± 17.5 vs. 33.4 ± 14.1 min), and recovery times (38.7 ± 15.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.1 min) were significantly longer for patients on chronic opioids. In the multivariate regression analysis, opioid use was an independent predictor of longer procedure duration (P < 0.05). Hypotensive episodes did not differ between groups (2.8 vs. 2.7 %; P = 0.8). However, patients on chronic opioids experienced more pain (13.4 vs. 5.9 %; P 0.001) and hypertensive episodes (8.1 vs. 2.8 %; P 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Patients on chronic opioids represent a high-risk population with longer procedural times and more discomfort, despite higher dosages of sedative agents. Prospective studies are required to define the risks and benefits of more costly alternative sedation strategies for patients on chronic opioids.

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).

The effect of hysterectomy on colonoscopy completion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of colonoscopy is a complete and thorough examination of the colon. There are a number of factors, however, that can potentially increase the difficulty of completing a colonoscopy. A significant proportion of women eligible for colorectal cancer screening have undergone hysterectomy. A history of hysterectomy is frequently considered to make colonoscopy more difficult, although there is no consensus in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the effect of hysterectomy on colonoscopy completion.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database identified 6 eligible studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that compared colonoscopy completion rates in women with a previous history of hysterectomy and women with no history of pelvic surgery were selected for review.

INTERVENTION

Meta-analysis was performed by using random-effects methods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome used was colonoscopy completion rate. The outcomes were calculated as odds ratio with 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 5947 patients were included in the final analysis. The average hysterectomy rate was 26.3% ± 14.5%. The colonoscopy completion rate was significantly reduced in patients with a history of hysterectomy compared with those with no history of pelvic surgery (87.1% vs 95.5%) (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16-0.49; p < 0.001). Analysis of the funnel plot demonstrated nonsignificant across-study publication bias. There was significant across-study heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 19.6; p = 0.002).

LIMITATIONS

The endoscopist's experience is poorly defined in some studies. Indication for colonoscopy was not provided in all cases. There is significant across-study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy completion rates appear decreased in women with a history of hysterectomy, but the available literature is heterogenous. Further studies in this area are warranted.

Factors that determine prolonged cecal intubation time during colonoscopy: impact of visceral adipose tissue

OBJECTIVE

Various factors including age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and history of operation have been linked to the colonoscopic intubation time. The aims of this study were to identify the factors predicting cecal intubation time (CIT) and to evaluate the effect of the visceral adipose tissue (VAT) area on CIT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 1386 consecutive subjects who underwent colonoscopy and abdominal CT on the same day for a health checkup at a single health care center in Korea from August to December 2011 were studied prospectively. Age, sex, BMI, height, waist circumference, history of operation, symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, bowel preparation status, experience of colonoscopists, VAT amount on abdominal CT and time required to reach the cecum were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the subjects was 53.0 ± 9.6 years, and 63.5% were male. The median CIT was 271 s. Univariate analyses showed that female gender, old age, shorter height, lower BMI, prior history of surgery and lower VAT were associated with longer CIT. To adjust for confounding effects of the gender, we investigated the genders separately in multivariate analysis. Older age and lower VAT were associated with prolonged CIT. However, the significance of association of VAT on prolonged CIT disappeared in women.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that CIT is prolonged by lower VAT area in men. This is the first study to demonstrate a direct association between VAT area and CIT.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging during colonoscopy is associated with less pain and decreased need of analgesia and sedation--results from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is the method of choice for examining patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms. The procedure is, however, in many cases, associated with pain and impaired compliance. Magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) generates a three-dimensional image of the colonoscope on a computer screen which may enable the colonoscopist to avoid looping, and consequently improve patient satisfaction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 200 outpatients referred to colonoscopy at Østfold Hospital Trust, Fredrikstad, Norway, were included. Patients were randomized to either the standard arm (using fluoroscopy on demand, n = 100), or the MEI arm (n = 100). End points were time to cecum, subjective pain experiences, and use of sedation or analgesics.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 200 patients, 54% were men. However, no significant differences between the groups according to gender were found. Fluoroscopy was applied in 23% of the cases in the standard group. Use of MEI was associated with decreased time to cecum (p < 0.05), decreased pain scores (Visual Analogue Scale, p < 0.05), decreased need of analgesia (p < 0.01), and decreased amount of administered midazolam and pethidin (p < 0.05 in both).

CONCLUSIONS

MEI during colonoscopy was associated with decreased pain and less on-demand requests for sedation and analgesia. In addition, the use of MEI reduced the cecal intubation time. Consequently the implementation of magnetic endoscopic imaging in the endoscopy suits may be beneficial, particularly in the clinically difficult cases.

Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy

AIM

To explore the relationship of patient comfort and experience to commonly used performance indicators for colonoscopy.

METHODS

All colonoscopies performed in our four endoscopy centres are recorded in two reporting systems that log key performance indicators. From 2008 to 2011, all procedures performed by qualified endoscopists were evaluated; procedures performed by trainees were excluded. The following variables were measured: Caecal intubation rate (CIR), nurse-reported comfort levels (NRCL) on a scale from 1 to 5, polyp detection rate (PDR), patient experience of the procedure (worse than expected, as expected, better than expected), and use of sedation and analgesia. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to identify relationships between performance indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 17027 colonoscopies were performed by 23 independent endoscopists between 2008 and 2011. Caecal intubation rate varied from 79.0% to 97.8%, with 18 out of 23 endoscopists achieving a CIR of > 90%. The percentage of patients experiencing significant discomfort during their procedure (defined as NRCL of 4 or 5) ranged from 3.9% to 19.2% with an average of 7.7%. CIR was negatively correlated with NRCL-45 (r = -0.61, P < 0.005), and with poor patient experience (r = -0.54, P < 0.01). The average dose of midazolam (mean 1.9 mg, with a range of 1.1 to 3.5 mg) given by the endoscopist was negatively correlated with CIR (r = -0.59, P < 0.01). CIR was positively correlated with PDR (r = 0.44, P < 0.05), and with the numbers of procedures performed by the endoscopists (r = 0.64, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The best colonoscopists have a higher CIR, use less sedation, cause less discomfort and find more polyps. Measuring patient comfort is valuable in monitoring performance.

Quality improvement in gastroenterology clinical practice

An emphasis on quality improvement (QI) is vital to the cost-effective provision of evidence-based health care. QI projects in gastroenterology have typically focused on endoscopy to minimize or eliminate procedure-related complications or errors. However, a significant component of gastroenterology care is based on the management of chronic disease. Patients with chronic diseases are seen in many different outpatient practices in the community and academia. In an attempt to ensure that every patient receives high-quality care, major gastrointestinal societies have published guidelines on the management of common gastrointestinal complaints. However, adherence to these guidelines varies. We discuss common outpatient gastrointestinal illnesses with established guidelines for management that could benefit from active QI projects; these would ensure a consistently high standard of care for every patient.

Body mass index predicts cecal insertion time: the higher, the better

BACKGROUND

It is essential to determine the factors that predict prolonged procedural time during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of body mass index (BMI) on cecal insertion time (CIT) during colonsocopy.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients who received colonoscopies over a 10 month period (April-October 2007) were enrolled. Exclusion criteria included colonic resection, strictures or exophytic masses precluding colonic evaluation. Data were collected for age, sex, race, height, weight, BMI, waist circumference, prior history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, history of diverticulosis, participation of fellow, CIT, quality of colon cleansing and the amount of sedation used during the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 1430 patients (586 men and 844 women; mean age 60.3 years) were included in the final analysis. The mean CIT was 648.5 seconds (SE = 11.47). Older age, female gender, fellow involvement, poor bowel preparation and lower BMI were associated with prolonged mean CIT on linear regression analysis ((R2) = 0.116; P < 0.001). Mean CIT declined linearly with increasing BMI.

CONCLUSION

A higher BMI is strongly associated with progressively shorter CIT.

Effects of written plus oral information vs. oral information alone on precolonoscopy anxiety

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of written plus oral information vs. oral information alone on precolonoscopy anxiety.

BACKGROUND

Information provision has been considered to reduce precolonoscopy anxiety. However, the best means to provide information before colonoscopy has not yet been determined as there is inconsistency in the outcomes of the clinical trials.

DESIGN

A two-group, pretest, post-test, prospective, quasi-experimental design with non-random assignment.

METHODS

Participants were assigned to group 1 or 2 in the study. In the enrolment all the participants completed the questionnaires to collect personal characteristics data and assessed subjects' anxiety level by the Chinese version of the State Scale of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory as baseline data. After that, subjects in group 1 received written plus oral information before colonoscopy, while those in group 2 received oral information before colonoscopy. On the day for colonoscopy all subjects completed the Chinese version of the State Scale of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory again.

RESULTS

There was no difference in state anxiety and personal characteristic between the two groups at enrolment. After the intervention, although the state anxiety scores were dropped, there were no statistical significant differences between two groups or within groups 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Information provision before colonoscopy did not reduce the anxiety level in patients directly before colonoscopy.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

There was a trend that information had a positive effect on patients' state anxiety. Future information provision studies may need to add more interactive methods appropriately and take patients' gender, educational level and coping style into consideration.

Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The technical performance of colonoscopy performed in deeply sedated patients differs from that performed without sedation or under minimal to moderate sedation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors affecting cecal intubation during colonoscopy performed under deep sedation.

METHODS

A total of 5352 consecutive subjects who underwent a screening colonoscopy as part of a health check-up between January 2008 and December 2008 at an academic hospital were reviewed. All endoscopies were performed with deep sedation using combination propofol or propofol alone. Data collected included characteristics of the patients (age, gender, body mass index, bowel habits, history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, quality of bowel preparation, and presence/absence of colonic diverticula) and characteristics of the colonoscopists (experience level, colonoscopy procedure volume, and instrument handling method). These factors were analyzed to evaluate their impact on cecal intubation rates.

RESULTS

The crude cecal intubation rate was 98% and the adjusted cecal intubation rate was 98.3%. The mean cecal intubation time was 5.6 ± 3.2 min. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that patient age greater than 60 years, constipation, poor colon preparation and a two-person colonoscopy procedure were independently associated with lower cecal intubation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy performed under deep sedation by experienced colonoscopists results in high cecal intubation rates. Among the significant patient-related predictors influencing the cecal intubation, the quality of the bowel preparation was the only modifiable factor. When performed by experienced hands, the one-person method was associated with higher cecal intubation rates than the two-person method.

Factors associated with inadequate colorectal cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Inadequate colorectal cancer screening wastes limited endoscopic resources. We examined patients factors associated with inadequate flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) screening at baseline screening and repeat screening 3-5 years later in 10 geographically-dispersed screening centers participating in the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.

METHODS

A total of 64,554 participants (aged 55-74) completed baseline questionnaires and underwent FSG at baseline. Of these, 39,385 participants returned for repeat screening. We used logistic regression models to assess factors that are associated with inadequate FSG (defined as a study in which the depth of insertion of FSG was <50 cm or visual inspection was limited to <90% of the mucosal surface but without detection of a polyp or mass).

RESULTS

Of 7084 (11%) participants with inadequate FSG at baseline, 6496 (91.7%) had <50 cm depth of insertion (75.3% due to patient discomfort) and 500 (7.1%) participants had adequate depth of insertion but suboptimal bowel preparation. Compared to 55-59 year age group, advancing age in 5-year increments (odds ratios (OR) from 1.08 to 1.51) and female sex (OR = 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.27-2.54) were associated with inadequate FSG. Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) was associated with reduced odds (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.62-0.72). Inadequate FSG screening at baseline was associated with inadequate FSG at repeat screening (OR = 6.24; 95% CI: 5.78-6.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation should be considered for patients with inadequate FSG or an alternative colorectal cancer screening method should be recommended.

Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for large bowel disease. With the increase in demand, pressure is on clinics to shorten lengths of time per procedure in addition to maintaining high levels of patient safety. Analgesia has always been the mainstay of adequate pain relief, but it leads to prolonged recovery and lengths of hospital stay, in addition to increased risk of cardio-respiratory side effects. N2O/O2 mixtures have been used for its effective analgesic effect and short half life and provides an alternative method of sedation for colonoscopy procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the overall effectiveness of nitrous oxide mixtures to other types of pain relief used during colonoscopy procedures to provide adequate pain/discomfort relief.The secondary objective was to compare between nitrous oxide and other types of pain relief with respect to hospitalisation/recovery time, side effects, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, and colonoscopy completion rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966- present), EMBASE (1980 - present), and the Internet (Google Scholar).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared nitrous oxide to placebo or active comparators for patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. Patients with known underlying causes of pain/discomfort were excluded. 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised trials were included. Each trial compared a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture to a placebo or sedation +- other analgesic drugs on patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. The results of these studies were analysed and discussed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of 547 patients included.There were 257 patients randomised to receive the N2O/O2 mixture (7 studies), while 225 patients received some form of sedation with or without other analgesia (6 studies), and 65 patients received a placebo (3 studies).Four studies showed that N2O/O2 is as good in controlling pain/discomfort as conventional methods, while one showed sedation was better and another study showed N2O/O2 was better.Six of the studies showed that N2O/O2 groups had quicker recovery times and shorter lengths of hospital stays while one study showed that there was no difference between the two groups.Two studies showed that N2O/O2 was safer while one reported that sedation was safer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nitrous oxide is as efficient and safer than various pain relief methods used during colonoscopy procedures, but further trials are necessary.

Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for large bowel disease. With the increase in demand, pressure is on clinics to shorten lengths of time per procedure in addition to maintaining high levels of patient safety. Analgesia has always been the mainstay of adequate pain relief, but it leads to prolonged recovery and lengths of hospital stay, in addition to increased risk of cardio-respiratory side effects. N2O/O2 mixtures have been used for its effective analgesic effect and short half life and provides an alternative method of sedation for colonoscopy procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the overall effectiveness of nitrous oxide mixtures to other types of pain relief used during colonoscopy procedures to provide adequate pain/discomfort relief.The secondary objective was to compare between nitrous oxide and other types of pain relief with respect to hospitalisation/recovery time, side effects, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, and colonoscopy completion rates.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966- present), EMBASE (1980 - present), and the Internet (Google Scholar).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared nitrous oxide to placebo or active comparators for patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. Patients with known underlying causes of pain/discomfort were excluded. 

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven randomised trials were included. Each trial compared a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture to a placebo or sedation +- other analgesic drugs on patients undergoing elective colonoscopic procedures. The results of these studies were analysed and discussed.

MAIN RESULTS

There were a total of 547 patients included.There were 257 patients randomised to receive the N2O/O2 mixture (7 studies), while 225 patients received some form of sedation with or without other analgesia (6 studies), and 65 patients received a placebo (3 studies).Four studies showed that N2O/O2 is as good in controlling pain/discomfort as conventional methods, while one showed sedation was better and another study showed N2O/O2 was better.Six of the studies showed that N2O/O2 groups had quicker recovery times and shorter lengths of hospital stays while one study showed that there was no difference between the two groups.Two studies showed that N2O/O2 was safer while one reported that sedation was safer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nitrous oxide is as efficient and safer than various pain relief methods used during colonoscopy procedures, but further trials are necessary.

A prospective audit of patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale: a cohort of 1,187 patients

BACKGROUND

The Global Rating Scale (GRS) comprehensively evaluates the quality of an endoscopy department, providing a patient-centred framework for service improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient experiences during colonoscopy and identify areas that need service improvement using the GRS.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were asked to complete a pre- and postprocedure questionnaire. Questions were based on GRS items and a literature review. The preprocedure questionnaire addressed items such as patient characteristics and information provision. The postprocedure questionnaire contained questions regarding comfort, sedation, the attitude of endoscopy staff and aftercare.

RESULTS

The preprocedure questionnaire was completed by 1,187 patients, whereas the postprocedure part of the questionnaire was completed by 851 patients (71.9%). Fifty-four per cent of patients were first seen in the outpatient clinic. The indication for colonoscopy was explained to 85% of the patients. Sixty-five per cent of the patients stated that information about the risks of colonoscopy was provided. Sedation was used in 94% of the patients; however, 23% judged the colonoscopy to be more uncomfortable than expected. Ten per cent of patients rated the colonoscopy as (very) uncomfortable. Preliminary results of the colonoscopy were discussed with 87% of patients after the procedure. Twenty-one per cent of the patients left the hospital without knowing how to obtain their final results. Being comfortable while waiting for the procedure (OR 9.93) and a less uncomfortable procedure than expected (OR 2.99) were important determinants of the willingness to return for colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provided evidence supporting the GRS in identifying service gaps in the quality of patient experiences for colonoscopy in a North American setting. Assessing experiences is useful in identifying areas that need improvement such as the provision of pre- and postprocedure information.

A proof-of-principle, prospective, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating improved outcomes in scheduled unsedated colonoscopy by the water method

BACKGROUND

An observational study in veterans showed that a novel water method (water infusion in lieu of air insufflation) enhanced cecal intubation and willingness to undergo a repeat scheduled unsedated colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To confirm these beneficial effects and significant attenuation of discomfort in a randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

DESIGN

Prospective RCT, intent-to-treat analysis.

SETTING

Veterans Affairs ambulatory care facility.

PATIENTS

Veterans undergoing scheduled unsedated colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

During insertion, the water and traditional air methods were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Discomfort and procedure-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-two veterans were randomized to the air (n = 40) or water (n = 42) method. Cecal intubation (78% vs 98%) and willingness to repeat (78% vs 93%) were significantly better with the water method (P < .05; Fisher exact test). The mean (standard deviation) of maximum discomfort (0 = none, 10 = most severe) during colonoscopy was 5.5 (3.0) versus 3.6 (2.1) P = .002 (Student t test), and the median overall discomfort after colonoscopy was 3 versus 2, P = .052 (Mann-Whitney U test), respectively. The method, but not patient characteristics, was a predictor of discomfort (t = -1.998, P = .049, R(2) = 0.074). The odds ratio for failed cecal intubation was 2.09 (95% CI, 1.49-2.93) for the air group. Fair/poor previous experience increased the risk of failed cecal intubation in the air group only. The water method numerically increased adenoma yield.

LIMITATIONS

Single site, small number of elderly men, unblinded examiner, possibility of unblinded subjects, restricted generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCT data confirmed that the water method significantly enhanced cecal intubation and willingness to undergo a repeat colonoscopy. The decrease in maximum discomfort was significant; the decrease in overall discomfort approached significance. The method, but not patient characteristics, was a predictor of discomfort. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00747084).

History of hysterectomy: a significant problem for colonoscopists that is not present in patients who have had sigmoid colectomy

PURPOSE

During colonoscopy, it is often difficult to traverse the sigmoid colon in patients who have had a hysterectomy, presumably due to postsurgical pelvic adhesions. We performed this study to document this difficulty and to determine whether sigmoid colectomy prevents it.

METHODS

Data were acquired from a single endoscopist's prospective database. Colonoscopies performed in women were grouped according to history of hysterectomy and/or sigmoid colectomy. Groups were compared for colonoscopy completion rate, medication used, and time of examination. Participation of fellows and rate of complications were recorded. Patients with a history of abdominal-perineal resection of the rectum were excluded.

RESULTS

From 1989 to 2006, a total of 4116 colonoscopies were performed in women: 993 had undergone hysterectomy (24.1%), of whom 108 (10.9%) had also undergone sigmoid colectomy. There were 3123 exams in woman who had their uterus (75.9%); 320 (10.2%) had undergone sigmoid colectomy. Patients who still had a sigmoid colon but had a history of hysterectomy had significantly lower colonoscopy completion rates (89.2%) and significantly longer mean examination time (28.9 +/- 12.3 minutes), and more of them required sedation with benzodiazepines (88.7%) than the other groups (P < .05). Fellow participation increased time of colonoscopy and complications were more frequent in patients with hysterectomy.

CONCLUSION

Posthysterectomy adhesions to the sigmoid colon make colonoscopy more difficult and more painful. These adverse effects are not present in hysterectomized women who have undergone sigmoid resection.

Sedation-risk-free colonoscopy for minimizing the burden of colorectal cancer screening

Unsedated colonoscopy is available worldwide, but is not a routine option in the United States (US). We conducted a literature review supplemented by our experience and expert commentaries to provide data to support the use of unsedated colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Medline data from 1966 to 2009 were searched to identify relevant articles on the subject. Data were summarized and co-authors provided critiques as well as accounts of unsedated colonoscopy for screening and surveillance. Diagnostic colonoscopy was initially developed as an unsedated procedure. Procedure-related discomfort led to wide adoption of sedation in the US, although unsedated colonoscopy remains the usual practice elsewhere. The increased use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in healthy, asymptomatic individuals suggests a reassessment of the burden of sedation in colonoscopy for screening is appropriate in the US for lowering costs and minimizing complications for patients. A water method developed to minimize discomfort has shown promise to enhance outcomes of unsedated colonoscopy. The use of scheduled, unsedated colonoscopy in the US appears to be feasible for colorectal cancer screening. Studies to assess its applicability in diverse practice settings deserve to be conducted and supported.

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

AIM

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Factors associated with abdominal discomfort during colonoscopy: a prospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl for colonoscopy: results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

A combination of midazolam and opioid is usually used to achieve sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy. Two commonly used opioids are meperidine and fentanyl, but few studies have compared their efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized trial aimed to compare the efficacy and recovery time of 2 sedation regimens consisting of midazolam in combination with either meperidine or fentanyl.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

A total of 300 consecutive, unselected adults attending outpatient colonoscopy at a District General Hospital were enrolled with informed consent and randomized to receive midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl. Data for procedure times, perceived discomfort (according to standard 100-mm visual analog scales [VAS]), and recovery time were collected. Patients and all endoscopy staff directly involved with the procedure were blinded to the regimen used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Primary: patients' experience of pain (postrecovery VAS score); secondary: recovery time.

RESULTS

A total of 287 patients (150 female, mean [SD] age 54 [17] years) were studied. Recovery time (in minutes) was significantly shorter in patients receiving fentanyl (n = 138) than in those receiving meperidine (n = 149, mean +/- SE: 13.7 +/- 1.8 vs 18.7 +/- 1.7, P = .03), whereas there was no difference in the patients', endoscopists', or nurses' perception of pain during the procedure between the 2 groups. Both groups received a median dose of 3 mg of midazolam (range 2-5 mg). In patients receiving lower doses (2-2.5 and 3-3.5 mg), recovery times were significantly faster with fentanyl (P < .01 and <.05, respectively), whereas at higher doses of midazolam (> or =4 mg) there was no difference between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

The use of VAS scores and nurse assessment of recovery time were chosen in this study because, despite their subjectivity, these measures were felt to most closely reflect true clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fentanyl in combination with low-dose midazolam results in significantly faster recovery from sedation compared with meperidine, without any apparent loss of analgesic effect.