Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Considerations for Colorectal Neoplasia Detection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

High-quality colonoscopic surveillance can lead to earlier and increased detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In IBD clinical trials, endoscopy is used to assess mucosal disease activity before and after treatment but also provides an opportunity to surveil for colorectal neoplasia during follow-up.

SUMMARY

Best practices for colorectal cancer identification in IBD clinical trials require engagement and collaboration between the clinical trial sponsor, site endoscopist and/or principal investigator, and central read team. Each team member has unique responsibilities for maximizing dysplasia detection in IBD trials.

KEY MESSAGES

Sponsors should work in accordance with scientific guidelines to standardize imaging procedures, design the protocol to ensure the trial population is safeguarded, and oversee trial conduct. The site endoscopist should remain updated on best practices to tailor sponsor protocol-required procedures to patient needs, examine the mucosa for disease activity and potential dysplasia during all procedures, and provide optimal procedure videos for central read analysis. Central readers may detect dysplasia or colorectal cancer and a framework to report these findings to trial sponsors is essential. Synergistic relationships between all team members in IBD clinical trials provide an important opportunity for extended endoscopic evaluation and colorectal neoplasia identification.

Image acquisition as novel colonoscopic quality indicator: a single-center retrospective study

Purpose

In order to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, improving the quality of colonoscopy is the top priority. At present, the adenoma detection rate is the most used index to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy. So, we further verified the relevant factors influencing the quality of colonoscopy and found out the novel quality indicators by studying the relationship between the influencing factors and the adenoma detection rate.

Materials/methods

The study included 3824 cases of colonoscopy from January to December 2020. We retrospectively recorded the age and sex of the subjects; the number, size, and histological features of lesions; withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy. We analyzed the associated factors affecting adenoma and polyp detection, and verified their effectiveness with both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

Logistic regression analyses showed that gender, age, withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy could serve as independent predictors of adenoma/polyp detection rate. In addition, adenoma detection rate (25.36% vs. 14.29%) and polyp detection rate (53.99% vs. 34.42%) showed a marked increase when the number of images taken during colonoscopy was ≥29 (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Gender, age, withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy are influencing factors for the detection of colorectal adenomas and polyps. And we can gain higher adenoma/polyp detection rate when endoscopists capture more colonoscopic images.

Efficacy of oral sulfate tablets for bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is closely related to bowel preparation, is the most important factor for colonoscopy quality assessment. New oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) have been developed to improve bowel preparation compliance. This study evaluated the efficacy of OSTs in terms of the ADR and bowel preparation status.

METHODS

Medical records of subjects under the age of 65 who underwent colonoscopy from March 2019 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-A) was used as a bowel preparation for the first half of the study period, and OSTs were used for the second half. In total, 16 971 subjects were included in the study: 9199 (54.2%) used PEG-A, and 7772 (45.8%) used OSTs. Bowel cleansing quality was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

The average age was 50 years. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (97.2% vs 95.0%, P < 0.001). The mean BBPS was also higher in the OST group (8.02 vs 7.75, P < 0.001). The adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the ADR and the sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) were higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (APC 0.56 ± 1.01 vs 0.48 ± 0.91, P < 0.001; ADR 34.5% vs 30.7%, P < 0.001; SSPDR 5.2% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PEG-A, OSTs yielded superior APC, ADRs, SSPDRs, and better bowel cleanliness. Therefore, OSTs are a good alternative for patients who have difficulty taking large-volume bowel preparation formulations.

SPLIT-DOSE BOWEL PREPARATION IS SUPERIOR TO STRAIGHT-DOSE IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS UNDERGOING INPATIENT COLONOSCOPY

BACKGROUND

There is a two-fold higher rate of failed colonoscopy secondary to inadequate bowel preparation among hospitalized versus ambulatory patients. Split-dose bowel preparation is widely used in the outpatient setting but has not been generally adapted for use among the inpatient population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of split versus single dose polyethylene glycol bowel (PEG) preparation for inpatient colonoscopies and determine additional procedural and patient characteristics that drive inpatient colonoscopy quality.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on 189 patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy and received 4 liters PEG as either split- or straight-dose during a 6-month period in 2017 at an academic medical center. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), Aronchick Score, and reported adequacy of preparation.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation was reported as adequate in 89% of the split-dose group versus 66% in the straight-dose group (P=0.0003). Inadequate bowel preparations were documented in 34.2% of the single-dose group and 10.7% of the split-dose group (P<0.001). Only 40% of patients received split-dose PEG. Mean BBPS was significantly lower in the straight-dose group (Total: 6.32 vs 7.73, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose preparation across reportable quality metrics for non-screening colonoscopies and was readily performed in the inpatient setting. Interventions should be targeted at shifting the culture of gastroenterologist prescribing practices towards use of split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is characterized by rapid declines in the wake of widespread screening. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening, but its accuracy is related to high quality of bowel preparation (BP). In this review, we aimed to summarized the current strategy to increase bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Newly bowel cleansing agents were developed with the same efficacy of previous agent but requiring less amount of liquid to improve patients’ acceptability. The role of the diet before colonoscopy was also changed, as well the contribution of educational intervention and the use of adjunctive drugs to improve patients’ tolerance and/or quality of BP. The review also described BP in special situations, as lower gastrointestinal bleeding, elderly people, patients with chronic kidney disease, patients with inflammatory bowel disease, patients with congestive heart failure, inpatient, patient with previous bowel resection, pregnant/lactating patients. The review underlined the quality of BP should be described using a validate scale in colonoscopy report and it explored the available scales. Finally, the review explored the possible contribution of bowel cleansing in post-colonoscopy syndrome that can be related by a transient alteration of gut microbiota. Moreover, the study underlined several points needed to further investigations.

Benchmarking Adenoma Detection Rates for Colonoscopy: Results From a US-Based Registry

INTRODUCTION

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is highly variable across practices, and national or population-based estimates are not available. Our aim was to study the ADR, variability of rates over time, and factors associated with detection rates of ADR in a national sample of patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We used colonoscopies submitted to the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd. registry from 2014 to 2018 on adults aged 50-89 years. We used hierarchical logistic models to study factors associated with ADR.

RESULTS

A total of 2,646,833 colonoscopies were performed by 1,169 endoscopists during the study period. The average ADR for screening colonoscopies per endoscopist was 36.80% (SD 10.21), 44.08 (SD 10.98) in men and 31.20 (SD 9.65) in women. Adjusted to the US population, the ADR was 39.08%. There was a significant increase in ADR from screening colonoscopies over the study period from 33.93% in 2014 to 38.12% in 2018.

DISCUSSION

The average ADR from a large national US sample standardized to the US population is 39.05% and has increased over time.

The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background/Aims

The worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led endoscopists to use personal protective equipment (PPE) for infection prevention. This study aimed to investigate whether wearing a face shield as PPE affects the quality of colonoscopy.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records and colonoscopy findings of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Asan Medical Center, Korea from March 10 to May 31, 2020. The colonoscopies in this study were performed by five gastroenterology fellows and four expert endoscopists. We compared colonoscopy quality indicators, such as withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), polypectomy time, and polypectomy adverse events, both before and after face shields were added as PPE on April 13, 2020.

Results

Of the 1,344 colonoscopies analyzed, 715 and 629 were performed before and after the introduction of face shields, respectively. The median withdrawal time was similar between the face shield and no-face shield groups (8.72 minutes vs 8.68 minutes, p=0.816), as was the ADR (41.5% vs 39.8%, p=0.605) and APC (0.72 vs 0.77, p=0.510). Polypectomy-associated quality indicators, such as polypectomy time and polypectomy adverse events were also not different between the groups. Quality indicators were not different between the face shield and no-face shield groups of gastroenterology fellows, or of expert endoscopists.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy performance was not unfavorably affected by the use of a face shield. PPE, including face shields, can be recommended without a concern about colonoscopy quality deterioration.

Preparation, Timing, Prokinetics, and Surface Agents in Video Capsule Endoscopy

There is a trend in data to support active preparation for video capsule endoscopy (VCE), but the timing of this remains unclear. Split dosing may be the most efficacious preparation. Study methodology continues to evolve, with increased use of standardized scales, with the addition of diagnostic yield as an outcome. The use of adjuncts has not been detrimental, but their value has not been proved to improve outcomes of VCE.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.

Split-Dose Regimen With Bisacodyl Increases the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

The aim of the present study was to compare 2 different bowel preparations procedures (split-dose with PicoPrep and bisacodyl vs. same-day preparation with PicoPrep) in patients undergoing colonoscopy with regard to quality of bowel preparation, compliance, and willingness to repeat. A retrospective quasi-experimental investigation was conducted. Adults with outpatient diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies were included. A total of 540 patients participated: group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' (n = 293) and group 'same-day' (n = 247). Patients in group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' had a higher chance for having an excellent quality of bowel preparation (21.2%; 95% CI [13.5, 28.9]) and a reduced risk of an incomplete colonoscopy (4.1%; 95% CI [1.2, 7.0]). Group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' drank more fluid, had more nightly visits to the bathroom, and had more bathroom stops on the way to the endoscopic site. No differences were found between groups regarding adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, overall time of colonoscopy, well-being during cleansing, patient satisfaction, the professional's assessment of the patient's tolerability of colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation process. The split-dose regimen with PicoPrep and bisacodyl is now the standard bowel preparation procedure for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy as it is superior to the same-day regimen with PicoPrep regarding colon cleansing and incomplete colonoscopy. Hence, the written and verbal information at our institution regarding the bowel preparation procedure was altered according to the split-dose regimen, emphasizing the importance of adequate oral fluid intake and complete intake of the solution in order to ensure a safe and effective procedure.

Will purposely seeking detect more colorectal polyps than routine performing during colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND & GOALS

We observed that the number of colorectal polyps found intraoperatively was often higher than that encountered preoperatively during elective colonoscopic polypectomy. To evaluate whether more polyps can be detected when they are purposely sought than when they are routinely examined during colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into groups A and B. Before colonoscopy was performed, endoscopists were instructed to seek polyps for group A purposely but not for group B. Polypectomy was electively completed. In groups A and B, the cases of elective polypectomy were named groups AR and BR, including groups AR-1 and BR-1, during the first colonoscopy and groups AR-2 and BR-2 during the second colonoscopy for polypectomy, respectively. The following data were calculated: the number of polyps detected (NPD) and the polyp detection rate (PDR) in all cases and the number of polyps missed (NPM) and partial polyp miss rate (PPMR) in the cases of colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 419 cases were included in group A, 421 in group B, 43 in group AR, and 35 in group BR. No significant differences in PDR were found between groups A and B and in PPMR between groups AR-1 and BR-1 (P > .05), although PPMR in group AR-1 was higher than in group AR-2 (P < .05), similar results were found in PPMR between groups BR-1 and BR-2 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Purposely seeking for colorectal polyps did not result in more polyps detected compared with routine colonoscopy.

Routine ileal intubation in colonoscopy does not increase the polyp detection rate: a retrospective study

Colonoscopy is effective in the prevention and screening of colorectal cancer. Whether terminal ileal (TI) intubation is required during conventional colonoscopy and whether it offers clinical benefits with respect to polyp detection rate (PDR) remain unclear. This retrospective study included patients who underwent colonoscopy at our hospital between July 1, 2018 and April 20, 2019. The positive findings and time for TI intubation were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PDR. There were 1675 patients with cecal intubation colonoscopy, including 994 (59 %) with TI intubation and 8 (1 %) with intestinal disease. The mean time for TI intubation was 40 seconds (3-338), and the mean time from cecal intubation to arrival at the deep part of TI mucosa was 24 seconds (2-118). The overall PDR was 27 %. On multivariable analysis, age > 50 years [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.837-4.590], male sex (95 %CI, 0.406-0.649), presence of symptoms (abdominal symptoms vs. asymptomatic, 95 % CI, 1.146-2.468; stool changes vs. asymptomatic, 95 % CI, 1.070-1.834), and non-TI intubation (95 % CI, 1.040-1.648) were independent predictors of higher PDR. Trend analysis indicated decreasing trend of PDR among non-TI intubation group, 0-5 cm TI intubation group, and > 5 cm TI intubation group (30 % vs. 27 % vs. 24 %, respectively; p < 0.05). TI intubation is necessary to identify small bowel disease among a designated population, but it was not suggested to be routinely performed as part of colonoscopy, owing to limited positive intestinal findings, extra time requirement, and possible PDR worsening.

Impact of Endoscopists' Personality Traits on Adenoma and Polyp Detection Rates in Colonoscopy: A KASID Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

The personality traits of endoscopists have been suggested to affect the adenoma detection rate (ADR). We thus evaluated the relationship between endoscopists' personality traits and the ADR during colonoscopy using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2).

METHODS

In total, 1230 patients (asymptomatic and aged 50-80 years) who underwent screening or surveillance (≥ 5 years) colonoscopy were recruited from 13 university hospitals by 20 endoscopists between September 2015 and December 2017. We retrospectively measured the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). All 20 endoscopists completed all 567 true/false MMPI-2 items.

RESULTS

The overall mean colonoscopy withdrawal time, PDR, ADR, and APC were 7.3 ± 2.8 min, 55%, 45.3%, and 0.97 ± 1.58, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the MMPI-2 clinical scales (e.g., hypochondriasis and psychasthenia), content scales (e.g., obsessiveness and type A character), or supplementary scales (e.g., dominance and social responsibility) between the high ADR group (ADR ≥45%, n = 10) and the low ADR group (ADR < 45%, n = 10). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the ADR was associated significantly with patient age and sex. The ADR was related significantly to endoscopists' colonoscopy experience and the per-minute increase in the colonoscopy withdrawal time (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.38, p = 0.005). In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for patient factors, the ADR was associated significantly with ego strength (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.09, p = 0.044), as measured by the MMPI-2.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of ego strength, the endoscopists' personality traits were not associated with adenoma or polyp detection.

Multidirectional Colonoscopy Quality Improvement Increases Adenoma Detection Rate: Results of the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Colonoscopy Quality Upgrade Project (Gangnam-CUP)

BACKGROUND

To prevent colorectal cancer, high-quality colonoscopy is advocated, undertaken by endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Despite reports that various factors may impact ADRs, the significance of such factors is still unclear.

AIMS

The analysis was aimed at quality-oriented interventions for boosting ADRs.

METHODS

Study enrollees were adults subjected to screening colonoscopy between September 2013 and August 2016 at the Gangnam Center of Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System. The investigation entailed six periods (P1-6) of 6 months each, during which serial multidirectional quality improvement efforts were instituted. In particular, we sought to further educate endoscopists, provide feedback on individual ADRs, and introduce a split-dose regimen, gauging results via the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Changes in polyp detection rates (PDRs) and ADRs were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,430 colonoscopies were undertaken by 15 experienced endoscopists. Overall, the ADR increased from 45.6% (P1) to 48.2% (P6, p < 0.001). The PDR, ADR, and advanced adenoma detection rate (AdvADR) showed the greatest increases between P3 and P4 [PDR 67.8% → 71.2% (p < 0.001); ADR 44.1% → 47.7% (p = 0.001); AdvADR 2.3% → 3.3% (p = 0.028)] in keeping with the introduction of a split-dose regimen. The sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) increased substantially from 2.1% (P1) to 7.9% (P6, p < 0.001), with the largest gain between P1 and P2, just after education (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful quality improvement in colonoscopy was achieved through comprehensive multidirectional efforts in education, feedback, and enhanced bowel preparation. Achieving high-level bowel preparation was paramount in ADR improvement. The SSADR was improved through education.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

Determination of withdrawal times in individualized opportunistic screening colonoscopies

To investigate effects of bowel preparation, experience level of colonoscopists, and colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) on the quality of an individual opportunistic screening colonoscopy, according to adenoma detection rate (ADR).Data were retrospectively analyzed from opportunistic screening colonoscopies (n = 16,951) at 4 hospitals of various care levels in China.The ADR positively correlated with the experience level of the colonoscopist. The individualized CWT varied, depending on the quality of bowel preparation and the number of colonoscopies performed previously by the colonoscopist. In a setting of adequate bowel preparation, the mean CWT decreased with the increased experience of the colonoscopist. With poor and inadequate bowel preparation, no colonoscopist at any level of experience could obtain a satisfactory ADR.For adequately prepared colonoscopies, minimum CWTs have been determined. Repeat colonoscopy is strongly recommended for patients with poor bowel preparation, regardless of the colonoscopist's experience.

Progress of colorectal cancer screening in United States: Past achievements and future challenges

The United States has seen progress with colorectal cancer with both falling incidence and mortality rates. Factoring into this decline, the significance of early detection and removal of precancerous lesions through screening must be underscored. With the advancement of screening modalities, attention has been directed towards optimizing the quality of screening and detecting adenomas. Colorectal cancer screening has been a major agenda item for national gastroenterology societies, culminating in a major victory with passage of the Balanced Budget Act that allowed for Medicare coverage of colorectal cancer screening. Colonoscopy as the primary screening modality was solidified in the 1990s after landmark studies demonstrated its superiority over modalities for detecting precancerous polyps. Despite progress, colorectal cancer screening disparities between race and gender continue to exist. Legislative efforts are on-going and include the SCREEN Act and Dent Act that aim to further improve access to screening. The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable has launched colorectal cancer screening initiatives targeting at risk populations. Today, the current goal of these initiatives is to reach colorectal screening rate of 80% of eligible patients by 2018. With these initiatives, efforts to narrow the gaps in screening disparities and lower overall mortality have been prioritized and continued by the medical community. This review article details colorectal cancer screening progress to date and highlights major studies and initiatives that have solidified its success in the United States.

Same-Day Regimen as an Alternative to Split Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background

Split bowel preparation is the best regimen for colonoscopy. However, the same-day regimen can represent a valid alternative, but its use is limited by concerns about its cleansing ability, and to date, no convincing data support its use for routine colonoscopies.

Aim

To evaluate the cleansing, compliance, and adverse event rates of the same-day compared to the split regimen.

Results

A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was performed. Ten studies were included for a total of 1807 patients (880 in the same-day group and 927 in the split group). Overall, 85.3% patients in the same-day group vs. 86.3% in the split group had an adequate cleansing. Compliance was high for both, although patients were more compliant with the split than with the same-day prep (89.7% for same-day vs. 96.6% for split regimen). Sleep disturbance was more frequent in the split group, while nausea and vomit were more frequent in the same-day group. In the subgroup analysis, polyethylene glycol obtained a better cleansing rate when given as a split dose, with similar compliance and adverse events rates with both regimens.

Conclusion

Split and same-day regimens are both useful in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy with a different pattern of adverse events and better compliance for split preparations. Endoscopists can consider the same-day preparation as a valid alternative, especially when the split preparation does not fit the patients' needs.

No Interval Cancers in Endoscopic Practice

Colonoscopy is long time the most preferred method for CRC screening along with diagnosis and treatment for a range of colon diseases. Based on its difficulty in visualizing precursor CRC lesions, mostly those located on the right colon, this method can be subject of improvement. The colonoscopy quality can be influenced by many factors such as colon preparation, retraction time, the colonoscopists medical training and knowledges as well as the performance of endoscopy equipment. The bad quality of colonoscopy will result in the emergence of interval cancers defined, based on the author, as cancers that appear at 3-5 years up to 10 years from the colonoscopy procedure. Interval cancers have predominantly incriminated both the colonoscopy quality and the clinician competences and less the tumor biology. Subsequently there were set quality indicators of colonoscopy in order to raise the quality of the exploration. Among the important indicators, proving their utility in studies, the ADR (adenoma detection rate) is most commonly used along with PDR (polyp detection rate) and APC (adenoma per colonoscopy). Following the purpose of obtaining a higher colonoscopy quality the medical units should keep in check all indicators. Furthermore, there should be an active involvement in an additional training of non-conforming medical personnel or even restrain of practice, given the medical legal actions that have interval cancers as a main cause.

Comparison of Small Versus Large Volume Split Dose Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Study of Colonoscopy Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Split dose bowel preparations (SDP) have superior outcomes for colonoscopy as compared to evening before regimens. However, the association of the actual volume of the SDP to colonoscopy outcome measures has not been well studied.

AIMS

Compare adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), mean bowel cleanse score, and predictors of inadequate exams between small volume SDP and large volume SDP.

METHODS

We have conducted a retrospective study in patients undergoing colonoscopy with small volume SDP versus large volume SDP between July 2014 and December 2014. Basic demographics (age, gender and BMI) along with clinical co-morbidities were recorded. Quality of the bowel preparation, ADR and SDR was compared between these groups. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the determinants of inadequate exams in each group.

RESULTS

1573 patients with split dose preparation were included in this retrospective study. 58.4% (920/1573) patients took small volume SDP. There was no difference in ADR (37.9 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.2); however, SDR was higher for small volume SDP compared to large volume SDP (11.9 vs. 7.9% p = 0.005). There was no difference in the rate of inadequate exams between the two groups (p = 0.7). A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in the small volume SDP.

CONCLUSIONS

SDR was higher in small volume SDP. There was no difference in rate of inadequate exams between the two groups. A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in patients with the small volume SDP.

Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

National guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance assume adequate bowel preparation. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) data to investigate the influence of bowel preparation quality on endoscopist recommendations for follow-up intervals in average-risk patients following normal screening colonoscopies.

METHODS

The analysis included 9170 normal screening colonoscopies performed on average risk individuals aged 50 and above between February 2005 and September 2013. The NHCR Procedure Form instructs endoscopists to score based on the worst prepped segment after clearing all colon segments, using the following categories: excellent (essentially 100% visualization), good (very unlikely to impair visualization), fair (possibly impairing visualization), and poor (definitely impairing visualization). We categorized examinations into 3 preparation groups: optimal (excellent/good) (n=8453), fair (n=598), and poor (n=119). Recommendations other than 10 years for examinations with optimal preparation, and >1 year for examinations with poor preparation, were considered nonadherent.

RESULTS

Of all examinations, 6.2% overall received nonadherent recommendations, including 5% of examinations with optimal preparation and 89.9% of examinations with poor preparation. Of normal examinations with fair preparation, 20.7% of recommendations were for an interval <10 years. Among those examinations with fair preparation, shorter-interval recommendations were associated with female sex, former/nonsmokers, and endoscopists with adenoma detection rate ≥20%.

CONCLUSIONS

In 8453 colonoscopies with optimal preparations, most recommendations (95%) were guideline-adherent. No guideline recommendation currently exists for fair preparation, but in this investigation into community practice, the majority of the fair preparation group received 10-year follow-up recommendations. A strikingly high proportion of examinations with poor preparation received a follow-up recommendation greater than the 1-year guideline recommendation. Provider education is needed to ensure that patients with poor bowel preparation are followed appropriately to reduce the risk of missing important lesions.

Polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl: A safe, cheap, and effective regimen for colonoscopy in the South Asian patients

Background and Aim

Data regarding the comparison of colonoscopic preparation regimens are still variable. We aimed to assess the adequacy and tolerability of two bowel preparation regimens for afternoon colonoscopy.

Methods

In a randomized, investigator‐blinded trial, two preparation regimens [4‐L split‐dose polyethylene glycol‐electrolytes (PEG‐ELS) and 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl) were compared in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and adverse effects.

Results

The mean (±SD) age (years) of the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS group (N = 147) and the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl (N = 155) were 44.09 (±15.62) (M:F : 2:1) and 44.12 years (±15.61) (M:F : 1.7:1), respectively. Percentage of patients with excellent and good preparation was higher in the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen compared with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl regimen (22.44 vs 17.41 and 44.21% vs 36.12%). Percentage of patients with fair and poor preparation was lower in 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen compared with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl regimen (21.08% vs 27.74% and 12.24% vs 18.70%). In comparison with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl group, the incidences of abdominal pain (11% vs 15%), bloating (9% vs 12.24%), nausea/vomiting (8.38% vs 9.52%), and sleep disturbance (11% vs 12%) were slightly more common in the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two regimens with regard to bowel cleansing efficacy and adverse events.

Conclusions

The 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl (10 mg) preparation is as efficacious as the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen for afternoon colonoscopy. Optimal preparation for colonoscopy can be achieved with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl regimen with slightly fewer adverse events and lower cost compared to the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen.

Comparative Efficacy of Colonoscope Distal Attachment Devices in Increasing Rates of Adenoma Detection: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection (ADR). We assessed their overall and comparative efficacy, and estimated absolute magnitude of benefit through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2017 and identified 25 randomized controlled trials (comprising 16,103 patients) that compared the efficacy of add-on devices (cap; Endocuff; Arc Medical Design Ltd, Leeds, UK, and Endorings; Us Endoscopy, Mentor, OH) with each other or with standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included rate of polyp detection, and rate of and time to cecal intubation. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We estimated the magnitude of increase in ADR by low-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 10%) and high-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 40%) with use of these devices.

RESULTS

Overall, distal attachment devices increased ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (relative risk [RR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23; low-quality evidence), with potential absolute increases in ADR to 11.3% for low-performing endoscopists and to 45.2% for high-performing endoscopists. In a comparative evaluation, we found low-quality evidence that Endocuff increases ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41), with anticipated increases in ADR to 12% for low-performing endoscopists and to 48% for high-performing endoscopists. We found very low quality evidence to support the use of Endorings (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.86-3.36) or caps (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96-1.19) vs standard colonoscopy for increasing ADR. The benefit of one distal attachment device over another was uncertain due to very low quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on network meta-analysis, we anticipate only modest improvement in ADRs with use of distal attachment devices, especially in low-performing endoscopists.

Sessile Serrated Adenomas: How to Detect, Characterize and Resect

Serrated polyps are important contributors to the burden of colorectal cancers (CRC). These lesions were once considered to have no malignant potential, but currently up to 30% of all CRC are recognized to arise from the serrated neoplasia pathway. The primary premalignant lesions are sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), although traditional serrated adenomas are relatively uncommon. Compared to conventional adenomas, SSA/Ps are morphologically subtle with indistinct borders, may be difficult to detect endoscopically, are more prevalent than previously thought, are associated with synchronous and metachronous advanced neoplasia, and have a higher risk of incomplete resection. Although many lesions remain “dormant,” progressive disease is associated with the development of dysplasia and more rapid progression to CRC. As a result, SSA/Ps are strongly implicated in the development of interval cancers. These factors represent unique challenges that require a meticulous approach to their management. In this review, we summarize the contemporary literature on the characterization, detection and resection of SSA/Ps.

Split-Dose Bowel Preparation Reduces the Need for Early Repeat Colonoscopy Without Improving Adenoma Detection Rate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Split-dose bowel preparation is associated with improved mucosal visualization and patient tolerance, becoming a standard of care. However, quality measures data associated with this preparation are limited. At our academic tertiary-care facility, we aim to study the effect of changing from single- to split-dose preparation on colonoscopy quality measures.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study with quality indicators was conducted using electronic medical record data. Cases were identified via ICD9 code V76.51, "Special screening for malignant neoplasms of colon." Single-dose preparation data was collected from 9/1/13 to 8/31/14. Split-dose preparation was implemented 11/2014, and data were collected from 1/1/15 to 8/31/15.

RESULTS

A total of 1602 colonoscopies in the single-dose group and 1061 colonoscopies in the split-dose group were analyzed. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was significantly improved in the split-dose group 8.64 ± SD 1.25 versus 8.25 ± SD 1.61, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate 40.7% (95% CI 37.8-43.7%) versus 40.5% (95% CI 38.1-42.9%), p = 0.92; however, the rate for recommending an early repeat examination due to an inadequate bowel preparation was significantly decreased to 3.9% (95% CI 2.7-5.0%) versus 8.9% (95% CI 1.52-2.97%), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

While split-dose preparation significantly improves overall bowel cleanliness, there is no significant adenoma detection rate improvement with high baseline rate, suggesting a threshold which may not improve with enhanced preparations. Split-dose preparation significantly reduces the frequency with which inadequate preparation prompts an early repeat examination, which has important clinical implications on performance, costs, and patient experience, providing further evidence supporting split-dose preparation use.

Management of Serrated Polyps of the Colon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize the management of serrated colorectal polyps (SPs), with a particular focus on the most common premalignant SP, sessile serrated adenoma or polyp (SSA/P). These lesions present a challenge for endoscopists with respect to detection and resection, and are also susceptible to pathologic misdiagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with SSA/Ps are at an increased risk of future colorectal neoplasia, including advanced polyps and cancer. Reasonable benchmarks for SP detection rates are 5-7% for SSA/Ps and 10-12% for proximal SPs. Certain endoscopic techniques such as chromoendoscopy, narrow band imaging, water immersion, and wide-angle viewing may improve SSA/P detection. Emerging endoscopic techniques such as underwater polypectomy, suction pseudopolyp technique, and piecemeal cold snare polypectomy are helpful tools for the endoscopist's armamentarium for removing SSA/Ps. Proper orientation of SSA/P specimens can improve the accuracy of pathology readings. Patients with confirmed SSA/Ps and proximal HPs should undergo surveillance at intervals similar to what is recommended for patients with conventional adenomas. Patients with SSA/Ps may also be able to lower their risk of future polyps by targeting modifiable risk factors including tobacco and alcohol use and high-fat diets. NSAIDs and aspirin appear to be protective agents. SPs and SSA/Ps in particular are important colorectal cancer precursors that merit special attention to ensure adequate detection, resection, and surveillance.

Full-spectrum versus standard colonoscopy for improving polyp detection rate: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Full-spectrum endoscopy represents a new endoscopic platform allowing a panoramic 330 degree view of the colon, but evidence of its superiority over standard colonoscopy is still lacking. Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of full-spectrum endoscopy with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

Through a systematic literature review until May 2017, we identified eight randomized-controlled trials. Primary outcomes were polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate, while cecal intubation time and total colonoscopy time were secondary outcomes. Direct meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

No difference in terms of polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate was found (risk ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.12, P = 0.96, and 1.05, 0.94-1.17, P = 0.40, respectively). Adenoma miss rate resulted significantly in favor of full-spectrum endoscopy (risk ratio: 0.35, 0.25-0.48, P < 0.01), although the difference was not significant for greater (>5 mm) and pedunculated lesions (risk ratio: 0.38, 0.09-1.60, P = 0.19, and risk ratio: 0.15, 0.01-3.00, P = 0.21, respectively). Cecal intubation time was not different between the two techniques (mean standardized difference: 0.22 min, -1.18 to 1.62, P = 0.76), while total colonoscopy time was significantly shorter when adopting full-spectrum endoscopy (mean difference: -2.60, -4.60 to -0.61, P = 0.01). Sensitivity analysis confirmed all the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-spectrum endoscopy appears as a promising and reliable technology able to significantly decrease the number of adenomas missed and procedural times, while its superiority over standard colonoscopy in terms of adenoma detection rate results is still unclear.

Barriers against split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Although split regimen is associated with higher adenoma detection and is recommended for elective colonoscopy, its adoption remains suboptimal. The identification of patient-related barriers may improve its implementation. Our aim was to assess patients' attitude towards split regimen and patient-related factors associated with its uptake.

DESIGN

In a multicentre, prospective study, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy from 8:00 to 14:00 were given written instructions for 4 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation, offering the choice between split-dose and day-before regimens and emphasising the superiority of split regimen on colonoscopy outcomes. Uptake of split regimen and association with patient-related factors were explored by a 20-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 1447 patients (mean age 59.2±13.5 years, men 54.3%), 61.7% and 38.3% chose a split-dose and day-before regimens, respectively. A linear correlation was observed between time of colonoscopy appointments and split-dose uptake, from 27.3% in 8:00 patients to 96% in 14:00 patients (p<0.001, χ² for linear trend). At multivariate analysis, colonoscopy appointment before 10:00 (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18), travel time to endoscopy service >1 h (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.79), low education level (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) and female gender (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95) were inversely correlated with the uptake of split-dose. Overall, the risk of travel interruption and faecal incontinence was slightly increased in split regimen patients (3.0% vs 1.4% and 1.5% vs 0.9%, respectively; p=NS). Split regimen was an independent predictor of adequate colon cleansing (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.40 to 4.63) and polyp detection (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92).

CONCLUSION

Patient attitude towards split regimen is suboptimal, especially for early morning examinations. Interventions to improve patient compliance (ie, policies to reorganise colonoscopy timetable, educational initiatives for patient and healthcare providers) should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02287051; pre-result.

Polyp detection at colonoscopy: Endoscopist and technical factors

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) has emerged as the most important quality measure in colonoscopy, as it predicts the risk of interval cancer after colonoscopy. Measuring and improving ADR is the central focus of the current quality movement in colonoscopy. High ADRs can be achieved by a colonoscopist with a thorough understanding of the wide range of endoscopic appearances of precancerous lesions in the colorectum, effective bowel preparation, and meticulous technique using high definition colonoscopes. The knowledgeable and effective examiner needs no adjunctive devices or techniques to achieve master level ADRs. However, measurement reveals that many colonoscopists have ADRs that are below recommended minimum thresholds or below master levels. These colonoscopists, and even master level performers, can choose from a variety of adjunctive tools to improve ADR. This review describes these tools according to whether they are non-device methods (e.g. double right colon examination, patient position change, water exchange), mucosal exposure devices (wide angle colonoscopy, fold flattening devices), and lesion highlighting techniques (e.g. chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy).

Systematic Review: Outcomes by Duration of NPO Status prior to Colonoscopy

Background/Aims

Variation exists among anesthesia providers as to acceptable timing of NPO (“nothing by mouth”) for elective colonoscopy procedures. There is a need to balance optimal colonic preparation, patient convenience, and scheduling efficiency with anesthesia safety concerns. We reviewed the evidence for the relationship between NPO timing and aspiration incidence and colonoscopy rescheduling.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1990–April 2015) for English language studies of any design and included them if at least one bowel preparation regimen was completed within 8 hours of colonoscopy. Study characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes were abstracted and verified by investigators. We determined risk of bias for each study and overall strength of evidence for primary and secondary outcomes.

Results

We included 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 controlled clinical trials, and 10 observational reports. Six studies reported on aspiration; none found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk, though studies were not designed to assess this outcome (low strength of evidence). One RCT found fewer rescheduled procedures following split-dose preparation but NPO status was not well-documented (insufficient evidence).

Conclusions

Aspiration incidence requiring hospitalization during colonoscopy with moderate or deep sedation is very low. No study found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk. We did not find direct evidence of the effect of NPO status on colonoscopy rescheduling.

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid and an Oral Sulfate Solution in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

An adequate level of bowel preparation before colonoscopy is important. The ideal agent for bowel preparation should be effective and tolerable.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solution in a split method for bowel preparation.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTINGS

Outpatients at the specialized clinics were included.

PATIENTS

A total of 186 subjects were randomly assigned. After exclusions, 84 subjects in the polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid group and 83 subjects in the oral sulfate solution group completed the study and were analyzed.

INTERVENTIONS

Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution in a split method was the included intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the rate of successful bowel preparation, which was defined as being excellent or good on the Aronchick scale. Tolerability and adverse events were also measured.

RESULTS

Success of bowel preparation was not different between 2 groups (91.7% vs 96.4%; p = 0.20), and the rate of adverse GI events (abdominal distension, pain, nausea, vomiting, or abdominal discomfort) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In contrast, the mean intensity of vomiting was higher in the oral sulfate solution group than in the polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid group (1.6 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.1; p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

All of the colonoscopies were performed in the morning, and the subjects were offered enhanced instructions for bowel preparation. In addition, the results of tolerability and adverse effect may have a type II error, because the number of cases was calculated for confirming the efficacy of bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral sulfate solution is effective at colonoscopy cleansing and has acceptable tolerability when it is compared with polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid. The taste and flavor of oral sulfate solution still need to be improved to enhance tolerability.

The impact of diet liberalization on bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Background and study aims Dietary restrictions are integral to colonoscopy preparation and impact patient satisfaction. Utilizing split-dose, lower-volume polyethylene glycol 3350-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS), this study compared colon preparation adequacy of a low-residue diet to clear liquids using a validated grading scale. Patients and methods This was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, single-center non-inferiority study evaluating diet the day prior to outpatient colonoscopy. Subjects were randomized to a Low-Residue diet for breakfast and lunch, or Clears only. All subjects received split dose PEG-ELS. The primary endpoint was preparation adequacy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), with adequate defined as a score > 5. Secondary endpoints included mean BBPS scores for the entire colon and individual segments, satisfaction, adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates, and impact on sleep and daily activities. Results Final analysis included 140 subjects, 72 assigned to Clears and 68 to Low-Residue. The Low-Residue diet was non-inferior to Clears (risk difference = - 5.08 %, P = 0.04) after adjusting for age. Mean colon cleansing scores were not significantly different overall and for individual colonic segments. Satisfaction with the Low-Residue diet was significantly greater (P = 0.01). The adenoma detection rate was not statistically significantly different between study groups, but the number of adenomas detected was significantly greater with Clears (P = 0.01). Adverse events and impact on sleep and activities did not differ significantly between diet arms. Conclusions A low-residue diet for breakfast and lunch the day prior to colonoscopy was non-inferior to clear liquids alone for achieving adequate colon cleansing when using split dose PEG-ELS.

Split-dose bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy performed under propofol sedation. Is there an optimal timing?

OBJECTIVE

Aspiration risk, especially with propofol sedation, remains a concern after split-dose bowel preparation of up to 1 L polyethylene glycol for the procedure. We aimed to identify the ideal timing of bowel preparation to achieve optimal colon cleansing with no increased risk of aspiration.

METHODS

A total of 892 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy were prospectively recruited. Residual gastric volume (RGV) and pH of gastric contents were measured at EGD, and patients' characteristics, runway time (duration between completion of the final liter of bowel preparation and colonoscopy commencement), and cleansing quality were recorded.

RESULTS

A shorter runway time resulted in better colon cleansing (r = -0.124, P < 0.001). No correlation between runway time and RGV or pH was found (r = -0.017, P = 0.62 and r = -0.030, P = 0.47, respectively). RGV and pH did not differ significantly with runway time of 4 or 5 h. RGV with runway time ≤3 h was 35.9 ± 11.8 mL and 17.4 ± 0.6 mL after runway time >3 h (P < 0.001). No aspiration pneumonia occurred. The only factors independently related to higher RGV were younger age and male sex.

CONCLUSIONS

The consumption of bowel preparation agent within 3-4 h before propofol sedation resulted in a similar RGV and pH as those achieved by more prolonged fasting, with no increased risk of aspiration even in patients perceived to be at high risk.

Is a split-dose regimen of 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid tolerable for colonoscopy in an early morning visit to a comprehensive medical check-up?

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of a split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/ascorbic acid (AA) regimen for healthy examinees who visited for comprehensive medical check-up in the early morning.

METHODS

From February 2015 to March 2015, examinees of average risk who were scheduled for a colonoscopy in the morning were retrospectively enrolled.

RESULTS

The 189 examinees were divided into split-dose and non-split-dose groups. The adequacy of bowel preparation for the split-dose group vs the non-split-dose group was 96.8% vs 85.2%, respectively, P < 0.001, and the compliance of the last meal restriction was 74.6% vs 58.2%, respectively, P < 0.001. The sleep disturbance (P < 0.001) was more prevalent in the split-dose group, however the willingness to repeat the same preparation method (P = 0.243) was not different in both groups. The split-dose regimen was the most important factor influencing adequate bowel preparation in multivariate analysis (HR = 10.89, 95%CI: 6.53-18.17, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A split-dose regimen of 2 L PEG/AA for an early morning colonoscopy was more effective and showed better compliance for diet restriction without any difference in satisfaction and discomfort. Introducing a split-dose regimen of 2 L PEG/AA to morning colonoscopy examinees is effective and tolerable in a comprehensive medical check-up setting.

Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme

OBJECTIVE

Although a split regimen of bowel preparation has been associated with higher levels of bowel cleansing, it is still uncertain whether it has a favourable effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The present study was aimed at evaluating whether a split regimen was superior to the traditional 'full-dose, day-before' regimen in terms of ADR.

DESIGN

In a multicentre, randomised, endoscopist-blinded study, 50-69-year-old subjects undergoing first colonoscopy after positive-faecal immunochemical test within an organised colorectal cancer organised screening programmes were 1:1 randomised to receive low-volume 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-ascorbate solution in a 'split-dose' (Split-Dose Group, SDG) or 'day-before' regimen (Day-Before Group, DBG). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma. Secondary endpoints were the detection rates of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions at per-patient analysis and the total number of lesions.

RESULTS

690 subjects were included in the study. At per-patient analysis, the proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma was significantly higher in the SDG than in the DBG (183/345, 53.0% vs 141/345, 40.9%, relative risk (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.46); corresponding figures for advanced adenomas were 26.4% (91/345) versus 20.0% (69/345, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.73). At per-polyp analysis, the total numbers of both adenomas and advanced adenomas per subject were significantly higher in the SDG (1.15 vs 0.8, p <0.001; 0.36 vs 0.22, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In an organised screening setting, the adoption of a split regimen resulted into a higher detection rate of clinically relevant neoplastic lesions, thus improving the effectiveness of colonoscopy. Based on such evidence, the adoption of a split regimen for colonoscopy should be strongly recommended.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02178033.

Randomized trial comparing oral sulfate solution with 4-L polyethylene glycol administered in a split dose as preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The present study aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of low-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) to 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions administered in a split-dose regimen as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The safety and tolerability were also compared between the two regimens.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, single-blind, active-control, parallel group, and non-inferiority trial, consecutive outpatients and health checkup recipients aged 19-65 years undergoing elective colonoscopy were enrolled to receive OSS or 4-L PEG in a split-dose regimen. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The occurrence of any adverse events, acceptance, compliance, and satisfaction during bowel preparation were evaluated by participant interviews.

RESULTS

Overall, 210 participants were randomized, and 199 were administered by the study agents. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 98.0% (97/99) of the OSS group, which was non-inferior to the PEG group (96%; 96/100) with a difference of +2.8% (95% confidence interval; -2.8, +6.8). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events except for abdominal pain, which was more frequent in the OSS (7.1%, 7/99) than in the PEG (1.0%, 1/100; P = 0.035) group. Acceptance, compliance, and satisfaction were significantly higher in the OSS than in the PEG group (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dose OSS was non-inferior to split-dose 4-L PEG with regard to bowel preparation efficacy before colonoscopy in adult outpatients or screening colonoscopy recipients aged ≤65 years with acceptable safety and superior tolerability.

Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most robust colonoscopy quality metric and clinical studies have adopted it as the ideal method to assess the impact of technical interventions. Areas covered: We reviewed papers focusing on the impact of colonoscopy technical issues on ADR, including withdrawal time and technique, second evaluation of the right colon, patient positional changes, gastrointestinal assistant participation during colonoscopy, water-aided technique, optimization of bowel preparation and antispasmodic administration. Expert commentary: Overall, technical interventions are inexpensive, available worldwide and easy to implement. Some of them, such as the adoption of split dose regimen and slow scope withdrawal to allow a careful inspection, have been demonstrated to significantly improve ADR. Emerging data support the use of water-exchange colonoscopy. According to published studies, other technical interventions seem to provide only marginal benefit to ADR. Unfortunately, the available evidence has methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, the inclusion of expert endoscopists only and the evaluation of single technical interventions. Additionally, larger studies are needed to clarify whether these interventions might have a higher benefit on low adenoma detectors and whether the implementation of a bundle of them, instead of a single technical maneuver, might have a greater impact on ADR.

Effect of quality metric monitoring and colonoscopy performance

Background and aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal withdrawal time (CWT) have been identified as measures of colonoscopy quality. This study evaluates the impact of monitoring these measures on provider performance. Methods: Six blinded gastroenterologists practicing at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center were prospectively monitored over 9 months. Data for screening, adenoma surveillance, and fecal occult blood test positive (FOBT +) indicated colonoscopies were obtained, including exam preparation quality, cecal intubation rate, CWT, ADR, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), and adverse events. Metrics were continuously monitored after a period of informed CWT monitoring and informed CWT + ADR monitoring. The primary outcome was impact on ADR and APC. Results: A total of 1671 colonoscopies were performed during the study period with 540 before informed monitoring, 528 during informed CWT monitoring, and 603 during informed CWT + ADR monitoring. No statistically significant impact on ADR was noted across each study phase. Multivariate regression revealed a trend towards fewer adenomas removed during the CWT monitoring phase (OR = 0.79; 95 %CI 0.62 - 1.02, P = 0.065) and a trend towards more adenomas removed during the CWT + ADR monitoring phase when compared to baseline (OR = 1.26; 95 %CI 0.99 - 1.61, P = 0.062). Indication for examination and provider were significant predictors for higher APC. Provider-specific data demonstrated a direct relationship between high ADR performers and increased CWT. Conclusions: Monitoring quality metrics did not significantly alter colonoscopy performance across a small heterogeneous group of providers. Non-significant trends towards higher APC were noted with CWT + ADR monitoring. Providers with a longer CWT had a higher ADR. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of monitoring on colonoscopy performance.

Impact of Single- vs. Split-Dose Low-Volume Bowel Preparations on Bowel Movement Kinetics, Patient Inconvenience, and Polyp Detection: A Prospective Trial

OBJECTIVES

There are little data on bowel movement (BM) kinetics induced by bowel preparation. Whether single-dose (SID) or split-dose (SPD) regimens differ in terms of patient convenience is unclear. We compared BM kinetics, sleep and travel disruptions, and polyp detection rates in patients undergoing colonoscopy assigned to SID vs. SPDs.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to 2-L SID or SPD (SPD1 and SPD2) bowel preparations. Surveys were completed querying the onset, duration, cessation, and intensity of BMs, along with sleep and travel disruption en route to the endoscopy center. Colon cleansing quality and polyp histology were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 341 patients were enrolled, 51% in SPD and 49% in SID. Over half of patients had their first BM within 60 min of starting the preparation. After dosing, 92% of SID and 66% of SPD1 patients achieved clear effluent (P<0.001), whereas it was reported in 97% of SPD2 patients (P=0.028 vs. SID). Total duration (P=0.041) and intensity (P<0.001) of BMs were greater in SID. More patients in SID woke up for BMs (65.9 vs. 48.8%, P<0.003). No differences in the need to stop driving en route to colonoscopy were noted. Bowel prep quality was better in SPD (P<0.001). Although no difference in the adenoma detection rate was noted, the sessile-serrated polyp detection rate was greater in SPD than in SID (9.9 vs. 2.4%, P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that SPD bowel preparation results in decreased intensity and duration of BMs, less patient inconvenience, improved bowel preparation, and increased sessile-serrated polyp detection rates.

New-Generation High-Definition Colonoscopes Increase Adenoma Detection when Screening a Moderate-Risk Population for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most important quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, due to its association with colorectal cancer outcomes. As a result, a number of techniques and technologies have been proposed that have the potential to improve ADR. The aim of this study was to assess the potential impact of new-generation high-definition (HD) colonoscopy on ADR within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP).

METHOD

This was a retrospective single-center observational study in patients undergoing an index screening colonoscopy. The examination was performed with either standard-definition colonoscopes (Olympus Q240/Q260 series) or HD colonoscopes (Olympus HQ290 EVIS LUCERA ELITE system) with the primary outcome measures of ADR and mean adenoma per procedure (MAP) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 395 patients (60.5% male, mean age 66.8 years) underwent screening colonoscopy with 45% performed with HD colonoscopes. The cecal intubation rate was 97.5% on an intention-to-treat basis and ADR was 68.6%. ADR with standard-definition was 63.13%, compared with 75.71% with HD (P = .007). The MAP in the HD group was 2.1 (± 2.0), whereas in the standard-definition group it was 1.6 (± 1.8) (P = .01). There was no significant difference in withdrawal time between the 2 groups. In the multivariate regression model, only HD scopes (P = .03) and male sex (P = .04) independently influenced ADR.

CONCLUSION

Olympus H290 LUCERA ELITE HD colonoscopes improved adenoma detection within the moderate-risk population. A 12% improvement in ADR might be expected to increase significantly the protection afforded by colonoscopy against subsequent colorectal cancer mortality.

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.

Accrediting for screening-related colonoscopy services: What is required of the endoscopist and of the endoscopy service?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely implemented to reduce CRC incidence and related mortality. The impact of screening as well as the balance between screening burden and benefits strongly depends on the quality of colonoscopy. Besides quality, safety of the endoscopic procedure and patient satisfaction are important outcome parameters for a screening program. Therefore the requirements for both CRC screening endoscopy services and endoscopists focus on technical aspects, patient safety, and patient experience. Stringent quality assurance by means of routine monitoring of quality indicators for the performance of endoscopists and endoscopy units is recommended. This allows setting minimum standards, targeted interventions, and enhancement of the overall quality of population screening. This reviews deals with guidelines and quality standards for colorectal cancer screening, with focus on both endoscopist and endoscopy services.

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.

Quantitative assessment of the effect of position changes during colonoscopy withdrawal

OBJECTIVE

Although trials assessing the effectiveness of position changes during colonoscopy withdrawal have been reported, there has been no agreement whether such position changes actually improve the polyp detection rate (PDR) or adenoma detection rate (ADR). This article aimed to address this issue by performing a systematic review.

METHODS

Relevant studies from databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index were retrieved. Two reviewers independently identified potentially relevant studies. Outcome measures were PDR, ADR and bowel distention.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, of which seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A non-randomized controlled trial and all four cross-over RCTs reported significant improvement in PDR, ADR and bowel distention with position change during colonoscopic withdrawal, while three parallel-group RCTs did not confirm its effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The conflicting results of high-quality trials indicate that the effectiveness of position change during colonoscopy withdrawal on PDR, ADR and bowel distension is uncertain. Thus, position change during colonoscopy withdrawal should not be routinely applied until future studies demonstrate its efficacy.

Quality in Colonoscopy

Quality metrics in colonoscopy are a growing area of focus given the development of and need for associated reporting and potential financial penalties. Three areas specifically have been identified as important by a multi-society task force, and the evidence behind each has been presented here. These metrics are adenoma detection rate, appropriate screening interval, and cecal intubation rate. Additional factors of interest include bowel preparation cleanliness and endoscope withdrawal time. Multifaceted interventions have been implemented to improve outcomes in colonoscopy with mixed success. Given that there are some quality metrics that have been shown to impact colorectal cancer outcomes, additional research should focus on disseminating these methods in a consistent and effective way across a myriad of practice models and patient populations.