Impact of withdrawal time on adenoma detection rate: results from a prospective multicenter trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Performing a high-quality colonoscopy is critical for optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Colonoscopy withdrawal time (a surrogate measure) of ≥6 minutes is recommended; however, a threshold of a high-quality withdrawal and its impact on ADR are not known.

METHODS

We examined withdrawal time (excluding polyp resection and bowel cleaning time) of subjects undergoing screening and/or surveillance colonoscopy in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We examined the relationship of withdrawal time in 1-minute increments on ADR and reported odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the maximal inspection time threshold that impacts the ADR.

RESULTS

A total of 1142 subjects (age, 62.3 ± 8.9 years; 80.5% men) underwent screening (45.9%) or surveillance (53.6%) colonoscopy. The screening group had a median withdrawal time of 9.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.3) with an ADR of 49.6%, whereas the surveillance group had a median withdrawal time of 9.3 minutes (IQR, 4.3) with an ADR of 63.9%. ADR correspondingly increased for a withdrawal time of 6 minutes to 13 minutes, beyond which ADR did not increase (50.4% vs 76.6%, P < .01). For every 1-minute increase in withdrawal time, there was 6% higher odds of detecting an additional subject with an adenoma (OR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.10; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this multicenter, randomized controlled trial underscore the importance of a high-quality examination and efforts required to achieve this with an incremental yield in ADR based on withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03952611.).

Comparing accuracy of high-risk features for detecting advanced neoplasia in pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The American Gastroenterological Association recommends endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for evaluating pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) with ≥2 high-risk features (HRF), whereas the American College of Gastroenterology recommends EUS for ≥1 HRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF for assessing the risk of advanced neoplasia (AN) and performing EUS in PCL.

Methods

An electronic database search was performed for eligible studies. AN was defined as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm or mucinous cystadenoma with high-grade dysplasia, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. HRF included cyst size ≥3 cm, solid component, and dilated pancreatic duct ≥5 mm. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of using ≥1 vs. ≥2 HRF as an indication for EUS to detect AN in PCL.

Results

Of 38 studies initially screened, 8 were included in the final analysis. Seven studies assessed the accuracy of ≥2 HRF and 4 studies assessed ≥1 HRF. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of EUS for detecting AN were 41.7% (95% confidence interval 19.5-67.8%), 90.8% (81.9-95.5%), 30.4% (19.4-44.2%) and 94.3% (89.6-97.0%) with ≥2HRFs, and 77.1% (66.1-85.3%), 72.7% (50.4-87.5%), 17.95% (10.3-29.4%), 98.1% (90.8-99.6%), respectively, with ≥1 HRF.

Conclusion

Performing EUS for PCL with ≥1 HRF could offer greater sensitivity in detecting AN compared to ≥2 HRF, with a similar negative predictive value.

Diagnostic accuracy of a novel third generation esophageal capsule as a non-invasive detection method for Barrett's esophagus: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous two generations of esophageal capsule did not show adequate detection rates for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of a novel third generation capsule with an improved frame rate of 35 frames per second for the detection of BE in a pilot study.

METHODS

This was a blinded prospective pilot study conducted at a tertiary medical center. Patients with known BE (at least C0M > 1) who presented for endoscopic surveillance (May to October 2017) were included. All patients underwent novel esophageal capsule (PillCam™ UGI; Medtronic) ingestion using the simplified ingestion protocol followed by standard high-definition upper endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]). Capsule endoscopy findings were interpreted by examiners blinded to endoscopy results and compared with endoscopic findings (gold standard). Following completion of both tests, a subjective questionnaire was provided to all patients regarding their experience.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (95%males, mean age 66.3 [±7.9] years) with BE undergoing surveillance EGD were eligible. The mean BE length was 3.5 (±2.7) cm. Novel esophageal capsule detected BE in 75% patients when images were compared with endoscopy. Novel capsule detected BE in 82% patients when the BE length was ≥2 cm. The mean esophageal transit time was 0.59 s. On a subjective questionnaire, all 20 patients reported novel capsule as being more convenient compared with EGD.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot, single-center study, novel esophageal capsule was shown to be not ready for population screening of BE. Studies integrating artificial intelligence into improved quality novel esophageal capsule should be performed for BE screening.

Proton pump inhibitors do not increase the risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

Published studies have reported variable results on the association between duration of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and the risk of dementia. An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane for studies examining the risk of cognitive decline and dementia among PPI users versus non-PPI users in prospective studies. Retrospective database linkage studies, case reports, case series, editorials, uncontrolled cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and review articles were excluded. Primary outcome was pooled hazard rate (HR) of any dementia among PPI users compared with non-PPI users. Secondary outcomes were pooled HR of Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and risk with long-term PPI follow-up (more than 5 years) studies. Meta-analysis outcomes, heterogeneity (I2), and meta-regression (for the effect of covariates) were derived by statistical software R and Open meta-analyst. A total of six studies (one RCT and five prospective) with 308249 subjects, average age of 75.8 ± 5.2 years, and follow-up of 5 (range 1.5-11) years were included in the analysis. Pooled HR of any dementia was 1.16 (n = 6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.86-1.47). Results remained unchanged when only studies with long-term PPI use (more than 5 years) were analyzed (n = 4, pooled HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.66-1.53). Finally, the pooled HR for AD was 1.06 (n = 3, 95% CI 0.70-1.41). There was substantial heterogeneity among inclusion studies (I2 = 93%). Meta-regression did not demonstrate a significant role of age at study start (P = 0.1) or duration of PPI use (P = 0.62) to incident dementia. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis do not show a significant relationship between PPI use and dementia in prospective studies with at least a 5-year follow-up.