Tu1042 Cecal Intubation Rate Correlates With Adenoma Detection Rate But Has No Impact on Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. AB541
Author(s):  
Daniela Sallinger ◽  
Elisabeth Waldmann ◽  
Monika Ferlitsch ◽  
Michael H. Trauner ◽  
Martha Britto-Arias ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Advanced Adenoma ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

Adenoma detection rate and cecal intubation rate: Quality indicators for colonoscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Lourdes Ruiz-Rebollo ◽  
Noelia Alcaide-Suárez ◽  
Beatriz Burgueño-Gómez ◽  
Beatriz Antolin-Melero ◽  
M.ª Fe Muñoz-Moreno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

scholarly journals Endocuff-assisted versus Cap-assisted Colonoscopy in Increasing Adenoma Detection Rate. A Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Facciorusso ◽  
Vincenzo R Buccino ◽  
Rodolfo Sacco
Keyword(s):  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Sessile Serrated Adenoma ◽  
Serrated Adenoma ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

Background and Aims: Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection. We aimed to compare the endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with cap-assisted colonoscopy through a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials. Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2020 and identified 6 randomized controlled trials (comprising 2,027 patients). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate; secondary outcomes included sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, mean adenoma per colonoscopy, cecal intubation rate and time to reach cecum. Safety data were also analyzed. We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results: Overall, pooled adenoma detection rate was 48.1% (39.3-56.8%) with endocuff and 40.5% (30.4- 50.6%; risk ratio 1.14, 0.96-1.35) with cap. Proximal adenoma detection rate was 45.7% (36.8-54.7%) and 24% (17-45.1%) with endocuff and cap, respectively (risk ratio 2.04, 0.93-4.49), whereas endocuff outperformed cap-assisted colonoscopy in detecting diminutive (≤ 5 mm) adenomas (risk ratio 2.74, 1.53-4.90) and in terms of mean adenoma per colonoscopy (mean difference 0.31, 0.05 -0.57; p=0.02). Sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (risk ratio 1.36, 0.72-2.59), cecal intubation rate (risk ratio 0.99, 0.98-1.00), and time to reach cecum (6.87 min versus 6.87 min) were similar between the two groups. No serious adverse event was observed. Conclusion: Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to provide a higher adenoma detection rate as compared to cap-assisted colonoscopy, in particular concerning smaller diminutive polyps.

scholarly journals Diagnostic application of water exchange colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 515-527
Author(s):  
Xiufang Xu ◽  
Dongqiong Ni ◽  
Yuping Lu ◽  
Xuan Huang
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Water Exchange ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

Background Few well-designed studies have investigated water exchange colonoscopy (WE). We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility of WE based on high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the impacts of WE, water immersion colonoscopy (WI), and gas-insufflation colonoscopy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang Data for RCTs on WE. We analyzed the results using fixed- or random-effect models according to the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Results Thirteen studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The colonoscopic techniques included WE as the study group, and WI and air- or CO2-insufflation colonoscopy as control groups. WE was significantly superior to the control procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, and cecal intubation rate according to odds ratios. WE was also significantly better in terms of maximal pain score and patient satisfaction score according to mean difference. Conclusions WE can remarkably improve the adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, patient satisfaction, and cecal intubation rate, as well as reducing the maximal pain score in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Cuff-assisted versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: results of a randomized study

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (08) ◽  
pp. 742-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Sola-Vera ◽  
Lourdes Catalá ◽  
Francisco Uceda ◽  
María Dolores Picó ◽  
Estefanía Pérez Rabasco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Removal Rate ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Device Removal ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

Abstract Background The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most important marker of colonoscopy quality. Devices to improve adenoma detection have been developed, such as the Endocuff and transparent cap. The aim of the current study was to examine whether there was a difference in ADR between Endocuff-assisted (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC). Methods A randomized prospective trial was conducted. Eligible patients included adults ≥ 18 years referred because of symptoms, surveillance, or colonoscopies as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). The primary outcome measure was ADR. Secondary outcomes included mean number of adenomas, mean number of polyps, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and time to cecal intubation. Procedural measures, device removal rate, and adverse events were also recorded. Results A total of 711 patients (51.1 % men; median age 63 years) were included, of whom 357 patients were randomized to EAC and 354 patients to CAC. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was similar in both groups: EAC 50.4 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 45.1 – 55.7) vs. CAC 50.6 % (95 %CI 45.2 – 55.9). Similar results were obtained in the per-protocol analysis: EAC 51.6 % (95 %CI 46.2 – 57) vs. CAC 51.4 % (95 %CI 46 – 56.8). There were no differences between the two devices in ADR according to the mean number of adenomas and polyps per procedure, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and time to cecal intubation. Device removal rate and adverse events were also similar. Conclusion In this randomized study, no differences in ADR were found between Endocuff- and cap-assisted colonoscopy.

scholarly journals The Impact of Sedation on Adenoma Detection Rate and Cecal Intubation Rate in Colonoscopy

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Qiongmei Zhang ◽  
Zhiyu Dong ◽  
Yuanxi Jiang ◽  
Tingting Zhan ◽  
Junwen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Model ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Independent Factor ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

Purpose. To explore the effect of sedation on the quality of colonoscopy. Methods. The data collected from the Digestive Endoscopy Center of Shanghai Tongji Hospital from March 2012 to June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The rate of sedation and quality metrics of colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR) were calculated. The logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between sedation and quality metrics of colonoscopy. The interaction effects between experience of endoscopists and sedation on quality of colonoscopy was also investigated in subgroups stratified by total number of colonoscopies during career using the logistic regression model. Results. A total of 63,417 colonoscopies including 11,417 colonoscopies without sedation and 52,000 colonoscopies with sedation were enrolled in our study. The proportion of colonoscopy with sedation was 82.0%. The ADR and CIR were all significantly higher in cases with sedation compared with cases without sedation (ADR, 22.5% vs. 17.0%, p < 0.001 ; CIR, 94.7% vs. 91.2%, p < 0.001 ). Multivariate analysis showed that the sedation was an independent factor associated with adenoma detection ( OR = 1.448 , 95% CI: 1.372~1.529, p < 0.001 ) and cecal intubation ( OR = 1.560 , 95% CI: 1.446~1.683, p < 0.001 ). A total of 14 endoscopists with complete colonoscopy data in our database and corresponding 20,949 colonoscopies data were enrolled for further analysis. The logistic regression model yielded a similar result that sedation was an independent factor on adenoma detection and cecal intubation when the factor, experience of endoscopists, was also entered into the model as a confounder (adenoma detection, OR = 1.408 , 95% CI: 1.333~1.487, p < 0.001 ; cecal intubation, OR = 1.601 , 95% CI: 1.482-1.729, p < 0.001 ). Conclusion. Colonoscopy with sedation has a positive effect on ADR and CIR in all endoscopists with different experience of colonoscopy, which makes the quality of colonoscopy better.

scholarly journals Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening - is it effective in the hands of a general surgery resident?

2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 11-15
Author(s):  
Maciej Matyja ◽  
Artur Pasternak ◽  
Michał Wysocki ◽  
Michał Pędziwiatr ◽  
Mirosław Szura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Group I ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Patient Tolerance ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is considered to be a gold standard for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Endoscopy training is an essential component of general surgery training program. Patients should receive care at the highest level possible, nevertheless residents need to gain experience. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of colonoscopy performed by general surgery residents by comparing quality indicators between surgical trainees and consultants MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis included 6384 patients aged 40-65 who underwent screening colonoscopy between October 2014 and February 2018. The patients were divided into two groups: group I - patients examined by residents, group II - patients examined by board certified general surgeons. Quality indicators such as cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and patient tolerance scale were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Group I comprised 2268 (35.53%) and group II 4116 (64.47%) patients. The overall cecal intubation rate (CIR) was 95.99%, equal for the both groups (p=0.994). There was no statistically significant difference in adenoma detection rate: 29.30% in residents group and 27.66% among consultants (p=0.203). Patient tolerance for exam was very good (4-point scale) in consultants group in 78.98% of cases and in 75.18% cases among residents (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: . Within a proper learning environment general surgery residents are able to perform high quality and effective screening colonoscopy. However, residents need to continue the progress in their technique to improve patient tolerance in order to reach the proficiency of the consultant.

scholarly journals A117 PROPOFOL SEDATION DOES NOT IMPROVE MEASURES OF COLONOSCOPY QUALITY – FINDINGS FROM THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 97-98
Author(s):  
M Sey ◽  
B Yan ◽  
Z Hindi ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
J C Gregor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Conscious Sedation ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Propofol Sedation ◽  
Serrated Polyp ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background The use of propofol during colonoscopy has gained increased popularity due to deeper anesthesia compared to conscious sedation. Prior studies examining the use of propofol sedation during colonoscopy have primarily focused on anesthesia outcomes. Whether propofol sedation is associated with improvements in colonoscopy outcomes is uncertain. Aims The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were the detection of any adenoma (conventional adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, and traditional serrated adenoma), sessile serrated polyp detection rate, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and perforation rate. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 hospitals serving a large geographic area in Southwest Ontario. Procedures performed in patients less than 18 years of age or by endoscopist who perform &lt;50 colonoscopies/year were excluded. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. Pathology reports were manually reviewed. Results A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others) of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation (e.g. combination of a benzodiazepine and a narcotic). Patients who received propofol were likely to have a screening indication (49.2% vs 45.5%, p&lt;0.0001), not have a trainee endoscopist present and be performed at a non-academic centre (32.2% vs 44.6%, p&lt;0.0001). Compared to conscious sedation, use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p&lt;0.0001) and detection of any adenoma (27.7% vs. 29.8%, p&lt;0.0001); no difference was observed in the detection ofsessile serrated polyps (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.26), polyp detection rate (41.2% vs 41.2%, p=0.978), cecal intubation rate (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p=0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%,p=0.45). On multi-variable analysis, the use of propofol was not significantly associated with any improvement in ADR (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.74–1.10, p=0.30), detection of any adenoma (RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.75–1.14, p=0.47), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (RR=1.20, 95%CI 0.90–1.60, p=0.22), polyp detection rate (RR=1.00, 95% CI 0.90–1.11, p=0.99), or cecal intubation rate (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.80–1.26, p=0.99). Conclusions The use of propofol sedation does not improve colonoscopy quality metrics. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals The impact of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection in an organized screening program

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (04) ◽  
pp. E437-E442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Cavallaro ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Pierenrico Lecis ◽  
Ermenegildo Galliani ◽  
Elisabetta Dal Pont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Advanced Adenoma ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background and study aims Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with biennial fecal occult blood test has been shown to reduce CRC mortality. For the effectiveness of the CRC screening program is crucial that a high-quality colonoscopy with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) be performed. To improve ADR, various endoscopic devices have been developed. Endocuff, an endoscopic cap with finger-like projections, has been shown to improve ADR. The aim of this study was to compare in an organized CRC screening program ADR, advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) using standard colonoscopy (SC) and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC). Patients and methods We compared performance of SC (in 2014) and EAC (in 2015) in consecutive participants in an organized CRC screening program. Results SC and EAC were performed in 546 (284 males) and 519 (293 males) subjects, respectively (mean age 60 years). Cecal intubation rate was 97.4 % for SC and 97.1 % for EAC and not significantly different (P = 0.7). ADR was 47 % for SC and 52 % for EAC, P = 0.1. MAP in SC and EAC were 0.87 (range: 0 – 7) and 1.11 (range: 0 – 13) respectively, P = 0.02. AADR rate was 25 % and 23 % for SC and EAC, respectively, P = 0.5. Conclusion Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy does not improve the number of patients with at least one adenoma but it may increase the number of detected adenomas per procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document