scholarly journals A122 WATER EXCHANGE FACILITATES HIGH CECAL INTUBATION RATE FOLLOWING INCOMPLETE COLONOSCOPY

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 103-104
Author(s):  
T Lin ◽  
T Tai ◽  
B Parker ◽  
S A Taylor ◽  
R Trasolini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Water Exchange ◽  
Conscious Sedation ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Pelvic Surgery ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Incomplete Colonoscopy ◽  
Adenoma Detection

Abstract Background Incomplete colonoscopy is a complex problem that negatively affects the success of colon cancer screening programs. Failure to intubate the cecum is associated with a significant risk of missed colorectal cancer and increases costs through missed diagnoses and salvage investigations. Water exchange (WE) colonoscopy is associated with a high rate of patient comfort and cecal intubation (CI) and may be of value in preventing and following up on incomplete colonoscopy. Aims To estimate effectiveness of WE colonoscopy as initial salvage of incomplete colonoscopy. Methods All patients referred to the Kelowna Gastroenterology group for incomplete colonoscopy between Jan 2010 to Dec 2019 were included. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and pathological information were collected via retrospective chart review. Patients underwent WE colonoscopy by a single endoscopist. The outcomes evaluated were CI rate, sedation requirements, and adenoma detection. Results 116 patients met study criteria and underwent WE colonoscopy after a previously failed or incomplete colonoscopy for technical reasons. The mean age was 66 years (range 21–89). 83 (72%) patients were female. 53 (46%) patients had previous abdominal surgery, and 42 (36%) had previous pelvic surgery. 65 (56%) patients had previous bowel disease. 81 (70%) patients had previously incomplete conventional air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy, 9 (8%) patients had previously incomplete WE colonoscopy, and 5 (4%) patients underwent unsuccessful combination of WE and AI colonoscopy. 17 (15%) patients had previously incomplete flexible sigmoidoscopy, and 4 (3%) patients had previously incomplete water immersion colonoscopy. The most common cause of unsuccessful CI was redundant colon (n=39, 34%) followed by strictures/angulations (n=16, 14%). 105 (91%) patients underwent repeat WE colonoscopy only, while 7 (6%) patients had combination WE and AI colonoscopy and 4 (3%) patients had concurrent gastroscopy. CI was successful in 114 (98%) patients and unsuccessful in 2 (2%) patients. 87 (75%) study patients received conscious sedation, 16 (14%) opted for no sedation, and 7 (6%) attempted no sedation then switched to conscious sedation. 5 patients (4%) required general anesthesia. CI was achieved in all 16 unsedated patients. 236 polyps were identified in 79 (68%) patients, 2 (1%) of which were malignant. Conclusions There is no standardized approach to incomplete colonoscopy. In this cohort of patients with previous failed attempt at colonoscopy, WE as a primary technique was associated with a high success rate with minimal need for general anesthesia and a high rate of polyp detection. A significant rate of colon cancer was identified, similar to that seen in general screening populations. Funding Agencies None

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.

Cancer screening. Current state of the problem

2020 ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Marina Kochiyeva
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Current State ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Based Medicine

Data on modern methodological approaches that are used in screening for cancer are summarized. General principles of organizing screening studies are examined from the perspective of evidence-based medicine, target population, research methods, and effectiveness of the implemented screening programs for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colon cancer are determined.

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 <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<0.0001), not have a trainee endoscopist present and be performed at a non-academic centre (32.2% vs 44.6%, p<0.0001). Compared to conscious sedation, use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p<0.0001) and detection of any adenoma (27.7% vs. 29.8%, p<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 Colorectal cancer screening using a stool DNA-based SDC2 methylation test: a multicenter, prospective trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Woo Kim ◽  
Hyunjin Kim ◽  
Hyoung Rae Kim ◽  
Bong-Hyeon Kye ◽  
Hyung Jin Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Prospective Trial ◽  
Screening Colonoscopy ◽  
Quantitative Detection ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Stool Dna ◽  
Dna 2

Abstract Background Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global priority, with many countries conducting population-based CRC screening programs. Although colonoscopy is the most accurate diagnostic method for early CRC detection, adherence remains low because of its invasiveness and the need for extensive bowel preparation. Non-invasive fecal occult blood tests or fecal immunochemical tests are available; however, their sensitivity is relatively low. Syndecan-2 (SDC2) is a stool-based DNA methylation marker used for early detection of CRC. Using the EarlyTect™-Colon Cancer test, the sensitivity and specificity of SDC2 methylation in stool DNA for detecting CRC were previously demonstrated to be greater than 90%. Therefore, a larger trial to validate its use for CRC screening in asymptomatic populations is now required. Methods All participants will collect their stool (at least 20 g) before undergoing screening colonoscopy. The samples will be sent to a central laboratory for analysis. Stool DNA will be isolated using a GT Stool DNA Extraction kit, according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Before performing the methylation test, stool DNA (2 µg per reaction) will be treated with bisulfite, according to manufacturer’s instructions. SDC2 and COL2A1 control reactions will be performed in a single tube. The SDC2 methylation test will be performed using an AB 7500 Fast Real-time PCR system. CT values will be calculated using the 7500 software accompanying the instrument. Results from the EarlyTect™-Colon Cancer test will be compared against those obtained from colonoscopy and any corresponding diagnostic histopathology from clinically significant biopsied or subsequently excised lesions. Based on these results, participants will be divided into three groups: CRC, polyp, and negative. The following clinical data will be recorded for the participants: sex, age, colonoscopy results, and clinical stage (for CRC cases). Discussion This trial investigates the clinical performance of a device that allows quantitative detection of a single DNA marker, SDC2 methylation, in human stool DNA in asymptomatic populations. The results of this trial are expected to be beneficial for CRC screening and may help make colonoscopy a selective procedure used only in populations with a high risk of CRC. Trial registration: This trial (NCT04304131) was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on March 11, 2020 and is available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304131?cond=NCT04304131&draw=2&rank=1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document