Cecal Intubation Rate Research Articles

Impact of propofol sedation versus opioid/benzodiazepine sedation on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Choice of sedation (propofol vs opioid/benzodiazepine) has been studied in the literature and has shown variable outcomes. The majority of recent studies have evaluated propofol sedation (PS) versus opioids, benzodiazepines, or a combination of both. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PS to other sedation methods to assess the impact on colonoscopy outcomes. Methods Multiple databases were searched and studies of interest were extracted. Primary outcome of the study was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 177,016 patients (148,753 and 28,263 in the opioids/benzodiazepine group and PS group, respectively). Overall, ADR (RR: 1.07, 95 % CI 0.99–1.15), PDR (RR: 1.01, 95 % CI 0.93–1.10), and AADR (RR: 1.17, 95 % CI 0.92–1.48) did not improve with the use of PS. The CIR was slightly higher for propofol sedation group (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.00–1.03). Conclusion Based on our analysis, PS and opioid/benzodiazepine sedation seem to have comparable ADR. Our results do not favor use of a particular sedation method and the choice of sedation should be individualized based on patient preference, risk factors and resource availability.

The Efficacy of Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy as Compared to Conventional in a Pediatric Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The use of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in adults reportedly shortens cecal and ileal intubation times (CIT and IIT, respectively) and improves cecal and ileal intubation rates (CIR and IIR, respectively) as compared with the standard colonoscopy (SC). However, no study to date has assessed the efficacy of CAC in children. Materials and Methods: Thirty-nine children were randomized to CAC (n=22) or SC (n=17) and 22 colonoscopy procedure were done per group. Quality indicators were evaluated. Results: The median ages of the CAC and SC groups were 9.5 years (range 4.3 to 16.0) and 9.7 years (range 3.9 to 13.5), respectively. The most common indication was hematochezia (38.6%). The median CIT in the CAC and SC groups were 13.5 (range 8 to 19) and 13.7 (range 10 to 18) minutes, respectively (p=0.621). The IIT in the CAC and SC group were 60 (range 55 to 95) and 59 (range 35 to 95) seconds, respectively (p=0.438). The overall CIR was 100% and did not differ between groups. The IIR of the CAC and SC groups were 100% and 95.5%, respectively (p>0.999). Good CIR and IIR were achieved and no complications occurred in either group. Conclusion: There were no intergroup differences in quality indicators. Keywords: Cap-assisted colonoscopy, Quality indicators for colonoscopy, Pediatric

Colonoscopy quality in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities in Korea.

Background/AimsHigh-quality colonoscopy is essential to reduce colorectal cancer-related deaths. Little is known about colonoscopy quality in non-academic practice settings. We aimed to evaluate the quality of colonoscopies performed in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities.MethodsColonoscopy data were collected from patients referred to six tertiary care centers after receiving colonoscopies at community hospitals and nonhospital facilities. Based on their photographs, we measured quality indicators including cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adequacy of bowel preparation, and number of polyps.ResultsData from a total of 1,064 colonoscopies were analyzed. The overall cecal intubation rate was 93.1%. The median withdrawal time was 8.3 minutes, but 31.3% of colonoscopies were withdrawn within 6 minutes. Community hospitals had longer withdrawal time and more polyps than nonhospital facilities (median withdrawal time: 9.9 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p < 0.001; mean number of polyps: 3.1 vs. 2.3, p = 0.001). Board-certified endoscopists had a higher rate of cecal intubation than non-board-certified endoscopists (93.2% vs. 85.2%, p = 0.006). A total of 819 follow-up colonoscopies were performed at referral centers with a median interval of 28 days. In total, 2,546 polyps were detected at baseline, and 1,088 were newly identified (polyp miss rate, 29.9%). Multivariable analysis revealed that older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.032; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.020 to 1.044) and male sex (OR, 1.719; 95% CI, 1.281 to 2.308) were associated with increased risk of missed polyps.ConclusionsThe quality of colonoscopies performed in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities was suboptimal. Systematic reporting, auditing, and feedback are needed for quality improvement.

Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in 2020: A Look at the Past, Present, and Future.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the USA. Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and can offer both diagnosis and therapy. The bowel preparation remains a significant barrier for patients who need to undergo colonoscopy and is often cited as the most dreaded aspect of the colonoscopy process. Inadequate bowel preparations still occur in 10-25% of colonoscopies, and this in turn can lead to increased procedural times, lower cecal intubation rates, and shorter interval between colonoscopies. From a quality standpoint, it is imperative that we do what we can to decrease the rate of inadequate bowel preparations. This review will focus on recent data regarding bowel preparation and offers a glimpse into what may be coming in the future. Recent advances in the field have been made to improve tolerability of bowel preparations and allow for more adequate colonoscopies. Newer, lower volume, flavored preparations, the use of adjuncts, and using split-dose preparations all can help with tolerability, compliance, and, in turn, preparation quality. Edible bowel preparations may become available in the near future. Early data on the use of artificial intelligence for assessment of preparation quality has been promising. Additionally, utilization of smartphone technology for education prior to the bowel preparation has also been shown to improve the adequacy of bowel preparations. Ongoing efforts to improve the tolerability and palatability of colonoscopy bowel preparations are important from a quality improvement standpoint to ensure the adequacy of colonoscopy. Incorporating patient-specific factors and comorbidities is also an essential aspect of improving the quality of bowel preparation. Leveraging technology to better communicate with and educate patients on the bowel preparation process is likely to play a larger role in the coming years.

The impact of sedation on quality metrics of colonoscopy: a single-center experience of 48,838 procedures.

Investigation of the role of sedation during colonoscopy is meaningful as the advantages of colonoscopy performing with sedation are still controversial. Medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy in our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The sedation rate, adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), iatrogenic colonic perforation rate (ICP) were calculated. A total of 48,838 colonoscopies (24,498 in males) dated from July 2007 to February 2017 were analyzed. The median age was 50years (range 16-85years). An overall sedation rate was 80.38%. The PDR was 26.77%, and was not statistically different between colonoscopy with or without sedation (26.67% vs 27.22, p = 0.474). ADR was 12.9% regardless of applying sedation or not (13.0% vs 12.44%, p = 0.337). The CIR was 87.42% in all examinations with an adjusted CIR of 90.34%, and was higher when performed with sedation than without sedation (88.92% vs 80.64%, p < 0.0001). Five cases (0.01%) of ICP were reported, all of which occurred in patients under sedation. The use of sedation is associated with increased CIR, but ADR and PDR remain unchanged with or without sedation. However, perforation rate, albeit very low, is significantly higher in sedated patients.

Safety and efficacy of propofol alone or in combination with other agents for sedation of patients undergoing colonoscopy: an updated meta-analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for colonoscopy in comparison with traditional sedative agents. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before November 2019, and compared the effect of traditional sedative agents (TA) with the effect of propofol/propofol combined with TAs for routine colonoscopy. We included 22 eligible trials in our analysis, with a total of 2575 participants. We found strong associations between propofol use and short recovery (SMD MD, -1.15 [-1.55, -0.75], p<0.00001), procedure duration (SMD -0.28 [-0.55, -0.02], p<0.05), discharge times (SMD= -0.71 [-1.06, -0.36], p<0.0001), and sedation scores (SMD 1.29 [0.36, 2.22], p<0.05). Propofol in combination with traditional agents led to a significant decrease in discharge time compared with the discharge times of traditional sedatives alone (SMD=-0.69 [-1.07, -0.31], p<0.0004). The effects of propofol on cecal intubation rates, and occurrences of hypotension and apnea were similar to those of TAs. Our results suggest that propofol can be used as a safe alternative to TAs, and can significantly shorten procedure duration, recovery and discharge times, and improve sedation depth.

Quality metrics of screening colonoscopies performed by PAs.

Many communities face a shortage of qualified endoscopists. Training physician assistants (PAs) to perform colonoscopies can expand the availability of colorectal cancer screening. This study examined screening colonoscopy metrics and quality indicators among gastroenterologists, supervised PAs, and gastroenterology fellows. Consecutive patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were stratified into one of three groups by endoscopist type. Procedure and pathology reports were reviewed for the technical performance and quality metrics of the providers. PAs performed comparably to gastroenterologists in technical performance and quality metrics, and demonstrated higher cecal intubation rates than their gastroenterologist colleagues. Comparisons of attending physicians and PAs grouped by years of experience also did not show notable differences in performance. In a supervised practice, PAs performed on par with their gastroenterology colleagues on established colonoscopy quality indicators. Following proper training, PAs can be employed in the provision of screening colonoscopy.

Association Between Endoscopist Annual Procedure Volume and Colonoscopy Quality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

In addition to monitoring adverse events (AEs) and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC), indicators for assessing colonoscopy quality include adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). It is unclear whether there is an association between annual colonoscopy volume and ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC. We searched publication databases through March 2019 for studies assessing the relationship between annual colonoscopy volume and outcomes, including ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. We performed a systematic review of 9235 initial citations, generating 27 retained studies comprising 11,276,244 colonoscopies. There was no association between procedural volume and ADR (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02 per additional 100 annual procedures). CIR improved with each additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28). There was a non-significant trend toward decreased overall AEs per additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00). There was considerable heterogeneity among most analyses. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found higher annual colonoscopy volumes to correlate with higher CIR, but not with ADR or PCCRC. Trends toward fewer AEs were associated with higher annual colonoscopy volumes. There are few data available from endoscopists who perform fewer than 100 annual colonoscopies. Studies are needed on extremes in performance volumes to more clearly elucidate associations between colonoscopy volumes and outcomes.

Application value of sedation in colonoscopy

Objective: To investigate the value of sedation in colonoscopy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of colonoscopy procedures was performed in our institution. Inclusion criteria: (1) colonoscopy procedures were performed by well-trained gastrointestinal surgeons our institution; (2) medical records were complete and colonoscopy was documented properly by notes, videos, photographs, and traceable pathological reports. Those with incomplete records or performed in other institution were excluded. According to above criteria, clinical data of 49 057 cases of clinic and hospitalization receiving diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopyat Department of Gastric and Colorectal Surgery, Daping Hospital from July 2007 to February 2017 were collected. Among them, there were 24 638 (50.2%) males and 24 419 females, with mean age of (50.6±14.1) (4 to 98) years. Based on the application of sedation during colonoscopy, patients were divided into the sedation group (39 412 cases, 80.3%) and the non-sedation group (9 645 cases, 19.7%). Clinical characteristics of two groups were compared. Results: The sedation rate increased from 45.6% (369/810) to 94.8% (917/967) from 2007 to 2017. As compared to non-sedation group, a higher proportion of females [51.0% (20 095/39 412) vs. 44.8% (4 324/9 645), χ(2)=117.422, P<0.001] and younger median age (50.0 years vs. 51.0 years, Z=-4.774, P<0.001) were found in the sedation group, whose differences were statistically significant. In all the 9645 cases in the non-sedation group, about 5.5% (534) of them terminated the examination because of unbearable discomfort, including 244 (4.6%) males and 290 (6.7%) females (χ(2)=20.522, P<0.001). Among all the screening population who were ≥50 years old, there was no significant difference in the polyp detection rate (PDR) between the sedation group and the non-sedation group [26.7% (4 737/17 753) vs. 27.4% (1 093/3 984), χ(2)=0.937, P=0.330]. The cecal intubation rate (CIR) in the sedation group was significantly higher than that in the non-sedation group [(85.2% (14 422/16 933) vs. 76.1% (2 803/3 682), χ(2)=180.032, P<0.001]. Five cases in the sedation group developed iatrogenic colonic perforation (ICP), with none in the non-sedation group. Conclusions: The application of sedation in colonoscopy is increasingly popular. Sedation can significantly improve CIR in colonoscopy, while it has no positive influence on PDR. Meanwhile, sedation increases the medical expense and may result in higher ICP rate.

Transparent cap‐assisted, water‐exchange colonoscopy in previous incomplete difficult colonoscopy patients: A retrospective study

AbstractThe reported rates of incomplete colonoscopy (IC) range from 4% to 25% for both screening and nonscreening colonoscopy. Colonic neoplasm can be found in up to 53% on successful repeat colonoscopy. Transparent cap‐assisted colonoscopy (TCAC) and water‐exchange colonoscopy (WEC) have been applied seperately for repeat colonoscopy in the setting of failed difficult colonoscopy, but combination of these two methods for previous incomplete difficult colonoscopy has not been reported. The aim of this study is to report the success rate, time‐to cecum duration, polyp detection rate, and any complications using the combined methods of TCAC and WEC for previous incomplete difficult colonoscopy. Eight cases of incomplete difficult colonoscopy were enrolled from November 2016 to October 2018. Water exchange method (air‐less colonoscopy) performed during insertion of Cap‐fitted colonoscope, and after reaching the cecum, CO2 was insufflated for examination during withdrawal. The mean age of all eight female patients was 59 years (39‐72 year). One patient had failed colonoscopy twice previously, four had previous abdominal surgery. Six cases were performed by gastroenterologists, and two by colorectal surgeons previously. The cecal intubation rate was 100% on repeat colonoscopy with the combined TCAC and WEC methods without complications. The mean duration time to reach the ceum was 12.5 minutes (6.8‐23.3 minutes). Out of the eight patients, four had colon polyps, all confined to proximal colon. Two patients have advanced colon adenoma. Combining cap‐assisted colonoscopy (TCAC), and water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) are useful in previous incomplete colonoscopy cases.

A141 ENDOSCOPIST PROCEDURAL VOLUME AND COLONOSCOPY OUTCOMES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract Background In addition to monitoring adverse events (AEs) and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC), several indicators are used to assess the overall quality of colonoscopy performance, including adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). It is unclear whether there is an association between an endoscopist’s annual colonoscopy volumes and ADR, CIR, AEs or PCCRC. Aims We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether there is an association between annual colonoscopy volume and colonoscopy quality indicators, or between annual volume and colonoscopy outcomes. Methods A comprehensive electronic search was performed through March of 2019 for any studies assessing the potential association between annual colonoscopy volume and outcomes, or quality indicators, including ADR, CIR, AEs or PCCRC. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess for any potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. These included dividing procedural volume into total procedures or screening procedures performed. Results Out of an initial 9,235 studies, 27 were included in our systematic review, representing 11,276,244 colonoscopies performed by over 530 endoscopists. There was no association between procedural volume and ADR (OR 1.00, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 0.98 to 1.02 per additional 100 annual total colonoscopy procedures performed by an endoscopist). CIR was improved with each additional 100 annual colonoscopy procedures (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.28). There was a trend toward decreased overall adverse events per additional 100 annual procedures that did not meet significance (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00), although there was a decreased incidence of colonic perforations with increasing colonoscopy volume. Figure 1 - Forest plots demonstrating the odds of A) detecting an adenoma, B) intubating the cecum, and C) incurring an overall or specific adverse event, per additional 100 annual procedures, for total and screening procedures. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, higher annual colonoscopy volumes correlated with higher CIR, but not with ADR or PCCRC. Trends toward lower AE rates were also demonstrated with higher volumes. All studies included in this review examined endoscopists performing above respective recommended minimum volume thresholds for their health region. Thus, data are lacking on endoscopists performing very low numbers or very high numbers of colonoscopies annually. Future studies should focus on measuring colonoscopy quality metrics and outcomes among these extreme performers to more clearly determine associations between annual volume and colonoscopy outcomes. Funding Agencies Alberta Health Services Digestive Health Strategic Care Network

A142 ENDOSCOPIST EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVEMENTS IN ADENOMA DETECTION RATE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract Background Screening-related colonoscopy reduces the overall morbidity and mortality associated with colorectal cancer. In order for screening-related colonoscopy to be effective and safe, endoscopists must be well trained. However, a significant degree of variation exists between endoscopists in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). ADR in particular is an important colonoscopy quality metric that has been directly and inversely related to the rate of post colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Educational interventions aimed at endoscopists have been developed in an attempt to optimize the performance of colonoscopy. It is unknown what benefit these have on colonoscopy quality indicators or outcomes, if any. Aims We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether there is an association between educational interventions aimed at endoscopists and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators or outcomes. Methods An electronic search was conducted through August 2019 for studies reporting on targeted endoscopist educational interventions and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators, or outcomes. Interventions such as hands-on training modules, skills enhancement courses were included Pooled rate ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. A priori subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with any of the outcomes of interest. Results From 2,253 initial studies, 14 were included in the systematic review, and 8 were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 76,373 colonoscopies. Educational interventions were associated with improvements in ADR (RR 1.28, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.19–1.38). Educational interventions were also associated with improvements in overall polyp detection rate, PDR (RR 1.17, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.02–1.35). Educational interventions were not associated with longer withdrawal times (WMD -0.03 minutes, 95% CI, -0.57 - 0.51) or improved CIR (RR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02), though unadjusted CIR was high in both the pre- and post-intervention groups, at 94.5% and 95.0%, respectively. Figure 1 shows Forest plots comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention rates for A) ADR, b) PDR and c) CIR. Conclusions Our study provides evidence that educational interventions aimed at endoscopists significantly improve ADR and overall PDR. Educational interventions did not impact withdrawal time or cecal intubation rates, and thus, the specific mechanisms for their benefit remain incompletely clear. As part of quality improvement programs to optimize colonoscopy performance, educational interventions should be considered. Funding Agencies None

A147 ENDOSCOPIST FEEDBACK IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVEMENTS IN COLONOSCOPY QUALITY INDICATORS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract Background Colonoscopy quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are surrogates for the effectiveness of screening-related colonoscopy. Endosocpist feedback may be associated with improvements in ADR and other quality indicators. Aims To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether an association exists between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators. Methods An electronic and manual search was conducted through May 2019 for studies reporting on endoscopist feedback and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators. Studies primarily assessing the effect of audit and feedback on trainees and studies that included interventions other then feedback were excluded from the analysis. Pooled rate ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. Results Of 1,326 initial studies, 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 33,184 colonoscopies. Endoscopist feedback was associated with an improvement in ADR (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.09 to 1.34). Low performers derived a greater benefit from feedback (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23) compared to moderate performers (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.29), while high performers did not derive a significant benefit (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13). Feedback was not associated with increases in withdrawal time (WMD +0.43 minutes, 95% CI -0.50 to +1.36 minutes) or improvements in cecal intubation rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01). Conclusions Endoscopist feedback is associated with modest improvements in ADR. Routine audit and feedback may be a feasible strategy to optimize outcomes in screening colonoscopy. Funding Agencies None

Impact of a Citywide Benchmarking Intervention on Colonoscopy Quality Performance.

There is marked variability in colonoscopy quality, limiting its effectiveness in colorectal cancer prevention. Multiple indicators have been established as markers for colonoscopy quality; however, there are conflicting data on the effects of quality reporting programs on endoscopist performance. In this study, we investigate the impact of a multicenter quarterly report card initiative on colonoscopy quality metric performance. Data were collected from 194 endoscopists at 10 participating sites throughout New York City using a Qualified Clinical Data Registry from January 2013 to December 2014. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, bowel preparation quality and appropriate interval recommendations were tracked. Report cards were distributed to each site on a quarterly basis and technical assistance was provided as needed. Performance trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage trend and analysis of variance tests. 37,258 screening colonoscopies were performed during the study period. There was a positive performance trend for ADR over time from the first quarter of 2013 to the last quarter of 2014 (15.6-25.7%; p < 0.001). There were also increases in cecal intubation rates (78.2-92.6%; p < 0.001), bowel preparation adequacy rates (77.5-92.8%; p < 0.001), and adherence to appropriate screening intervals (28.0-55.0%; p < 0.001). There was no clinically significant change in mean withdrawal time. The implementation of a quarterly report card initiative resulted in statistically significant improvements in adenoma detection, cecal intubation, bowel preparation adequacy rates, and appropriate recommended screening intervals.

Robotic colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability and safety. Preliminary clinical results from a pilot study.

Robotic colonoscopy (RC) is a pneumatically-driven self-propelling platform (Endotics System®) able to investigate the colon, in order to reduce pain and discomfort. (1) to describe the progress in gaining experience and skills of a trainee in RC; (2) to show the clinical outcomes of RC. Pilot study. An experienced endoscopist started a training on RC whose progress was assessed comparing the results of 2 consecutive blocks of 27 (Group A) and 28 (Group B) procedures. CIR (Cecal Intubation Rate), CIT (Cecal Intubation Time) and Withdrawal Time (WT) were measured. Polyp Detection Rate (PDR), Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Advanced Neoplasia Detection Rate (ANDR) were calculated. Possible adverse events were recorded. At the end of the procedure all patients completed a visual analog scale (VAS) to measure their perceived pain during RC and reported their willingness to repeat RC. General CIR was 92.7%, reaching 100% in Group B. Comparing the two groups, CIT significantly decreased from 55 to 22min (p value 0.0007), whereas procedures with CIT ≤ 20min increased (p value 0.037). WT significatively reduced from 21 to 16min (p value 0.0186). PDR was 40% (males 62.5%, females 14.3%). ADR was 26.7% (males 27.5%, females 14.3%). Most of patients judged the procedure as mild or no distress, with high willingness-to-repeat the RC (92.7%). Our results about RC are encouraging as preliminary experience, with clear individual learning progress, accurate diagnosis in a painless or comfortable procedure and with possibility to remove polypoid lesions. Studies with larger populations are needed to confirm obtained results.

Endocuff-Assisted versus Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy Performed by Trainees: A Retrospective Study.

Background/AimsThe adenoma detection rate (ADR) of screening colonoscopies performed by trainees is often lower than that of colonoscopies performed by experts. The effcacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in adenoma detection is well documented, especially that of CACs performed by trainees. Endocuff, a new endoscopic cap, is reportedly useful for adenoma detection; however, no trials have compared the effcacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and CAC conducted by trainees. Therefore, the present study retrospectively compared the effcacy between EAC and CAC in trainees. MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective study involving 305 patients who underwent either EAC or CAC performed by three trainees between January and December 2018. We evaluated the ADR, mean number of adenomas detected per patient (MAP), cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and occurrence of complications between the EAC and CAC groups. ResultsThe ADR was significantly higher in the EAC group than in the CAC group (54.3% vs. 37.3%, p=0.019), as was the MAP (1.36 vs. 0.74, p=0.003). No significant differences were found between the groups with respect to the cecal intubation rate or cecal intubation time. No major complications occurred in either group. ConclusionsOur results suggest that EAC exhibits increased ADR and MAP compared to CAC when performed by trainees.

Colonoscopy preparation quality in diabetic patients

Aim: Colonoscopy is the established standard method for the evaluation of the colon. It has been reported that diabetes was associated with poor bowel cleansing and colorectal cancer in some studies. We aimed to evaluate the bowel preparation quality of type 2 diabetic and non-diabetic patients.Material and Methods: I62 diabetic and 65 non-diabetic patients were enrolled in this study and colon preparation quality was evaluated for each segment of colon (right, transverse and left) and total score was obtained according to Boston Bowel Preparation scale.Results: The successful bowel preparation rates were 64.5% in the diabetics and 75.4% in the non-diabetics, which wasn’t statistically significant. Cecal intubation rate was 80.6% in the diabetics, 90.8% in the non-diabetics and mean cecal intubation time was 7.78 min in diabetics, 8.9 min in non-diabetics. There were no significant differences in terms of cecal intubation time, cecal intubation rate and polyp detection rates between groups. We also found that bowel cleansing of right colon and transverse colon in the non-diabetics was superior to diabetics. Conclusion: Diabetes isn’t a negative factor for detection of colonic polyps and isn’t associated with inadequate bowel cleansing, but it associated with poor bowel cleansing in right and transverse colon, so physicians must be further careful for the possibility of obscure lesions of right and transverse colon in diabetic patients.

Ileal intubation is not associated with higher detection rate of right-sided conventional adenomas and serrated polyps compared to cecal intubation after adjustment for overall adenoma detection rate

BackgroundHigh cecal intubation rate (CIR) is associated with significant improved adenoma detection rate (ADR), however, self-reported CIR may be overestimated and inadequate documentation of cecal intubation is associated with a lower polyp detection rate compared to clear documentation. We aimed to investigate if ileal intubation may be associated with higher detection rates (DR) for right-sided conventional adenomas (cAD) and serrated polyps (SP) compared to cecal intubation in a large screening colonoscopy cohort.Material and methodsRetrospective analysis of individuals ≥50 years with average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) who underwent screening colonoscopy between 01/01/2012 and 14/12/2016 at a tertiary academic hospital and six community-based private practices. Exclusion criteria were conditions with increased risk for CRC (e.g. inflammatory bowel disease, history of CRC, hereditary cancer syndromes), previous colonoscopy at the same institution, and incomplete procedures. Right-sided colon was defined as caecum and ascending colon.Results4.138 individuals were analysed (mean age 62 years, 52.1% female). DR for right-sided cADs and SPs were significantly higher after ileal compared to cecal intubation in univariate (12.5% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001, and 6.3% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001), but not in multivariate analysis (OR 1.025, 95%-CI 0.639–1.646, p = 0.918, and OR 0.937, 95%-CI 0.671–1.309, p = 0.704). DRs did not differ between ileal and cecal intubation for endoscopists with ADR ≥25 and < 25%, respectively. ADR ≥25% was significantly associated with ileal intubation (OR 21.862, 95%-CI 18.049–26.481, p < 0.001).ConclusionIleal intubation may not provide any benefit over cecal intubation concerning the detection of cADs and SPs in the right-sided colon.

Colonoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Assessment Tool for Evaluating Competency Development During Training.

Formative colonoscopy direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) assessments were updated in 2016 and incorporated into UK training but lack validity evidence. We aimed to appraise the validity of DOPS assessments, benchmark performance, and evaluate competency development during training in diagnostic colonoscopy. This prospective national study identified colonoscopy DOPS submitted over an 18-month period to the UK training e-portfolio. Generalizability analyses were conducted to evaluate internal structure validity and reliability. Benchmarking was performed using receiver operator characteristic analyses. Learning curves for DOPS items and domains were studied, and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of DOPS competency. Across 279 training units, 10,749 DOPS submitted for 1,199 trainees were analyzed. The acceptable reliability threshold (G > 0.70) was achieved with 3 assessors performing 2 DOPS each. DOPS competency rates correlated with the unassisted caecal intubation rate (rho 0.404, P < 0.001). Demonstrating competency in 90% of assessed items provided optimal sensitivity (90.2%) and specificity (87.2%) for benchmarking overall DOPS competence. This threshold was attained in the following order: "preprocedure" (50-99 procedures), "endoscopic nontechnical skills" and "postprocedure" (150-199), "management" (200-249), and "procedure" (250-299) domain. At item level, competency in "proactive problem solving" (rho 0.787) and "loop management" (rho 0.780) correlated strongest with the overall DOPS rating (P < 0.001) and was the last to develop. Lifetime procedure count, DOPS count, trainer specialty, easier case difficulty, and higher cecal intubation rate were significant multivariable predictors of DOPS competence. This study establishes milestones for competency acquisition during colonoscopy training and provides novel validity and reliability evidence to support colonoscopy DOPS as a competency assessment tool.

Quality indicators for screening colonoscopy and colonoscopist performance and the subsequent risk of interval colorectal cancer: a systematic review.

The objective of this review was to assess the association between quality indicators used to evaluate individual colonoscopist performance and subsequent interval colorectal cancers (CRCs) in patients participating in bowel cancer screening programs. Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death. Bowel cancer screening has been shown to reduce CRC mortality and morbidity, and has therefore been introduced in many countries. Endoscopy societies have developed quality assurance guidelines and guidelines on quality indicators for screening colonoscopies. These quality indicators need to be validated against a relevant outcome to assess their value. We included studies on screening colonoscopies conducted on participants in a bowel cancer screening program, regardless of comorbidity. Studies on procedures performed on patients with known CRC, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer or familial adenomatous polyposis were excluded. We also included studies evaluating the quality indicators of withdrawal time (WT), cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The search did not reveal any studies evaluating the quality indicators polyp retrieval rate and incomplete adenoma resection/incomplete polyp resection. Only studies with interval CRC as an outcome were included (i.e. CRC diagnosed after a negative screening colonoscopy, but before the next recommended examination date). Published studies were searched in: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL. Unpublished studies were searched in: OpenGrey and Grey Literature Report. The sources were searched from 1980 to2018. Data were extracted using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. A meta-analysis was conducted based on three of the colonoscopist dependent quality indicators: WT, CIR and ADR. Seven prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included out of 2373 papers identified after duplicates were removed. The included studies were on bowel cancer screening programs with colonoscopy as the primary screening tool, resulting in the inclusion of a total of 616,390 screening colonoscopies performed by 1431 colonoscopists and 2319 subsequent interval CRCs. Six studies were assessed as high-quality studies, and one study was of low quality. The meta-analysis on WT revealed a 61% lower risk of interval CRC among the patients if the mean WT per colonoscopist was >6 minutes as compared to a mean WT of <6 minutes (RR: 0.39 [95% CI: 0.23 - 0.66]). The meta-analysis on CIR revealed a 31% lower risk of interval CRC among the patients if the CIR per colonoscopist was ≥90% as compared to a CIR of <85% (RR: 0.69 [95% CI: 0.56 - 0.83]). One of two meta-analyses on the individual colonoscopist ADR suggested that this should be 15-19%, as compared to an ADR <10% (RR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.62 - 0.96]), in order to significantly reduce the risk of interval CRC. The other meta-analysis on ADR revealed a significant association between an individual colonoscopist ADR of ≥25% and a lower risk of interval CRC as compared to an ADR of <25% (RR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.33 - 0.80]). The meta-analyses on WT and CIR showed no heterogeneity concerning the significant results (I = 0.0%). A high variability across studies due to heterogeneity concerning an ADR of ≥20% resulted in an I = 59.9%, and an I = 63.2% for an ADR of ≥25%. To minimize the risk of interval CRC, it may be recommended that WT and CIRs are monitored in bowel cancer screening programs, with an optimal individual colonoscopist mean withdrawal time of >6 minutes and a cecal intubation rate of ≥90%. In bowel cancer screening programs using colonoscopy as their primary screening tool, it may be recommended that the individual colonoscopist ADR be 15-19% or better ≥25% to minimize the risk of interval CRC.