Terminal Ileum Intubation Rate Research Articles

Quality improvement of pediatric colonoscopy by application of bundle and centralization: A single-center review

BackgroundTo assess the quality change of our single-center pediatric colonoscopy after applying bundle for bowel preparation and general anesthesia and centralize the procedure using terminal ileum (TI) intubation rate as the main indicator. MethodsAll elective colonoscopies performed for patients younger than 18 years old in MacKay Memorial Hospital from July 2015 through June 2020 (assigned to group 1, before bundle) and from August 2020 through July 2021 (assigned to group 2, after bundle) were retrospectively reviewed for demographic characteristics, indications, bowel preparation agent and cleansing level, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, maximum intestinal level reached, and cecal intubation and total procedure time. Statistical analysis was done using P value < 0.05 considered to be significant. ResultsAnalysis included 45 and 32 colonoscopies in group 1 and 2, respectively. Bloody stool was the most frequent indication in both groups. Both TI intubation rate (42.2 % vs. 75.0 %, P = 0.004) and biopsy rate (45.0 % vs. 75.9 %, P = 0.01) increased significantly from group 1 to group 2. The narrower standard deviation of bowel preparation score (1.93 vs. 1.15) and total procedure time (37.71 vs. 22.29) in group 2 indicated a more stable quality, although the mean showed no difference. There was no statistical difference in age, gender, body weight, cecal intubation rate, or cecal intubation time. ConclusionA higher TI intubation rate and biopsy rate indicated an improved quality of pediatric colonoscopy after applying bundle including bowel preparation and general anesthesia, with additional centralization.

S588 A Comparison of Using an Adult vs. Slim Colonoscope in Performing Routine Colonoscopy in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed procedures in adult patients in The United States. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening given the ability for direct visualization of the colonic mucosa. Adult colonoscopy is generally performed using either an adult colonoscope (AC) or a thinner diameter slim colonoscope (SC). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare these instruments when performing routine colonoscopy in adult patients. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases from inception to March 2021, which included Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, Ovid MEDLINE®, and In-Process and other non-indexed citations. The outcomes assessed were cecal intubation rate (CIR), terminal ileum intubation rate (TIIR), and insertion time (IT). Results: The results are summarized in table 1. Eight studies were included for final analysis. There were 2,819 total patients (1403 AC, 1416 SC). For CIR, the pooled results favored SC over AC (0.54). For TIIR, there was no difference (0.99). Similarly, for IT there was no difference (OR -0.14). Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, for adult colonoscopy the CIR was superior using SC as opposed to AC. There was no difference in TIIR or IT.Table 1.: Outcomes

Terminal ileum intubation is not associated with colonoscopy quality measures.

Intubation of the terminal ileum (TI) demonstrates a complete colonoscopy, but its clinical value during screening exams is unknown. We aimed to determine whether TI intubation during screening colonoscopy is associated with colonoscopy quality measures or identifies subclinical pathology. We performed a retrospective cohort study examining average-risk screening colonoscopies performed at an academic health system between July 2016 and October 2017. Data were extracted from an internal colonoscopy quality registry and the electronic health record. Appropriate statistical tests were used for group comparisons, to correlate TI intubation rate (TIIR) with measures of colonoscopy quality and to examine factors associated with the likelihood of TI intubation. There were 7799 colonoscopies performed with adequate prep quality by 28 gastroenterologists. Most patients were female (56.4%) with a median age of 58. The median TIIR was 37.0%, with significant variability among physicians (2-93%). The detection rates for all polyps, adenomas, and sessile serrated polyps were 62.1%, 45.5%, and 7.2%, respectively, and none correlated with TIIR. Intubation of the TI was associated with significantly longer withdrawal times. In a random 10% sample of cases with TI intubation, no clinically significant pathology was found. There is wide variability in TIIR among endoscopists. Except to provide photodocumentation of exam extent when other images may be difficult to obtain, the lack of correlation between TI intubation and meaningful clinical outcomes together with the associated time costs suggest routine TI intubation during screening colonoscopy may not be warranted.

Efficacy of Novel Ultrathin Single-Balloon Enteroscopy for Crohn's Disease: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Background/AimsThe evaluation of small bowel lesions of Crohn’s disease (CD) using balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) is crucial because mucosal healing is associated with a good prognosis. However, BAE procedures are invasive, requiring sedation or analgesia to reduce the patient’s pain. This study evaluated the clinical usefulness of a novel ultrathin single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) procedure for CD.MethodsThis single-center retrospective study included 102 CD patients who underwent trans-anal SBE between January 2012 and May 2018. Of these patients, 82 underwent enteroscopy using conventional SBE, while 20 underwent ultrathin SBE. Patients were analyzed using propensity score matching, with 20 patients per group. The median duration of the examination, terminal ileum intubation rate, median cecum intubation time, median insertion depth, adverse events, and sedated dose in each group were compared.ResultsBefore propensity score matching, the conventional SBE group had a larger number of surgical history patients than the ultrathin SBE group (p=0.05). After matching, the two groups did not significantly differ clinically. There were no significant differences in the mean duration of the examination, cecum intubation time, or terminal ileal intubation rate between ultrathin SBE and conventional SBE. The mean insertion depth of ultrathin SBE tended to be deeper than that of conventional SBE (p=0.09). The use of ultrathin SBE also reduced the sedative dose during needed for enteroscopy compared with conventional SBE (p=0.005).ConclusionsNovel ultrathin SBE may be less painful for CD patients than conventional SBE.

Endocuff Vision is safe to use for dysplasia surveillance in patients with ulcerative colitis: a feasibility study.

Background and study aims Endocuff Vision improves adenoma detection rates in patients without inflammatory bowel disease. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of Endocuff Vision-assisted high-definition white light endoscopy (HDWLE) with dye-spray chromoendoscopy for detection of dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis. Patients and methods Patients with clinically inactive ulcerative colitis due for dysplasia surveillance were recruited. Procedural endpoints included safety, cecal intubation rate (CIR), terminal ileum intubation rate (TIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, dysplasia detection rate (DDR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate. Results Twenty-five patients (9 female, median age 57 [range 28 – 82] years) were studied. Endocuff Vision-assisted HDWLE was completed in all participants, with a CIR of 100 %, in a median 4 minutes (range 2 – 16), and a TIR of 88% in a median of 6.5 minutes (range 3 – 19). Median withdrawal time was 18 minutes (range 10 – 55), including application of dye-spray, biopsies and polypectomy. The Mayo Endoscopic subscore was 0 in 11, 1 in 9, and 2 in 5 patients. The DDR was 24 % (6 patients had a total of 12 dysplastic lesions) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate was 12 % (3 patients had a total of 4 sessile serrated polyps). No serious adverse events occurred, with one patient developing clinically insignificant minor mucosal bleeding. Conclusion Endocuff Vision-assisted HDWLE is feasible and safe in patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing dysplasia surveillance. Further studies are required to assess superiority of this technique compared with standard high-definition white light endoscopy with chromoendoscopy.

Propofol sedation in colonoscopy: from satisfied patients to improved quality indicators.

BackgroundPropofol-mediated sedation is safe and clearly associated with increased patient satisfaction. However, whether it results in a favorable effect on colonoscopy outcomes and performance compared to standard sedation with benzodiazepines/opiates remains unclear.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of propofol-mediated sedation on colonoscopy-quality measures compared to traditional sedation.MethodsA large cohort of 44,794 patients who had undergone sedated colonoscopies were included. Colonoscopy-quality indicators were examined in benzodiazepine/opiate-sedated patients and compared with a propofol-mediated sedation group. Adjustment for potential confounders, such as age, sex, quality of bowel preparation, procedural setting, and indication was performed.ResultsPatients who received propofol-mediated sedation were more likely, and in a dose-dependent manner, to have an enhanced polyp-detection rate (22.8% vs 20.9%, P<0.001), cecal intubation rate (90.4% vs 87.3%, P<0.001), and terminal ileum-intubation rate (6.4% vs 1.6%, P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, these findings were maintained, as propofol-mediated sedation use was significantly associated with improved colonoscopy indicators.ConclusionPropofol-mediated sedation during colonoscopy is associated with better examination performance and improved outcomes. Further prospective or randomized trials to support these findings are warranted.

Is there a difference in adenoma detection rates between gastroenterologists and surgeons?

AIMTo compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.METHODSA total of 300 colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital were retrospectively reviewed from May 2016 to June 2017. Exclusion criteria were: Patients ≤ 50 years old, colonoscopies with failure of caecal intubation, patients who previously had colon cancer and/or a colonic resection, history of polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease, or a colonoscopy within the last 10 years. Patient demographics, indications, symptoms and procedural-related outcomes were measured.RESULTSThe ADR was not significantly different between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons (34% vs 34.67%; P = 0.90). The adjusted odds ratio correcting for gender, age, 1st degree relative with colorectal cancer, previous colonoscopy, trainee involvement and caecal or terminal ileum intubation rate was 1.19 (0.69-2.05).CONCLUSIONBoth specialties at our institution exceed benchmark standards suggested by published Australian and American guidelines. An association between endoscopist specialty and ADR was not observed.

Diagnostic Yield of Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children in a Tertiary Centre.

Endoscopy is integral to the diagnosis and management of many gastrointestinal problems in children. Recently the number of endoscopic procedures performed has increased considerably worldwide raising questions about their appropriateness and cost-efficacy. The aim of the study was to determine the diagnostic yield (the likelihood that a procedure or test will provide information required to establish a diagnosis) of endoscopy in a paediatric population in a large tertiary referral centre and to determine the terminal ileum intubation (TII) rate of paediatric ileocolonosocopy (IC) in an active training environment and compare with previously calculated rates. Random selection of cases from a theatre electronic database from a 30-month period covering April 2012 to October 2014. The data were collected for initial presenting symptoms; age at diagnosis; indications for endoscopy; endoscopic findings; histopathological findings; and any change in management postendoscopic procedure. The diagnostic yield of the endoscopies and the TII rate of IC were calculated. Change in and contribution to management was assessed. Median age 9.58 (0.5-16.5) years and M:F ratio 1:1.42. The positive diagnostic yield was 18.9% for oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy alone, 32.6% for IC alone, and 39.2% when both occurred. In 45% management was actively changed due to endoscopy/histopathology findings and a significant management contribution occurred in all patients. TII was achieved in 98% of cases, which compares favourably to a TII rate of 89% at the same centre during the period 2009 to 2011. Diagnostic yield was 32.6% for IC and 39.2% when oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy also occurred. A TII rate of 98% should be achievable in children. A change in management occurred in 45% and as a significant negative finding may be as important as a positive diagnosis for exclusion of suspected disorders, with consequent reassurance and change in management. Contribution to management was therefore identified in all cases.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a double-blind, randomized, single-center trial.

Bowel distension by insufflated air causes abdominal discomfort after colonoscopy. Carbon dioxide (CO2) instead of air insufflation during colonoscopy can reduce postprocedural discomfort in diagnostic and screening cases. Discomfort after colonoscopy and CO2 insufflation have never been studied in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, characterized by younger age, structural changes of the colon, and need for repeated and frequently uncomfortable colonoscopies. Our trial was designed to evaluate postprocedural discomfort associated with CO2 compared with air insufflation in unsedated or minimally sedated patients with known IBD. In a double-blind, randomized, single-center study, 64 patients were randomized to either CO2 insufflation (CO2) or air insufflation colonoscopy (Air). Abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence scores during 24 h after colonoscopy were recorded using a continuous scale of 0-10 (0=none, 10=maximum discomfort). The primary endpoint used for power calculation was bloating score at 1 h after colonoscopy. Pain, bloating, and flatulence scores at end, 1, and 3 h after colonoscopy were significantly lower in CO2 than in Air arm (P<0.001). Scores at 6, 12, and 24 h were comparable. Procedural parameters such as cecal and terminal ileum intubation rate, intubation and total time, pain during insertion, need for repositioning, and abdominal compression were not different between arms. No complications were recorded in the study. Compared with air, CO2 insufflation significantly reduces abdominal pain, bloating, and flatulence scores during at least 3 h after colonoscopy in IBD patients, achieving comparable intraprocedural outcomes.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: is the cap beneficial? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background:In an effort to improve visualization during colonoscopy, a transparent plastic cap or hood may be placed on the end of the colonoscope. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) has been studied and is thought to improve polyp detection. Numerous studies have been conducted comparing pertinent clinical outcomes between CAC and standard colonoscopy (SC) with inconsistent results.Methods:Numerous databases were searched in November 2016. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult subjects that compared CAC to SC were included. Outcomes of total colonoscopy time, time to cecum, cecal intubation rate, terminal ileum intubation rate, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were analyzed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with fixed effect and random effects models.Results:Five hundred eighty-nine articles and abstracts were discovered. Of these, 23 RCTs (n=12,947) were included in the analysis. CAC showed statistically significant superiority in total colonoscopy time (MD -1.51 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.67 to -0.34; P<0.01) and time to cecum (MD -0.82 min; 95%CI -1.20 to -0.44; P<0.01) compared to SC. CAC also showed better PDR (OR 1.17; 95%CI 1.06-1.29; P<0.01) but not ADR (OR 1.11; 95%CI 0.95-1.30; P=0.20). In contrast, on sensitivity analysis, ADR was better with CAC. Terminal ileum intubation and cecal intubation rates demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.11 and P=0.73, respectively).Conclusions:The use of a transparent cap during colonoscopy improves PDR while reducing procedure times. ADR may improve in cap-assisted colonoscopy but further studies are required to confirm this.

Cap-assisted retrograde single-balloon enteroscopy results in high terminal ileal intubation rate.

Background and study aims: Retrograde single-balloon enteroscopy (RSBE) facilitates evaluation of the distal small bowel and provision of appropriate therapy when necessary. Intubation of the terminal ileum (TI) is a major rate-limiting step, with failure rates as high as 30 %. Cap-assisted endoscopy has proven beneficial in other aspects of endoscopy. We have noticed that it similarly aids in TI intubation during RSBE by facilitating opening of the ileocecal valve (ICV). The primary aim of this study was to measure the TI intubation rate using cap-assisted RSBE. Other procedural details and outcomes were also measured. Patients and methods: A total of 36 consecutive RSBEs performed between July 2011 and May 2014 at the Medical University of South Carolina were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures were performed or supervised by our center’s small bowel endoscopist (ASB). Outcomes measured included TI intubation rate, procedure time, depth of maximal insertion (DMI), diagnostic yield (DY), therapeutic yield (TY), and complications. Results: The TI intubation rate was 97 % (35 /36). The one failure was due to stool completely obscuring the cecum. Median procedure time was 54 minutes, with a mean DMI of 68 cm beyond the ICV. The technical success rate was 86 %, whereas DY and TY were 61 % and 25 %, respectively. There were no complications. The study was limited in that it involved a single endoscopist at a single center. Conclusions: Cap-assisted RSBE results in a high TI intubation rate, without compromise to safety or procedural yield.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy and detection of Adenomatous Polyps (CAP) study: a randomized trial.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy has improved adenoma detection in some but not other studies. Most previous studies have been limited by small sample sizes and few participating endoscopists. The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether cap-assisted colonoscopy improves adenoma detection in a two-center, multi-endoscopist, randomized trial. Consecutive patients who presented for an elective colonoscopy were randomized to cap-assisted colonoscopy (4-mm cap) or standard colonoscopy performed by one of 10 experienced endoscopists. Primary outcome measures were mean number of adenomas per patient and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included procedural measures and endoscopist variation; a logistic regression model was employed to examine predictors of increased detection with cap use. A total of 1113 patients (64 % male, mean age 62 years) were randomized to cap-assisted (n = 561) or standard (n = 552) colonoscopy. The mean number of adenomas detected per patient in the cap-assisted and standard groups was similar (0.89 vs. 0.82; P = 0.432), as was the ADR (42 % vs. 40 %; P = 0.452). Cap-assisted colonoscopy achieved a faster cecal intubation time (4.9 vs. 5.8 minutes; P < 0.001), a similar cecal intubation rate (99 % vs. 98 %; P = 0.326), and a higher terminal ileum intubation rate (93 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.028). Cap-assisted colonoscopy resulted in a 20 % increase in ADR for some endoscopists and in a 15 % decrease for others. Individual preference for the cap was an independent predictor of increased adenoma detection in adjusted analysis (P < 0.001), whereas baseline low adenoma detection was not. Although the efficiency of cecal and terminal ileum intubation was slightly improved by cap-assisted colonoscopy, adenoma detection was not. Cap-assisted colonoscopy may be beneficial for selected endoscopists. clinicalTrials.gov (NCT01935180).

PWE-065 Colonoscopy Performance In A District General Hospital. Has The Standardisation Of Training Standardised Performance?

IntroductionSince the introduction of the JAG endoscopy training system (JETS) for trainees in 2003 there have been demonstrable improvements in the key performance indicators (KPIs) of colonoscopy performance. Caecal intubation,...

Cool water vs warm water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a double‐blind randomized trial

Water-aided insertion as an alternative colonoscopy technique reduces patient discomfort. Warm water has been used in most published trials, but the use of cool water is easier and, if equally effective, could support the use of the water-aided technique in routine practice. A double-blind, randomized, single-centre study was performed in which 201 patients were randomized to either cool (20-24 °C) or warm (37 °C) water immersion insertion. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time. The success rate of minimal sedation and patient discomfort were also assessed. The caecal intubation time for cool and warm water was similar (6.9 ± 3.5 vs 7.0 ± 3.4 min, P = 0.64). The respective success rates of minimal sedation colonoscopy (89.1% vs 90%, P = 1.00) and discomfort (P = 0.51) were no different. All other outcomes except a greater need for abdominal compression in the cool water arm (P = 0.04) were similar including the total procedure time, terminal ileum intubation rate, adenoma detection, length of the inserted scope, water volume, non-standard position rate, difficulty of the procedure and the patient's temperature sensation. The use of cool water did not modify the caecal intubation time compared with warm water. Exception for abdominal compression, all other end-points were no different. Cool water immersion is an alternative to the technically more demanding warm water immersion colonoscopy.

Mo1561 Comparative Effectiveness of Water Exchange vs Air Insuffaltion and Water Immersion vs Air Insufflation in Colonoscopy: a Meta-Analysis

Mo1561 Comparative Effectiveness of Water Exchange vs Air Insuffaltion and Water Immersion vs Air Insufflation in Colonoscopy: a Meta-Analysis