Fat absorption studies. VI. The passage of polyunsaturated fatty acids through the placenta.

L. Soderhjelm

1953-04-29

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comparison of polyp detection during both insertion and withdrawal versus only withdrawal of colonoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

Chi-Liang Cheng,Yen-Lin Kuo,Nai-Jen Liu,Jui-Hsiang Tang,Jiun-Wei Fan,Cheng-Hui Lin,Yi-Ning Tsui,Bai-Ping Lee,Hsiang-Ling Hung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.14613

2019-02-27

Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract:BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyps seen and not removed during colonoscope insertion are sometimes unable to be found during withdrawal. We aimed to evaluate whether additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal.METHODS: A total of 421 patients aged ≥ 45 years and undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal (study group) or inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal (control group). The primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes included other adenoma-related parameters and procedure-related measures.RESULTS: Baseline demographics, procedure indications, preparation quality, total procedure time, sedative doses, colonoscopy difficulty, and patient discomfort were similar between the groups. The insertion time was significantly longer in the study group (11.1 ± 4.8 vs 6.2 ± 4.7 min, P < 0.0001). The withdrawal time was significantly longer in the control group (29.2 ± 9.8 vs 23.1 ± 7.9 min, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the ADR (63.5% [study group] vs 68.1% [control group]), the mean adenoma per procedure (1.6 ± 2.0 vs 1.9 ± 2.4), or the mean adenoma per positive procedure (2.5 ± 2.0 vs 2.7 ± 2.5) between groups. The proximal colon ADR was significantly higher in the control group compared with the study group (56.2% vs 46.0%, P = 0.041).CONCLUSIONS: Additional inspection and polypectomy during colonoscope insertion did not improve ADR compared with inspection and polypectomy entirely during withdrawal. These results do not support an additional role for routine inspection during insertion (clinical trial registration number: NCT03444090).

gastroenterology & hepatology
Commentary on "Effects of positioning on respiratory measures in individuals with cerebral palsy and severe scoliosis".

M. Michaels,Theresa M. Crytzer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PEP.0b013e31821933c3

Pediatric Physical Therapy

Abstract:
Colorectal polypectomy during insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal? A randomized controlled trial

S. Wildi,A. Schoepfer,S. Vavricka,H. Fruehauf,E. Safroneeva,N. Wiegand,P. Bauerfeind,M. Fried

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1310237

2012-08-28

Endoscopy

Abstract:BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Removal of colorectal polyps is routinely performed during withdrawal of the endoscope. However, polyps detected during insertion of the colonoscope may be missed at withdrawal. We aimed to evaluate whether polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal increases polyp detection and removal rates compared with polypectomy at withdrawal only, and to assess the duration of both approaches.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were included into the study when the first polyp was detected, and randomized into two groups; in group A, polyps ≤ 10 mm in diameter were removed during insertion and withdrawal of the colonoscope, while in group B, these polyps were removed at withdrawal only. Main outcome measures were duration of colonoscopy, number of polyps detected during insertion but not recovered during withdrawal, technical ease, patient discomfort, and complications.RESULTS: 150 patients were randomized to group A and 151 to group B. Mean (± standard deviation [SD]) duration of colonoscopy did not differ between the groups (30.8 ± 15.6 min [A] vs. 28.5 ± 13.8 min [B], P = 0.176). In group A 387 polyps (mean 2.58 per colonoscopy) were detected and removed compared with 389 polyps detected (mean 2.58 per colonoscopy) in group B of which 376 were removed (13 polyps were missed, mean size [SD] 3.2 [1.3] mm; 7.3 % of patients). Patient tolerance was similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS: Removal of polyps ≤ 10 mm during withdrawal only is associated with a considerable polyp miss rate. We therefore recommend that these polyps are removed during both insertion and withdrawal.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal of colonoscopy?: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

Yaping Wei,Guofan Shen,Yutong Yang,Zheng Jin,Wei Hu,Ying Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020775

2020-07-02

Abstract:Introduction: Current evidence supporting additional inspection and polypectomy during insertion of colonoscopy is limited. We plan to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the yield of inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only. Methods and analysis: Randomised controlled trials evaluating inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal versus inspection and polypectomy during withdrawal only will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, from database inception to 31 May 2020. Data on study design, participant characteristics, and outcomes will be extracted. Primary outcomes to be assessed are adenoma detection rate. Secondary outcomes include polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per patient, polyp miss rate, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, procedure duration, cecal intubation rate, procedure difficulty, patient discomfort, sedation dose, and adverse events. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 statistical software. Data will be combined with random effect model. The results will be presented as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and weighted/standard mean difference for continuous data. Publication bias will be visualized using funnel plots. Ethics and dissemination: This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. Protocol registration number: INPLASY202050051.
Comparison of colon adenoma detection rates using cap-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Joseph Marsano,Sheeva Johnson,Stephanie Yan,Latifat Alli-Akintade,Machelle Wilson,Amar Al-Juburi,Jesse Stondell,Sooraj Tejaswi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0996-7891

2019-11-25

Endoscopy International Open

Abstract:Abstract Objectives and study aim Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer by removing adenomatous polyps, but missed adenomas lead to interval cancers. Different devices have been used to increase adenoma detection rates (ADR). Two such devices of interest are the transparent cap (Olympus) and Endocuff (ARC Medical). Our study aimed to compare differences in ADR between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC), cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). Patients and methods A sample size of 126 subjects was calculated to determine an effect size of 30 %. Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy between March 2016 and January 2017 were randomized to SC, CAC or EAC groups. Three experienced endoscopists performed all colonoscopies. Patient demographics, procedure indication, Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS), withdrawal time, polyp size, location, histopathology, were analyzed. Results There was no difference in ADR (52 %, 40 % and 54 %) in the SC, CAC and EAC groups respectively (P = 0.4). Similar findings were also observed for proximal ADR (45 %, 35 %, and 50 %, P = 0.4) and SSA detection rate (16 %, 14 %, and 23 %, P = 0.5). EAC detected higher mean ADR per colonoscopy compared to CAC (1.70 vs 0.76, P = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in mean ADR per positive colonoscopy (2.08, 1.63, and 2.59, P = 0.21). Conclusion In a randomized controlled trial comparing AC to CAC and SC, neither device conferred additional benefits in ADR among high detectors. When comparing each device, EAC may be better than CAC at detecting more total adenomas.
Efficacy of colonoscopic re-examination across the entire colon: a randomized controlled trial

Dong Seok Lee,Jeong-Seon Ji,Tae-Geun Gweon,Myeongsook Seo,Hwang Choi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11298-5

2024-09-28

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:In standard colonoscopic examinations, some polyps may be missed during the withdrawal phase. Re-examination of the right colon can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the effectiveness of applying this re-examination strategy to the entire colon remains unknown. We investigated whether re-examination could increase the detection rate of polyps and adenomas throughout the colon.

surgery
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Patient’s Position Change during the Withdrawal Phase of Colonoscopy from Left Lateral Decubitus to Supine Position on Increasing Adenoma Detection Rate: A Randomized Controlled Trial

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33140/jgds.07.01.03

2023-05-09

Journal of Gastroenterology & Digestive Systems

Abstract:Background: Improvement in adenoma detection rate (ADR) reduces colorectal cancer incidence by increasing the colonoscopy quality. Using dynamic patient position changes during the withdrawal phase has shown promise in increasing ADR. We conducted this study to assess the effectiveness of the supine position on the improvement of ADR to improve its feasibility and avoid frequent patient position changes, particularly in sedated patients. Methods: This was a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, single-center study implemented in the Mehregan private in Babol. Inclusion criteria were 40 to 85 years old, 4 L application of polyethylene glycol from the day before the procedure, no history of inflammatory bowel disease, bowel surgery, musculoskeletal problems, and negative familial history of colorectal cancer. Patients were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the supine or left lateral positions during the withdrawal phase. All colonoscopies were performed by a single physician using a Fujifilm colonoscope. A P-value of <0.005 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 880 patients were assessed for eligibility, of which 472 patients were included in the final analysis; 53.4% were female, the mean age of participants was 55.86±10.30 years old, 95.1% of patients had adequate bowel preparation, and adenomatous polyps were the most common histopathologic type (63.7%). Despite the intervention group’s higher rate of ADR and PDR (19.5% vs. 17.7% for ADR and 27.2% vs. 26.5% for PDR), no statistically significant difference in ADR or PDR was detected (P=0.613 and 0.866, respectively). Conclusion: No statistical significance was observed despite the increase in ADR when the supine position was used exclusively during the withdrawal phase. As a result, we recommend that the dynamic position change method be used if a position change is required. Nonetheless, additional research is required to determine a more effective alternative to dynamic position change in obese or heavily sedated patients.
Higher Adenoma Detection Rates with Endocuff-Assisted Colonoscopy – A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

Martin Floer,Erwin Biecker,Rüdiger Fitzlaff,Hermann Röming,Detlev Ameis,Achim Heinecke,Steffen Kunsch,Volker Ellenrieder,Philipp Ströbel,Michael Schepke,Tobias Meister

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114267

IF: 3.7

2014-12-03

PLoS ONE

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: The Endocuff is a device mounted on the tip of the colonoscope to help flatten the colonic folds during withdrawal. This study aimed to compare the adenoma detection rates between Endocuff-assisted (EC) colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy (SC).METHODS: This randomized prospective multicenter trial was conducted at four academic endoscopy units in Germany.PARTICIPANTS: 500 patients (235 males, median age 64[IQR 54-73]) for colon adenoma detection purposes were included in the study. All patients were either allocated to EC or SC. The primary outcome measure was the determination of the adenoma detection rates (ADR).RESULTS: The ADR significantly increased with the use of the Endocuff compared to standard colonoscopy (35.4%[95% confidence interval{CI} 29-41%] vs. 20.7%[95%CI 15-26%], p<0.0001). Significantly more sessile polyps were detected by EC. Overall procedure time and withdrawal time did not differ. Caecal and ileum intubation rates were similar. No major adverse events occurred in both groups. In multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03; 95%[CI] 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR 1.74; 95%CI 1.10-2.73), withdrawal time (OR 1.16; 95%CI 1.05-1.30), procedure time (OR 1.07; 95%CI 1.04-1.10), colon cleanliness (OR 0.60; 95%CI 0.39-0.94) and use of Endocuff (OR 2.09; 95%CI 1.34-3.27) were independent predictors of adenoma detection rates.CONCLUSIONS: EC increases the adenoma detection rate by 14.7%(95%CI 6.9-22.5%). EC is safe, effective, easy to handle and might reduce colorectal interval carcinomas.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02034929.

multidisciplinary sciences
Re: Perivascular tissue of internal thoracic artery releases potent nitric oxide and prostacyclin-independent anticontractile factor.

M. Dashwood,D. Souza,M. Fernández-Alfonso

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.03.021

IF: 4.534

2008-06-01

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:
Clinical significance of colorectal polyp detection on colonoscopy insertion

Taku Sakamoto,Raji Ramaraj,Yutaka Tomizawa,Hourin Cho,Takahisa Matsuda,Yutaka Saito

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640618809263

2019-02-01

United European Gastroenterology Journal

Abstract:Background: Colorectal lesions are generally evaluated during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy. Minimising the risk of missed lesions is crucial to determine an appropriate future surveillance colonoscopy interval.Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of detecting sigmoid colon lesions during the insertion phase.Methods: This retrospective study included 172 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy between October 2017 and April 2018. The total number of detected polyps, mean polyps per procedure, mean polyps per positive procedure, and histological and clinical characteristics of detected lesions were recorded. The primary endpoint was the difference in sigmoid colon polyp detection rates during insertion and withdrawal.Results: A total of 172 colonoscopies were performed for each patient and 322 lesions were detected. Sixty-two (19%) polyps were detected during insertion, 312 (97%) during withdrawal, and 52 (16%) during both insertion and withdrawal. Although all polyps except for those in the sigmoid colon could be detected during withdrawal, 10 of 87 (11%) polyps in the sigmoid colon could only be detected during insertion.Conclusions: In this study, attempts to detect polyps, even in the insertion phase, showed the clinical significance to decrease the risk of missed adenomatous polyps in the sigmoid colon.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial

Martin Floer,Laura Tschaikowski,Michael Schepke,Radoslaw Kempinski,Katarzyna Neubauer,Elzbieta Poniewierka,Steffen Kunsch,Detlev Ameis,Hauke Sebastian Heinzow,Agneta Auer,Hartmut H Schmidt,Volker Ellenrieder,Tobias Meister

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640620982952

Abstract:Background and aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three-armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head-to-head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR. Methods: Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post-colonic resection status. Results: A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post-polypectomy follow-up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection. Conclusion: The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.
Reduced Adenoma Miss Rate With 9-Minute vs 6-Minute Withdrawal Times for Screening Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Tandem Trial

Guochen Shang,Xiaofeng Zhang,Jingwen Zhang,Junhua Bi,Ping Wang,Xia Yang,D. Yu,Yi-Yan Song,B. Song,Dongmei Yao,Xinghua Li,Huanhai Xu,Zhaoshen Li,Yanqiu Xu,Yu Bai,P. Xu,Xianfei Wang,P. Pan,Yang-bei Zhu,Aixia Gong,Jianqiu Sheng,Hongzhang Shen,Jinghua Zheng,Yurong Tao,Yaqin Zhu,Weigang Chen,Y. Lai,Sheng-Bing Zhao,Xiu-fen Tang,Zhijie Feng,Xu Ren,Shuling Wang,Lin Wu,Fangyu Wang,Qiang Li,Tao Li,Xiaomin Yang,Rong Wang,Yingcai Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002055

2022-10-10

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Although the 9-minute mean withdrawal time (m-WT) is often reported to be associated with the optimal adenoma detection rate (ADR), no randomized trials of screening colonoscopy have confirmed the impact of a 9-minute m-WT on adenoma miss rate (AMR) and ADR. METHODS: A multicenter tandem trial was conducted in 11 centers. Seven hundred thirty-three asymptomatic participants were randomized to receive segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with a 9-minute withdrawal, followed by a 6-minute withdrawal (9-minute-first group, 9MF, n = 366) or vice versa (6-minute-first group, 6MF, n = 367). The primary outcome was the lesion-level AMR. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level (14.5% vs 36.6%, P < 0.001) and participant-level AMR (10.9% vs 25.9%, P < 0.001), advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR, 5.3% vs 46.9%, P = 0.002), multiple adenomas miss rate (20.7% vs 56.5%, P = 0.01), and high-risk adenomas miss rate (14.6% vs 39.5%, P = 0.01) of 6MF without compromising detection efficiency (P = 0.79). In addition, a lower false-negative rate for adenomas (P = 0.002) and high-risk adenomas (P < 0.05), and a lower rate of shortening surveillance schedule (P < 0.001) were also found in 9MF, accompanying with an improved ADR in the 9-minute vs 6-minute m-WT (42.3% vs 33.5%, P = 0.02). The independent inverse association between m-WT and AMR remained significant even after adjusting ADR, and meanwhile, 9-minute m-WT was identified as an independent protector for AMR and AAMR. DISCUSSION: In addition to increasing ADR, 9-minute m-WT also significantly reduces the AMR and AAMR of screening colonoscopy without compromising detection efficiency.

Medicine
Sedated Colonoscopy may not be Beneficial for Polyp/Adenoma Detection

Jie Han,Rongrong Cao,Dongshuai Su,Yingchao Li,Cong Gao,Ke Wang,Fei Gao,Xingshun Qi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748241272482

Cancer Control

Abstract:Background: Sedated colonoscopy has been increasingly selected. However, the effect of sedated colonoscopy on polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR) remains controversial among studies. Methods: In this retrospective study, the medical records of 11 504 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our department from July 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 were collected. Patients were divided into sedated and unsedated groups according to the use of intravenous sedation during colonoscopy. Overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR were calculated. By adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, inpatient, screening/surveillance, cecal intubation time, colonoscopy withdrawal time ≥6 min, and an endoscopist's experience ≥5 years, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of sedated colonoscopy with overall PDR/ADR, right-side, transverse, and left-side colon PDR/ADR, and single and multiple PDR/ADR, where the absence of PDR/ADR was used as reference. Odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Overall, 2275 patients were included, of whom 293 and 1982 underwent sedated and unsedated colonoscopy, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that sedated colonoscopy was independently associated with lower overall PDR/ADR (OR = 0.640, 95% CI = 0.460-0.889, P = 0.008), right-side colon PDR/ADR (OR = 0.591, 95% CI = 0.417-0.837, P = 0.003), single PDR/ADR (OR = 0.659, 95% CI = 0.436-0.996, P = 0.048), and multiple PDR/ADR (OR = 0.586, 95% CI = 0.402-0.855, P = 0.005), but not transverse or left-side colon PDR/ADR. Conclusion: Sedated colonoscopy may not be beneficial in terms of overall PDR/ADR, right-side colon PDR/ADR, and number of polyps/adenomas. Thus, it should be selectively recommended. Additionally, it should be necessary to explore how to improve the quality of sedated colonoscopy.
Impact of 9-Minute Withdrawal Time on the Adenoma Detection Rate: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Shengbing Zhao,Xia Yang,Shuling Wang,Qianqian Meng,Rundong Wang,Lumin Bo,Xin Chang,Peng Pan,Tian Xia,Fan Yang,Jun Yao,Jinghua Zheng,Jianqiu Sheng,Xiaojun Zhao,Shan Tang,Yali Wang,Yiping Wang,Aixia Gong,Weigang Chen,Jianwei Shen,Xian Zhu,Shaofeng Wang,Caiwen Yan,Youlin Yang,Yangbei Zhu,Rui-Jun Ma,Rong Wang,Yingcai Ma,Zhaoshen Li,Yu Bai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.019

IF: 13.576

2022-02-01

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract:Background & AimsAlthough current quality indicators of colonoscopy recommend 6 minutes as the minimum standard for withdrawal time (WT), the impact of a WT longer than 6 minutes on neoplasia detection is unclear.MethodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial involving 1027 patients was conducted from January 2018 to July 2019. Participants were randomly divided into a 9-minute (n = 514) and 6-minute (n = 513) WT group, and a timer was used to adjust the withdrawal speed. The primary outcome was the adenoma detection rate (ADR).ResultsIntention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly higher ADR in the 9-minute versus 6-minute WT group (36.6% vs. 27.1%, P = .001). Prolonging WT from 6 to 9 minutes significantly increased ADR of the proximal colon (21.4% vs. 11.9%, P < .001) as well as of the less experienced colonoscopists (36.8% vs. 23.5%, P = .001). Improvements were also observed in the polyp detection rate (58.0% vs. 47.8%, P < .001), and mean number of polyps and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.1 vs. 0.9, P = .002; 0.5 vs. 0.4, P = .008, respectively). The higher ADRs in 9-minute WT were also confirmed by the per-protocol (PP) analysis and subgroup analyses, with an increased rate of sessile serrated lesion detection in the 9-minute WT by PP analysis (4.0% vs. 1.3%, P = .04). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that the 9-minute WT was independently associated with increased ADR (P = .005).ConclusionsProlonging WT from 6 to 9 minutes significantly improved ADR, especially in the proximal colon and for less experienced colonoscopists. A 9-minute WT benchmark should be considered as one of the quality indicators of colonoscopy. ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier, NCT03399045)

gastroenterology & hepatology
Improved adenoma detection rate using a novel colonoscopic distal attachment: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Rui Guo,Jingzhai Wang,Li Min,Ningning Dong,Li Zhang,Ruyun Song,Yang Zhang,Qian Zhang,Huihong Zhai,Peng Li,Shutian Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002829

2024-04-27

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the effect of Embrella, a novel-designed colonoscopic distal attachment, on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), compared with standard colonoscopy in routine practice. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent routine colonoscopic examinations at three endoscopy centers in China were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the Embrella-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) or standard colonoscopy (SC) groups. ADR, APC, inspection time, pain scores, and adverse events were recorded. Results: Overall, 1179 patients were randomized into the EAC (n = 593) and SC groups (n = 586). EAC increased the overall ADR from 24.6% to 34.2% (P < .001) and improved APC from 0.44 to 0.64 (P = .002). Subgroup analyses indicated that EAC significantly improved ADR for adenomas < 10 mm (13.8% vs. 8.5%, P = .004 for 5–9 mm and 27.0% vs. 17.2%, P < .001 for < 5 mm), non-pedunculated adenomas (26.6% vs. 18.8%, P < .001), and adenomas in the transverse (10.8% vs. 6.1%, P = .004) and left colon (21.6% vs. 13.7%, P < .001). APC in the subgroup analyses was consistent with ADR. The mean inspection time was shorter with EAC (6.52 min vs. 6.68 min, P = .046), with no significant impact on patients' pain scores (P = .377). Moreover, no EAC-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion: EAC significantly increased ADR and APC compared with SC, particularly for adenomas < 10 mm, non-pedunculated adenomas, and adenomas in the transverse and left colon.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Julio Zuniga Cisneros,Carlos Tunon,Enrique Adames,Carolina Garcia,Rene Rivera,Eyleen Gonzalez,Jan Cubilla,Luis Lambrano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1599

2023-04-29

Gastroenterology Research

Abstract:Background: The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ? 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps. Results: A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007). Conclusion: In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors. Gastroenterol Res. 2023;16(2):96-104 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1599
Standard-definition White-light, High-definition White-light Versus Narrow-band Imaging Endoscopy for Detecting Colorectal Adenomas: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Chang-wei Duan,Hui-hong Zhai,Hui Xie,Xian-zong Ma,Dong-liang Yu,Lang Yang,Xin Wang,Yu-fen Tang,Jie Zhang,Hui Su,Jian-qiu Sheng,Jun-feng Xu,Peng Jin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-024-2882-2

2024-01-01

Current Medical Science

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to compare the performance of standard-definition white-light endoscopy (SD-WL), high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WL), and high-definition narrow-band imaging (HD-NBI) in detecting colorectal lesions in the Chinese population. METHODS:This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Patients undergoing endoscopy for physical examination, screening, and surveillance were enrolled from July 2017 to December 2020. The primary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma detected. The associated factors for detecting adenomas were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS:Out of 653 eligible patients enrolled, data from 596 patients were analyzed. The ADRs were 34.5% in the SD-WL group, 33.5% in the HD-WL group, and 37.5% in the HD-NBI group (P=0.72). The advanced neoplasm detection rates (ANDRs) in the three arms were 17.1%, 15.5%, and 10.4% (P=0.17). No significant differences were found between the SD group and HD group regarding ADR or ANDR (ADR: 34.5% vs. 35.6%, P=0.79; ANDR: 17.1% vs. 13.0%, P=0.16, respectively). Similar results were observed between the HD-WL group and HD-NBI group (ADR: 33.5% vs. 37.7%, P=0.45; ANDR: 15.5% vs. 10.4%, P=0.18, respectively). In the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, neither HD-WL nor HD-NBI led to a significant difference in overall adenoma detection compared to SD-WL (HD-WL: OR 0.91, P=0.69; HD-NBI: OR 1.15, P=0.80). CONCLUSION:HD-NBI and HD-WL are comparable to SD-WL for overall adenoma detection among Chinese outpatients. It can be concluded that HD-NBI or HD-WL is not superior to SD-WL, but more effective instruction may be needed to guide the selection of different endoscopic methods in the future. Our study's conclusions may aid in the efficient allocation and utilization of limited colonoscopy resources, especially advanced imaging technologies.
Comparison of Right Colon Adenoma Miss Rates Between Water Exchange and Carbon Dioxide Insufflation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Chi-Liang Cheng,Yen-Lin Kuo,Yu-Hsi Hsieh,Jui-Hsiang Tang,Felix W Leung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001454

Abstract:Goals: To test the hypothesis that water exchange (WE), when compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, significantly reduces the right colon adenoma miss rate (rAMR) in a blinded randomized controlled trial with cap-assisted colonoscopy. Background: The unblinded consecutive group observational data showed that WE significantly decreased rAMR. The unblinded data are limited by potential bias. Study: Consecutive patients aged 45 years or more were randomized to undergo insertion with WE or CO2. Withdrawal and polypectomy were performed with CO2 in both groups to the hepatic flexure. The colonoscope was reinserted to the cecum. A second colonoscopist re-examined the right colon. The second colonoscopist was unaware, but made a guess, of the initial insertion method. The number of additional adenomas divided by the total number detected in both examinations equaled rAMR. Results: Among 262 patients (131/group), demographic variables were similar. The body mass index was significantly higher in the WE group. Compared with CO2, WE significantly decreased rAMR [18.0% (33/183) vs. 34.6% (62/179), P=0.0025] and right colon serrated polyp miss rate [17.4% (27/155) vs. 39.3% (33/84), P=0.002]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that WE was an independent predictor of rAMR (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.86), and so was ≥2 adenomas in the right colon (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.76). Whether the second colonoscopist guessed the insertion method correctly or not, and demographic and procedure variables were not associated with rAMR. Conclusions: The randomized controlled trial validated unblinded observational data showing that WE significantly decreased rAMR and right colon serrated polyp miss rate (clinical trial registration number: NCT03845933).
Improvement of adenoma detection rate by two computer-aided colonic polyp detection systems in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multicenter trial

Kasenee Tiankanon,Satimai Aniwan,Stephen J Kerr,Krittaya Mekritthikrai,Natanong Kongtab,Naruemon Wisedopas,Panida Piyachaturawat,Santi Kulpatcharapong,Sittikorn Linlawan,Poonrada Phromnil,Puth Muangpaisarn,Theerapat Orprayoon,Jaruwan Chanyaswad,Panukorn Sunthornwechapong,Peerapon Vateekul,Pinit Kullavanijaya,Rungsun Rerknimitr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2210-7999

Endoscopy

Abstract:Background: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of a self-developed computer-aided polyp detection system (SD-CADe) and a commercial system (CM-CADe) for high adenoma detectors compared with white-light endoscopy (WLE) as a control. Methods: Average-risk 50-75-year-old individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy at five referral centers were randomized to SD-CADe, CM-CADe, or WLE groups (1:1:1 ratio). Trainees and staff with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of ≥35% were recruited. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were the proximal adenoma detection rate (pADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and the number of adenomas, proximal adenomas, and advanced adenomas per colonoscopy (APC, pAPC, and AAPC, respectively). Results: The study enrolled 1200 participants. The ADR in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 38.3%, 50.0%, and 54.8%, respectively. The pADR was 23.0%, 32.3%, and 38.8%, respectively. AADR was 6.0%, 10.3%, and 9.5%, respectively. After adjustment, the ADR and pADR in both intervention groups were significantly higher than in controls (all P<0.05). The APC in the control, CM-CADe, and SD-CADe groups was 0.66, 1.04, and 1.16, respectively. The pAPC was 0.33, 0.53, and 0.64, respectively, and the AAPC was 0.07, 0.12, and 0.10, respectively. Both CADe systems showed significantly higher APC and pAPC than WLE. AADR and AAPC were improved in both CADe groups versus control, although the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Even in high adenoma detectors, CADe significantly improved ADR and APC. The AADR tended to be higher with both systems, and this may enhance colorectal cancer prevention.
Cuff-assisted versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: results of a randomized study

Javier Sola-Vera,Lourdes Catalá,Francisco Uceda,María Picó,Estefanía Pérez Rabasco,Jesús Sáez,Nuria Jiménez,María Arjona,María Fernández,Eva Girona,Mariana García-Sepulcre,María Dolores Picó,María Dolores Arjona,Mariana Fe García-Sepulcre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0901-7306

2019-05-16

Endoscopy

Abstract: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.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery

Fat absorption studies. VI. The passage of polyunsaturated fatty acids through the placenta.

Comparison of polyp detection during both insertion and withdrawal versus only withdrawal of colonoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

Commentary on "Effects of positioning on respiratory measures in individuals with cerebral palsy and severe scoliosis".

Colorectal polypectomy during insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal? A randomized controlled trial

Inspection and polypectomy during both insertion and withdrawal or only during withdrawal of colonoscopy?: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

Comparison of colon adenoma detection rates using cap-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of colonoscopic re-examination across the entire colon: a randomized controlled trial

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Patient’s Position Change during the Withdrawal Phase of Colonoscopy from Left Lateral Decubitus to Supine Position on Increasing Adenoma Detection Rate: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Higher Adenoma Detection Rates with Endocuff-Assisted Colonoscopy – A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

Re: Perivascular tissue of internal thoracic artery releases potent nitric oxide and prostacyclin-independent anticontractile factor.

Clinical significance of colorectal polyp detection on colonoscopy insertion

Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial

Reduced Adenoma Miss Rate With 9-Minute vs 6-Minute Withdrawal Times for Screening Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Tandem Trial

Sedated Colonoscopy may not be Beneficial for Polyp/Adenoma Detection

Impact of 9-Minute Withdrawal Time on the Adenoma Detection Rate: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Improved adenoma detection rate using a novel colonoscopic distal attachment: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Standard-definition White-light, High-definition White-light Versus Narrow-band Imaging Endoscopy for Detecting Colorectal Adenomas: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Comparison of Right Colon Adenoma Miss Rates Between Water Exchange and Carbon Dioxide Insufflation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Improvement of adenoma detection rate by two computer-aided colonic polyp detection systems in high adenoma detectors: a randomized multicenter trial

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