Abstract:Abstract Background Recently, the implementation of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy (AIAC) has resulted in improved performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key quality indicator in screening colonoscopies and achieving high ADRs is crucial for optimal prevention of CRC. Guidelines suggest that ADRs of 20% in women and 30% in males are indicative of adequate performance. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk for CRC based on disease extent and duration. However, ADR in patients with IBD can be generally lower than in average-risk patients, mainly due to an age gap and the presence of dysplasia associated lesions as opposed to sporadic adenomas. Indeed, there is no consensus for an accepted ADR target in these patients. In addition, the impact of AIAC on ADR in these patients has yet to be described. We aimed to explore the ADR of patients with IBD in a large-volume endoscopic center and evaluate the effect of AIAC on ADR. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted at a high-volume gastroenterology department where all endoscopy suites were equipped with an AIA device (GI Genius, Medtronic, Ireland) starting from July 1st 2021. Data was collected on all colonoscopies performed in the 11 months before the mentioned date and compared to a 15-month period afterwards. We excluded patients that performed colonoscopy due to evaluation of IBD severity, for known or suspected malignancy, therapeutic endoscopies, incomplete colonoscopies and colonoscopies with inadequate preparation. The primary outcome of the study was ADR. Results Our study included 996 colonoscopies (237 pre-AIAC, 759 AIAC). The groups were similar in age (median 43.8 years, interquartile ratio (IQR) 28.7-61.2 vs 44.5 years, IQR 30.7-59.1, p=0.76) and gender distribution (55.3% vs 54.3% males, p=0.82). In both groups, there were more Crohn’s disease (62.9% pre-AIAC, 57.2% AIAC, p=0.13) than ulcerative colitis patients. The ADR in the pre-AIAC group tended to be higher in comparison to AIAC (6.3% vs 4%, p=0.15); When limiting to experienced gastroenterologists only (≥ 5 years), ADR results were significant higher in the pre-AIAC group (7.6% vs 3.8%, p=0.035). In addition, total procedure time (considered the time from procedure start and end as recorded by the endoscopy nurse) was significantly shorter in the AIAC group (21 minutes, IQR 17-28 vs 25 minutes, IQR 19-37, p<0.0001). Conclusion In a large-volume tertiary center cohort, the introduction of AIAC to real-world colonoscopies did not improve ADR in patients with IBD, questioning the integration of AIAC in routine practice.

Impact of Fellow Participation During Colonoscopy on Adenoma Detection Rates

Adenoma Detection Rate in Colonoscopy: Does the Participation of a Resident Matter?

Adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: how can it be improved?

Adenoma Detection Rate and Polyp Detection Rate among Gastroenterology Fellows and Consultants in a Tertiary Hospital in the Philippines: A Cross-sectional Study

S467 A Retrospective Study Examining the Impact of Computer-Aided Detection on Adenoma Detection Rate Amongst Non-Gastroenterology Endoscopists in a Rural Medical Center

The impact of endoscopist performance and patient factors on distal adenoma detection and colorectal cancer incidence

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

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

Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test–Based Screening

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

Association between improved adenoma detection rates and interval colorectal cancer rates after a quality improvement program

Adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy in real-world population-based studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Colonoscopic factors associated with adenoma detection in a national colorectal cancer screening program

S924 A Comparison of Distal Attachment Devices, Artificial Intelligence, and Standard Colonoscopy for Adenoma Detection Rate and Withdrawal Times: Advantage or Hindrance

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

Trends in Detection of Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesions Over a Decade in a Community-based Healthcare System

The Impact of Computer-aided Detection Technology in Adenoma Detection Rate Among Experienced Endoscopists in the Community Setting

Changes in Adenoma Detection Rate With Implementation of Full-spectrum Endoscopy: A Report of 3998 Screening Colonoscopies

P267 Real-world artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy does not improve adenoma detection rates in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Comparison of adenoma detection and miss rates between a novel balloon colonoscope and standard colonoscopy: a randomized tandem study

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