Search

Background and aims: The use of conventional oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) has gained popularity; nonetheless, they may be not only inconvenient to swallow but also difficult to dissolve. A novel mini-OST has recently been developed to enhance compliance with conventional OST use. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety between mini-OST and conventional OST. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, and non-inferior phase 3 trial conducted between September 2022 and December 2022. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability were compared between mini-OST and conventional OST. Results: Exactly 83 patients were evaluated based on a full analysis set (FAS), whereas 82 patients were evaluated as a per-protocol set (PPS). With respect to the efficacy of preparation, successful and high-quality preparation was excellent in the mini-OST and conventional OST groups on both FAS and PPS analyses, without significant differences between the two groups. On the FAS analysis, the satisfaction and tolerability scores were high in both groups, without significant differences. The first bowel movement after taking the investigational product occurred 30 min earlier in the mini-OST group than in the OST group. Mild, moderate, and severe adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the two groups; however, any AEs were more common in the mini-OST group than in the conventional OST group overall. Conclusions: Compared with conventional OST, the novel mini-OST preparation showed similar efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including mild eight solicited AEs and moderate-to-severe AEs. Clinical trial registration NCT05670470. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Experience in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been suggested as a prerequisite for performing colorectal ESD by some experts.Aims: To evaluate the feasibility of performing colorectal ESD without experience in gastric ESD.Methods: Between November 2009 and December 2013, ESD was attempted for 250 colorectal lesions by an endoscopist having extensive colonoscopy experience but no prior experience of gastric ESD. All attempts were categorized according to the chronological order of procedures: group 1, attempts 1-50; group 2, attempts 51-100; group 3, attempts 101-150; group 4, attempts 151-200; and group 5, attempts 201-250. Procedure-related outcomes were analyzed.Results: En bloc resection rate ≥80% was achieved after initial ten ESD attempts. The ESD success rate (72, 80, 90, 90, and 94% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.001), perforation rate (14, 14, 6, 6, and 0% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.003), and macroperforation rate (6, 6, 2, 2, and 0% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.042) improved as experience accumulated. Performing >100 ESDs, rectal location, and absence of submucosal fibrosis were independent predictors of successful procedure.Conclusion: Colorectal ESD can be safely and effectively performed by an endoscopist having extensive experience in colonoscopy-related procedures even without previous experience of gastric ESD. Meticulous case selection for ESD novice and active supervision by expert endoscopists during the initial learning period may minimize the risk of perforation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "Is Endoscopic Closure With Clips Effective for Both Diagnostic and Therapeutic Colonoscopy-Associated Bowel Perforation?" that was published in the April 17, 2010 issue is presented.

We developed and validated a deep-learning algorithm for polyp detection. We used a YOLOv2 to develop the algorithm for automatic polyp detection on 8,075 images (503 polyps). We validated the algorithm using three datasets: A: 1,338 images with 1,349 polyps; B: an open, public CVC-clinic database with 612 polyp images; and C: 7 colonoscopy videos with 26 polyps. To reduce the number of false positives in the video analysis, median filtering was applied. We tested the algorithm performance using 15 unaltered colonoscopy videos (dataset D). For datasets A and B, the per-image polyp detection sensitivity was 96.7% and 90.2%, respectively. For video study (dataset C), the per-image polyp detection sensitivity was 87.7%. False positive rates were 12.5% without a median filter and 6.3% with a median filter with a window size of 13. For dataset D, the sensitivity and false positive rate were 89.3% and 8.3%, respectively. The algorithm detected all 38 polyps that the endoscopists detected and 7 additional polyps. The operation speed was 67.16 frames per second. The automatic polyp detection algorithm exhibited good performance, as evidenced by the high detection sensitivity and rapid processing. Our algorithm may help endoscopists improve polyp detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The recurrence rate after standard cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) of diminutive polyps of ≤5 mm has not been fully determined. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term follow-up results and recurrence rate after CFP of diminutive polyps.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 884 (738 men; age 53 years) asymptomatic subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy after CFP of 1-2 diminutive adenomatous polyps. Cumulative recurrence at the CFP site and risk factors for recurrence were analyzed.Results: Overall recurrence over 59.7 months was 17 % after CFP of 1111 diminutive polyps. The rate of definite recurrence was 4 %, and probable recurrence was 13 %. Recurrence as advanced adenoma was 0.5 % (5/1111). The cumulative probabilities of recurrence at 3, 5, and 7 years after CFP were 10.0, 16.0, and 21.1 %, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp 4-5 mm in size and right colonic polyp were risk factors for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.86 and HR 1.49; 95 % CI 1.08-2.04, respectively). The recurrence rate for 10 endoscopists who performed at least 50 CFPs ranged from 11.0 to 25.2 %; the probability of recurrence in those in the top half in terms of recurrence rate was 1.6-fold higher than that of those in the bottom half (95 % CI 1.17-2.19).Conclusions: Although recurrence may develop after standard CFP of diminutive polyps, recurrence as advanced adenoma is rare. Large polyp size, right colon polyp, and endoscopist are risk factors for recurrence after standard CFP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: This study aimed to develop and validate a risk score model to estimate the probability of a metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasm (ACRN) at surveillance colonoscopy.Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively obtained database of 11,042 asymptomatic subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy after a screening colonoscopy was conducted. Subjects were randomly divided into derivation (n = 7730) and validation sets (n = 3312). From the derivation cohort, risk factors for a metachronous ACRN were identified by a multivariable analysis. Risk points were allocated to each risk factor based on the hazard ratio to develop the Metachronous Advanced colorectal neoplasm Prediction Scoring (MAPS) model, the performance of which was assessed in the validation cohort.Results: In the derivation cohort, age, male, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp, and a high-risk CRN (ACRN or ≥3 adenomas) at screening colonoscopy were independent risk factors for a metachronous ACRN. These variables were incorporated into the MAPS model, and the risk score ranged 0-17 (high MAPS risk arbitrarily defined as 10-17). At the 3-year surveillance colonoscopy, ACRN was found in 5.1 % of the high MAPS risk group versus 3.9 % of the high-risk CRN group. The colonoscopy number needed to detect one metachronous ACRN at the 3-year surveillance was 19.5 (95 % CI 11.7-33.2) for the high MAPS risk group versus 25.8 (95 % CI 15.4-44.0) for the high-risk CRN group. These findings were similarly confirmed in the validation cohort.Conclusions: Our MAPS model based on clinical and colonoscopic parameters effectively predicts the risk of a metachronous ACRN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current guidelines for the surveillance colonoscopy interval are largely based on the most recent colonoscopy findings. Aim: We aimed to evaluate differences in the probability of high-risk neoplasm recurrence according to the two previous colonoscopy findings. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study from a tertiary-care center. A total of 4,143 subjects who underwent three or more colonoscopies for screening or surveillance purposes from January 2001 to December 2011 were enrolled. We compared the probability of high-risk neoplasm detection on follow-up colonoscopies after the second colonoscopy based on risk categories in both the second and first colonoscopies. Results: At the final colonoscopy, 370 participants (8.9 %) had high-risk neoplasms. In patients with a normal second colonoscopy, the probability of high-risk neoplasm recurrence was different between those with normal, low-risk, and high-risk findings at the first colonoscopy (3.8, 6.8, and 17.7 %, respectively). The hazard ratio of a high-risk neoplasm at the final colonoscopy for patients with a normal second and low-risk first colonoscopy over a normal second and normal first colonoscopy was 3.07 (95 % CI 2.04-4.64, P < 0.001). The hazard ratio of high-risk neoplasm at the final colonoscopy for patients with a normal second and high-risk first colonoscopy over a normal second with normal first colonoscopy was 7.88 (95 % CI 4.90-12.67, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The rate of high-risk colorectal neoplasm recurrence differs according to the two previous colonoscopy findings. Therefore, surveillance intervals could be adjusted not just only by the most recent colonoscopy findings but also by considering two previous colonoscopy findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal colon-cleansing method after failure of bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy has not been established. Aims: We aimed to compare BP rescue methods after failed initial BP and to identify risk factors for rescue BP failure. Methods: Eighty-five patients with BP failure after 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) ingestion were prospectively enrolled from March 2008 to March 2012. A second colonoscopy was performed either on the same day after ingestion of another 2 L PEG (group A) or 1 week later after ingestion of 4 L PEG plus 20 mg oral bisacodyl (group B). Differences between groups in terms of BP quality and risk factors for a poor BP on the second colonoscopy were investigated. Results: Median patient age was 59 years, 45 were male (52.9 %), and 17 (20 %) had poor BP on the second colonoscopy. For group B, the multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for poor BP on the second colonoscopy relative to group A was 0.68 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-2.95). Adequately ingested PEG during the initial colonoscopy was associated with poor BP on the second colonoscopy (OR 4.05; 95 % CI 1.04-15.75). The two groups had similar patient discomfort rates during the second BP. Conclusions: The two groups did not differ in rescue BP failure rate. Initial BP failure after adequate consumption of 4 L PEG may be a risk factor for rescue BP failure. A stricter BP regimen should be considered for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of one-stage polypectomy (removal of all neoplasms during diagnostic colonoscopy) versus two-stage polypectomy (removal of all neoplasms during therapeutic colonoscopy following the initial diagnostic colonoscopy) on the development of metachronous neoplasms is poorly understood. Our aim was to compare the effects of one- versus two-stage polypectomy on the development of metachronous neoplasms Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 249 patients in a tertiary center who underwent one-stage polypectomy, which was followed by one or more surveillance colonoscopy. The development of metachronous neoplasm in this group was compared with that of an age- and sex-matched two-stage polypectomy group consisting of 498 patients Results: In total, 346 (46.3 %) patients developed any metachronous neoplasm and 29 (3.9 %) patients developed advanced metachronous neoplasm. The 5 years cumulative incidences of any and advanced metachronous neoplasm were 46.2 and 5.0 %, respectively, in the one-stage group, which are not significantly different from the rates of 50.7 and 3.3 % in the two-stage group ( p = 0.94 and 0.30, respectively). The only significant risk factor for developing any metachronous neoplasm was ≥3 neoplasms at the baseline polypectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.75; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.41-2.17; p < 0.001]. The only significant risk factor for developing advanced metachronous neoplasm was advanced neoplasm at the baseline polypectomy (HR 2.37; 95 % CI 1.16-4.84; p = 0.01). One- and two-stage polypectomy did not affect the development rates of metachronous neoplasm Conclusions: The risks of developing metachronous neoplasm may be similar following one- and two-stage polypectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]