Search

Background and Aims: Prophylactic application of a hemoclip has been suggested as an alternative to the use of an endoloop for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) when resecting large, pedunculated colorectal polyps. Therefore, this multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigated the efficacy of prophylactic hemoclip application to reduce PPB during the resection of large pedunculated polyps., Methods: Large pedunculated polyps (≥10 mm in head diameter) were eligible for inclusion. Polyps were randomized into a study arm (where clips were applied before resection) and a control arm (without pretreatment). The primary outcome was the rate of PPB in each group. PPB included immediate PPB (IPPB) and delayed PPB (DPPB). IPPB was defined as blood oozing (≥1 minute) or active spurting occurring immediately after polyp resection. DPPB was defined as rectal bleeding, occurring after completion of the colonoscopy., Results: In total, 238 polyps from 204 patients were randomized into the clip arm (119 polyps) or the control arm (119 polyps). Overall bleeding adverse events were observed in 20 cases (IPPB, 16; DPPB, 4). The rate of overall PPB, IPPB, and DPPB was 8.4%, 6.7%, and 1.7%, respectively, for all polyps. The rate of overall PPB (clip 4.2% vs control 12.6%, P = .033) and IPPB (clip 2.5% vs control 10.9%, P = .017) was significantly lower in the clip arm than the control arm., Conclusions: Prophylactic clipping before resecting large pedunculated polyps can reduce overall PPB and IPPB compared with no prior treatment. Therefore, prophylactic clipping may be considered before resection of large pedunculated polyps. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02156193.)., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The safest and most efficient method of sedation for outpatient colonoscopy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of bolus administration of midazolam compared with titrated administration and propofol administration for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy., Methods: We randomly divided patients undergoing colonoscopy into the propofol group, bolus midazolam group, and titrated midazolam group. We compared total procedure time, induction time, recovery time, and discharge time among the 3 groups. We also compared patient satisfaction and the incidence of adverse events., Results: In total, 267 patients (89 in each study group) were enrolled during the study period. Patients in the propofol group had a shorter total procedure time (39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 minutes; P < .001), induction time (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 minutes; P < .001), recovery time (11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 minutes; P < .001), and discharge time (20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 minutes; P < .001) than patients in the bolus midazolam group and titrated midazolam group. Patients in the propofol group reported higher degrees of satisfaction than patients in the bolus or titrated midazolam plus meperidine groups (9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6 [P = .007] and 4.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8 [P = .008], respectively). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups., Conclusions: In this randomized trial, propofol was superior to bolus or titrated midazolam in terms of endoscopy unit efficiency and patient satisfaction during outpatient colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002805.)., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are associated with a higher migration rate than uncovered SEMSs., Objective: The antimigration property of a novel covered SEMS was investigated in a canine esophageal stricture model., Design: The new stent (80 mm in length, 20 or 24 mm in diameter) has multiple protuberances on its body that were designed to be separated from the inner silicone membrane so that they could be embedded into the mucosa after deployment. Twenty-two beagle dogs were subjected to circumferential EMR in the middle esophagus for stricture formation. After 2 weeks, conventional covered stents were inserted in a control group (n = 11), and the newly designed covered SEMSs were inserted in a study group (n = 11)., Setting: Animal laboratory., Interventions: Circumferential EMR of the middle esophagus for stricture formation, followed by endoscopic placement of a conventional or newly designed stent., Main Outcome Measurements: Migration, complications, survival, and esophageal histopathology., Results: There was no significant difference in the diameter of the esophageal stricture between the control and study groups (10 mm vs 11 mm, P = .52). Within 3 days, all stents in the control group had migrated, whereas 6 had migrated in the study group (100% vs 55%, P = .035). There were no significant complications directly associated with stent insertion., Limitations: Complications, survival, and esophageal histopathology could not be compared because all of the conventional stents migrated in the control group within 3 days., Conclusions: The newly designed covered SEMS is more resistant to migration than the conventional covered SEMS., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Various training programs in colonoscopy recommend that trainees should perform at least 100 to 200 procedures to be considered technically competent at diagnostic colonoscopy., Objective: Our purpose was to determine the adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy., Design: A prospective multicenter trial., Setting: Fifteen tertiary care academic medical centers., Patients: Over 8 months we prospectively evaluated the procedures of 24 first-year GI fellows in 15 tertiary care academic medical centers. A total of 4351 colonoscopies were assessed prospectively with variable clinical factors., Intervention: Cecal intubation was documented by photographing the identified cecal landmarks, including the appendiceal orifice and the ileocecal valve., Main Outcome Measurements: Acquisition of competence (success rate) was evaluated for colonoscopic training on the basis of 2 objective criteria: (1) adjusted completion rate (>90%) and (2) cecal intubation time (<20 minutes)., Results: The overall success rate was 83.5% (3635/4351). The mean cecal intubation time was 9.23 +/- 4.63 minutes. The success rate significantly improved and reached the requisite standard of competence after 150 procedures (71.5%, 82.6%, 91.3%, 94.4%, 98.4%, and 98.7%, respectively, for every 50 consecutive blocks). The polyp detection rate did not improve significantly during the 8 months and was not correlated with the learning curve. In addition, mean time to cecal intubation decreased significantly, from 11.16 to 8.39 minutes, after 150 procedures. Logistic regression analysis found that prolonged cecal intubation was caused by the following factors: elderly patients, female sex, low body mass index, poor bowel preparation, poor American Society of Anesthesiologists status, abdominal pain as an indication, instructor's supervision, and low case volume., Limitations: We did not record final pathologic reports of detected polyps and withdrawal time., Conclusions: Competence in technically efficient screening and diagnostic colonoscopy generally requires experience with more than 150 cases. Also, factors associated with prolonged cecal intubation for typical trainees did not differ from those for experienced colonoscopists.