Search

Background Predictive scores aim to predict bowel preparation adequacy among hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy. We evaluated the comparative efficacy of these scores in predicting inadequate bowel cleansing in a cohort of Greek inpatients. Methods We performed a post hoc analysis of data generated from a cohort of inpatients undergoing colonoscopy in 4 tertiary Greek centers to validate the 3 models currently available (models A, B and C). We used the Akaike information criterion to quantify the performance of each model, while Harrell's C-index, as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), verified the discriminative ability to predict inadequate bowel prep. Primary endpoint was the comparison of performance among models for predicting inadequate bowel cleansing. 70.7 +/- 15.4 years-were included in the analysis. Model B showed the highest performance (Harrell's C-index: AUC 77.2% vs. 72.6% and 57.5%, compared to models A and C, respectively). It also achieved higher performance for the subgroup of mobilized inpatients (Harrell's C-index: AUC 72.21% vs. 64.97% and 59.66%, compared to models A and C, respectively). Model B also performed better in predicting patients with incomplete colonoscopy due to inadequate bowel preparation (Harrell's C-index: AUC 74.23% vs. 69.07% and 52.76%, compared to models A and C, respectively).Conclusions Predictive model B outperforms its comparators in the prediction of inpatients with inadequate bowel preparation. This model is particularly advantageous when used to evaluate mobilized inpatients.

Objectives: Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs). Material and methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence. Results: Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection-cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device-while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: Endocuff - a plastic device with flexible projections - mounted on the distal tip of the colonoscope, promises improved colonic mucosa inspection. AIM: To elucidate the effect of Endocuff on adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC). METHODS: Literature searches identified randomized-controlled trials evaluating Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) vs conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, AADR and MAC. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using fixed or random effect model, as appropriate, and it is shown as relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] and mean difference (MD) (95%CI). The rate of device removal in EAC arms was also calculated. RESULTS: We identified nine studies enrolling 6038 patients. All studies included mixed population (screening, surveillance and diagnostic examinations). Seven and two studies evaluated the first and the second-generation device, respectively. EAC was associated with increased ADR compared to CC [RR (95%CI): 1.18 (1.05-1.32); Ι 2 = 71%]; EAC benefits more endoscopists with ADR ≤ 35% compared to those with ADR > 35% [RR (95%CI): 1.37 (1.08-1.74); Ι 2 = 49% vs 1.10 (0.99-1.24); Ι 2 = 71%]. In terms of AADR and MAC, no difference was detected between EAC and CC [RR (95%CI): 1.03 (0.85-1.25); Ι 2 = 15% and MD (95%CI): 0.30 (-0.17-0.78); Ι 2 = 99%]. Subgroup analysis did not show any difference between the two device generations regarding all three endpoints. In EAC arms, the device had to be removed in 3% (95%CI: 2%-5%) of the cases mainly due to tortuous sigmoid or presence of diverticula along it. CONCLUSION: EAC increases ADR compared to CC, especially for endoscopists with lower ADR. On the other hand, no significant effect on AADR and MAC was detected.