Search

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer is found., Objective: As PCCRC has become an important quality indicator, we determined its rates, characteristics, and index colonoscopy-related predictive factors., Methods: We carried out a multicenter, observational, retrospective study between 2015 and 2018. Rates were calculated for PCCRC developing up to 10 years after colonoscopy. PCCRC was categorized according to the most plausible explanation using World Endoscopy Organization methodology. Our PCCRC population was compared to a control cohort without CRC matched 1:4 by sex, age, index colonoscopy date, indication, endoscopist, and hospital., Results: One hundred seven PCCRC and 2508 detected CRC were diagnosed among 101,524 colonoscopy (0.1%), leading to rates of 0.4%, 2.2%, 3.1%, and 4.1% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. PCCRC was in right (42.4%), left (41.4%), and transverse (16.4%) colon with 31.5% at stage I, 24.7% stage II, 32.6% stage III, and 11.2% stage IV. Twenty point three percent were classified as incomplete resection, 5.4% as unresected lesions, 48.6% as missed lesions with adequate colonoscopy, and 25.7% as missed lesions with inadequate colonoscopy. The median time from colonoscopy to PCCRC was 42 months. Previous inadequate preparation (OR 3.05, 95%CI 1.73-5.36) and piecemeal polypectomy (OR 19.89, 95%CI 8.67-45.61) were independently associated with PCCRC., Conclusions: In our population, 4.1% of CRC cases were PCCRC. Most of these lesions were in right colon and attributable to lesions not visualized despite adequate bowel cleansing. Previous inadequate cleansing and piecemeal polypectomy were associated with PCCRC., (© 2023 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Introduction: The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers., Methods: Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed., Results: Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information., Conclusion: The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of glucagon vs placebo in resolving esophageal foreign body impaction (EFBI), as well as the length of the procedure and adverse events., Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial involving consecutive patients diagnosed with alimentary EFBI. Participants were randomized to receive either 1 mg of intravenous glucagon or placebo. All patients underwent upper endoscopy, and adverse events were assessed through a protocolized telephonic interview 7 days later., Results: The study included 72 subjects in the glucagon group and 68 in the placebo group. The foreign body was not identified in 23.6% of subjects in the glucagon group and 20.6% of subjects in the placebo group (difference 3%, 95% confidence interval -10.7% to 16.8%, P = 0.67). The median time required to remove the foreign body was similar in both groups 4 minutes (range 2-10) in the glucagon group and 3.5 minutes (range 2-7) in the placebo group (difference 0.5 minutes, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 2.3; P = 0.59). The most common adverse event reported in both groups was mild pharyngeal pain., Discussion: Glucagon is no more effective than placebo in resolving EFBI or shortening the time required to remove the foreign body (EUDRA-CT number 2019-004920-40)., (Copyright © 2024 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

Background: The role of computer-aided detection in identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the contribution of computer-aided detection to colonoscopic detection of advanced colorectal neoplasias as well as adenomas, serrated polyps, and nonpolypoid and right-sided lesions., Design: Multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04673136)., Setting: Spanish colorectal cancer screening program., Participants: 3213 persons with a positive fecal immunochemical test., Intervention: Enrollees were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with or without computer-aided detection., Measurements: Advanced colorectal neoplasia was defined as advanced adenoma and/or advanced serrated polyp., Results: The 2 comparison groups showed no significant difference in advanced colorectal neoplasia detection rate (34.8% with intervention vs. 34.6% for controls; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]) or the mean number of advanced colorectal neoplasias detected per colonoscopy (0.54 [SD, 0.95] with intervention vs. 0.52 [SD, 0.95] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [99.9% CI, 0.88 to 1.22]). Adenoma detection rate also did not differ (64.2% with intervention vs. 62.0% for controls; aRR, 1.06 [99.9% CI, 0.91 to 1.23]). Computer-aided detection increased the mean number of nonpolypoid lesions (0.56 [SD, 1.25] vs. 0.47 [SD, 1.18] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.19 [99.9% CI, 1.01 to 1.41]), proximal adenomas (0.94 [SD, 1.62] vs. 0.81 [SD, 1.52] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.17 [99.9% CI, 1.03 to 1.33]), and lesions of 5 mm or smaller (polyps in general and adenomas and serrated lesions in particular) detected per colonoscopy., Limitations: The high adenoma detection rate in the control group may limit the generalizability of the findings to endoscopists with low detection rates., Conclusion: Computer-aided detection did not improve colonoscopic identification of advanced colorectal neoplasias., Primary Funding Source: Medtronic., Competing Interests: Disclosures: All relevant financial relationships have been mitigated. Disclosures can also be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M22-2619.

Background and Objective: Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies., Methods: This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated., Results: We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR)., Conclusions: Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications., (© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Competing Interests: Dr. Aparicio is a consultant for Boston Scientific. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background: Current guidelines regarding surveillance after screening colonoscopy assume adequate bowel preparation. However, follow-up intervals after suboptimal cleansing are highly heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening colonoscopy., Methods: An observational study including patients who underwent colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation after positive FIT screening and then repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Suboptimal preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 1 in any segment. Patients with a BBPS score of 0 in any segment or incomplete examination were excluded. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and colorectal cancer rate were calculated for the index and repeat colonoscopies., Results: Of the 2474 patients with FIT-positive colonoscopy at our center during this period, 314 (12.7 %) had suboptimal preparation. Of the 259 (82.5 %) patients who underwent repeat colonoscopy, suboptimal cleansing persisted in 22 (9 %). On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 38.7 % (95 %CI 32.6 % to 44.8 %) and the AADR was 14.9 % (95 %CI 10.5 % to 19.4 %). The per-adenoma miss rate was 27.7 % (95 %CI 24.0 % to 31.6 %), and the per-advanced adenoma miss rate was 17.6 % (95 %CI 13.3 % to 22.7 %). After repeat colonoscopy, the post-polypectomy surveillance recommendation changed from 10 to 3 years in 14.7 % of the patients with previous 10-year surveillance recommendation., Conclusions: Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on FIT-positive colonoscopy present a high rate of advanced adenomas in repeat colonoscopy, with major changes in post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations., Competing Interests: R. Jover. has received research grants from MSD, and has been an advisor to MSD, Norgine, Alpha-Sigma, and GISupply. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Dr. Aparicio is a consultant for Boston Scientific. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: Drs. Aparicio and Berzin are consultants for Boston Scientific. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the method of choice for feeding and nutritional support in patients with a normal gastrointestinal function who require long-term enteral nutrition. We report our experience regarding an alternative endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PEG technique. A retrospective clinical experience case series study was conducted from January 2019 to November 2019 at a tertiary center. Adult patients deemed unfit for conventional PEG due to absence of transillumination or previous gastric surgery were enrolled. An EUS target was created by filling a glove with saline and placing it in the abdomen. EUS was performed and the target identified from the stomach. The abdominal wall was punctured from the stomach and a guidewire was advanced. The guidewire was knotted to a string, which was passed into the stomach and drawn back through the mouth. The procedure was continued following the traditional technique. Four patients underwent EUS-PEG in our center during the study period. Mean age was 65 years and 50% were male. Two patients (50%) had a body mass index over 30. PEG indications were tongue malignancies (50%), cerebrovascular disease (25%) and dementia (25%). One patient had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy was performed. Technical success rate was 100% and no complications occurred. This case series shows that the EUS-guided PEG technique is a safe alternative in patients deemed unfit for conventional PEG., (© 2020 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)