Search

A relevant number of adenomas can be missed during colonoscopy.Assess the current status of colonoscopy procedures in Italian centers.A prospective observational study involving 17 hospitals (34 endoscopists) included consecutive patients undergoing standard colonoscopy. In the first phase, endoscopists performed consecutive colonoscopies. In the second phase, retraining via an online learning platform was planned, while in the third phase data were collected analogously to phase 1.A total of 3,504 patients were enrolled. Overall, a BBPS score ≥6 was obtained in 95.6% of cases (94.8% and 96.9% in the pre- and post-training phases, respectively). 88.4% of colonoscopies had a withdrawal time ≥6 min (88.2% and 88.7% in the pre- and post-training phases). Median adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 39.1%, with no significant differences between the pre- and post-training phases (40.1% vs 36.9%; P = 0.83). In total, 81% of endoscopists had a ADR performance above the 25% threshold.High colonoscopy quality standards are achieved by the Italian hospitals involved. Quality improvement initiatives and repeated module-based colonoscopy-training have been promoted in Italy during the last decade, which appear to have had a significant impact on quality colonoscopy metrics together with the activation of colorectal cancer screening programs.

Few studies focused on minor adverse events which may develop after colonoscopy.To investigate the incidence and factors associated to post-colonoscopy symptoms.This is a prospective study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. The main outcome was a cumulative score combining 10 gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms occurring the week following colonoscopy. The analyses were conducted via multivariate logistic regression.Of 793 subjects included in the analysis, 361 (45.5%) complained the new onset of at least one GI symptom after the exam; one symptom was reported by 202 (25.5%), two or more symptoms by 159 (20.1%). Newly developed symptoms more frequently reported were epigastric/abdominal bloating (32.2%), pain (17.3%), and dyspeptic symptoms (17.9%). Symptoms were associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR]=2.54), increasing number of symptoms developed during bowel preparation intake (OR=1.35) and somatic symptoms (OR=1.27). An inverse association was observed with better mood (OR=0.74). A high-risk profile was identified, represented by women with bad mood and somatic symptoms (OR=8.81).About half of the patients develop de novo GI symptoms following colonoscopy. Improving bowel preparation tolerability may reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy symptoms, especially in more vulnerable patients.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the reliability, intra- and inter-observer variation of the SPICE, Mucosal protrusion angle (MPA) and SHYUNG scores in differentiating a subepithelial mass (SEM) from a bulge.This retrospective multicentre study analysed the 3 scores, radiological studies, enteroscopy and/or surgical findings.100 patients with a potential SEM (mean age 57.6years) were recruited with 75 patients having pathology. In patients with a SEM the mean SPICE score was 2.04 (95% CI 1.82-2.26) as compared to 1.16 (95% CI 0.81-1.51) without any pathology (AUC 0.74, p0.001), with a fair intra-observer agreement (Kappa 0.3, p0.001) and slight inter-observer agreement (Kappa 0.14, p0.05). SPICE had a 37.3% sensitivity and 92.0% specificity in distinguishing between a SEM and bulge, whereas MPA90˚ had 58.7% and 76.0% respectively, with poor intra-observer(p = 0.05) and interobserver agreement (p = 0.64). The SHYUNG demonstrated a moderate intra-observer (Kappa 0.44, p0.001) and slight inter-observer reliability (Kappa 0.18, p0.001). The sensitivity of an elevated SHYUNG score (≥4) in identifying a SEM was 18.7% with a specificity of 92.0% (AUC 0.71, p = 0.002).Though these scores are easy to use, they have, at best, slight to moderate intra and inter-observer agreement. Their overall diagnostic performances are limited.

Endoscopy featured water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE.A questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in-depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in-depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified.Of 100 respondents, 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co-authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta-analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On-demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time.An important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE.

Background and Aims: Meckel's diverticulum (MD) may remain silent or be associated with adverse events such as GI bleeding. The main aim of this study was to evaluate indicative small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) findings, and the secondary aim was to describe clinical presentation in patients with MD. Methods: This retrospective European multicenter study included patients with MD undergoing SBCE from 2001 until July 2021. Results: Sixty-nine patients with a confirmed MD were included. Median age was 32 years with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 3:1. GI bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia was present in nearly all patients. Mean hemoglobin was 7.63 ± 1.8 g/dL with a transfusion requirement of 52.2%. Typical capsule endoscopy (CE) findings were double lumen (n = 49 [71%]), visible entrance into the MD (n = 49 [71%]), mucosal webs (n = 30 [43.5%]), and bulges (n = 19 [27.5%]). Two or more of these findings were seen in 48 patients (69.6%). Ulcers were detected in 52.2% of patients (n = 36). In 63.8% of patients (n = 44), a combination of double lumen and visible entrance into the MD was evident, additionally revealing ulcers in 39.1% (n = 27). Mean percent SB (small bowel) transit time for the first indicative image of MD was 57% of the total SB transit time. Conclusions: Diagnosis of MD is rare and sometimes challenging, and a preoperative criterion standard does not exist. In SBCE, the most frequent findings were double-lumen sign and visible diverticular entrance, sometimes together with ulcers.

Enteroscopy plays an important role in the management of small bowel bleeding. However, current guidelines are not specifically designed for small bowel bleeding and recommendations from different international societies do not always align. Consequently, there is heterogeneity in the definitions of clinical entities, clinical practice policies, and adherence to guidelines among clinicians. This represents an obstacle to providing the best patient care and to obtain homogeneous data for clinical research.The aims of the study were to establish a consensus on the definitions of bleeding entities and on the role of enteroscopy in the management of small bowel bleeding using a Delphi process.A core group of eight experts in enteroscopy identified five main topics of small bowel bleeding management and drafted statements on each topic. An expert panel of nine gastroenterologists participated in three rounds of the Delphi process, together with the core group.A total of 33 statements were approved after three rounds of Delphi voting.This Delphi consensus proposes clear definitions and a unifying strategy to standardize the management of small bowel bleeding. Furthermore, it provides a useful guide in daily practice for both clinical and technical issues of enteroscopy.

Background Inpatients are at risk for inadequate colon cleansing. Experts recommend 4L-polyethylene-glycol (PEG) solution. A higher colon cleansing adequacy rate for a hyperosmolar 1L-PEG plus ascorbate prep has been recently reported. Aims We aimed to determine whether 1L-PEG outperforms 4L-PEG among inpatients. Methods post-hoc analysis of a large Italian multicenter prospective observational study among inpatients (QIPS study). We performed a propensity score matching between 1L-PEG and 4L-PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleansing as assessed by unblinded endoscopists through Boston scale. Secondary outcome was the safety profile. Results Among 1,004 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 724 (72%) were prescribed 4L-PEG and 280 (28%) 1L-PEG. The overall adequate colon cleansing rate was 69.2% (n = 695). We matched 274 pairs of patients with similar distribution of confounders. The rate of patients with adequate colon cleansing was higher in 1L-PEG than in 4L-PEG group (84.3% vs. 77.4%, p = 0.039). No different shift in serum concentration of electrolytes (namely Na+, K+, Ca2+), creatinine and hematocrit were observed for both preparations. Conclusion We found a higher rate of adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy with the 1L-PEG bowel prep vs. 4L-PEG, with apparent similar safety profile, among inpatients. A confirmatory randomized trial is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT04310332)

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) plays a crucial role in the management of gastroduodenal diseases by allowing a direct and accurate evaluation of the mucosa and the execution of several operative maneuvers. Despite a constant development of new imaging tools and operative devices, the widespread use of EGD has not resulted in a significant reduction of mortality for patients affected by esophageal/gastric cancer during the last three decades in Western countries. Evidence indicates that this disheartening scenario derives from a high variability of execution of EGD which determines its quality and diagnostic yield, delaying the diagnosis of neoplastic diseases. Based on this evidence, in recent years many scientific societies have produced different position papers aimed at defining quality performance measures in EGD. Thus, the Italian Association of Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy and the Italian Society of Gastroenterology have produced this joint document based on the review of ASGE, ACG, BSG, ESGE and Asian Consensus EGD position papers with the aim of indicating the quality standards of EGD (pre-, intra- and post-procedure) focused on lesion detection to be adopted in the Italian context.

Symptoms developing during bowel preparation are major concerns among subjects who refuse the procedure.We aimed to explore the determinants of symptoms occurring during preparation among patients undergoing elective colonoscopy.This is a prospective multicenter study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. A multidimensional approach collecting socio-demographic, clinical, psychological and occupational information before colonoscopy through validated instruments was used. Outcome was a four-category cumulative score based on symptoms occurring during preparation, according to the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire, weighted by intensity. Missing values were addressed through multiple imputation. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated through multivariate logistic regression models.1137 subjects were enrolled. Severe symptoms were associated with female sex (OR=3.64, 95%CI 1.94-6.83), heavier working hours (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.01-1.25), previous gastrointestinal symptoms (OR=7.81, 95% CI 2.36-25.8 for high score), somatic symptoms (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.06-4.49 for multiple symptoms), day-before regimen (OR=2.71, 95%CI 1.28-5.73). On the other hand, age ≥60 years (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.44) and good mood (p=0.042) were protective factors. A high-risk profile was identified, including women with low mood and somatic symptoms (OR=15.5, 95%CI 4.56-52.7).We identified previously unreported determinants of symptoms burdening bowel preparation and identified a particularly vulnerable phenotype. Symptoms during preparation especially impact heavier working activity.

Introduction Advanced adenomas (≥10 mm in diameter, >25% villous, or high-grade dysplasia), a marker of colorectal cancer risk, are used to stratify patients for closer surveillance. Modern accessories, endoscopes, and age-adjusted evaluation have variable impacts on the advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). In 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing air insufflation (AI) with water exchange (WE), the right colon AADR was significantly increased by WE. Four network meta-analyses reported that WE significantly increased overall adenoma detection rate (ADR), but the impact on AADR was not addressed. Aim The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that WE significantly increased AADR compared with AI. Method Six Clinicaltrial.gov-registered RCTs were reported by a group of WE investigators. Data including AADR (primary outcome) and overall ADR (secondary outcome) were pooled. Results A total of 5407 patients were randomized to AI (2699) and WE (2708). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased AADR (5.7% vs. 8.3%, P=0.001) and overall ADR (20.9% vs. 27.4%, P=0.001). Conclusions In contrast to published reports, which showed variable impacts on AADR, WE was consistent in increasing AADR in 6 reported RCTs. The pooled data confirm that the impact of WE in increasing AADR was significant. The significantly enhanced overall ADR indicated that WE provided a higher quality outcome than AI. The significant improvement in AADR confirmed WE to be clinically relevant and has finally arrived as a timely addition to colorectal cancer prevention programs.

Background and study aims The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recently issued a quality performance measures document for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). The aim of this nationwide survey was to explore SBCE practice with ESGE quality measures as a benchmark.Patients and methods A dedicated per-center semi-quantitative questionnaire based on ESGE performance measures for SBCE was created by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-eighty-one centers were invited to participate and were asked to calculate performance measures for SBCE performed in 2018. Data were compared with 10 ESGE quality standards for both key and minor performance measures.Results Ninety-one centers (50.3 %) participated in the data collection. Overall in the last 5 years (2014–2018), 26,615 SBCEs were performed, 5917 of which were done in 2018. Eighty percent or more of the participating centers reached the minimum standard established by the ESGE Small Bowel Working Group (ESBWG) for four performance measures (indications for SBCE, complete small bowel evaluation, diagnostic yield and retention rate). Conversely, compliance with six minimum standards established by ESBWG concerning adequate bowel preparation, patient selection, timing of SBCE in overt bleeding, appropriate reporting, reading protocols and referral to device-assisted enteroscopy was met by only 15.5 %, 10.9 %, 31.1 %, 67.7 %, 53.4 %, and 32.2 % of centers, respectively.Conclusions The present survey shows significant variability across SBCE centers; only four (4/10: 40 %) SBCE procedural minimum standards were met by a relevant proportion of the centers ( ≥ 80 %). Our data should help in identifying target areas for quality improvement programs in SBCE.

Background Although the efficacy of water-assisted colonoscopy is well established, the role of water immersion sigmoidoscopy (WIS) remains unclear. We compared WIS with carbon dioxide insufflation sigmoidoscopy (CO2S) on patient outcomes. Methods We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a single-center quality improvement program about patients undergoing unsedated screening sigmoidoscopy (WIS and CO2S) between May 2019 and January 2020. Outcomes studied included the following: Rates of severe pain 75% (proportion of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score: 2-3) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results In total, 234 patients (111 WIS; 123 CO2S) were included. All patients were aged 58 years and 58.9% were female; baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of severe pain (WIS: 16.5%, CO2S: 13.8%; P = 0.586), willingness to repeat the unsedated procedure (WIS: 82.3%, CO2S: 84.5%; P = 0.713), adequate bowel cleanliness (WIS: 78.4%, CO2S: 78%, P = 0.999) or ADR (WIS: 25.2%, CO2S: 16.3%; P = 0.106) between groups. However, average procedure times were longer with WIS (9.06 min) compared to CO2S (6.45 min; P < 0.001). Overall, 29.6% of women reported that they would repeat sigmoidoscopy only if sedated. Conclusions WIS does not ameliorate tolerance to and quality of sigmoidoscopy screening measured by several scores. When offered a choice, the women's willingness to repeat WIS or CO2S without sedation was poor and raises concern on the opportunity of screening sigmoidoscopy without sedation in these subjects.

Background The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recently issued a technical review focused on small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). Aim To compare SBCE current practice in Italy to ESGE technical recommendations. Material and methods A dedicated per-centre semi-quantitative questionnaire was prepared by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-fifty Centres were invited to participate in the data collection concerning SBCEs performed between June 2016 and June 2017. Data were compared with ESGE recommendations. Results 120 Centres participated in the data collection. Current practices agreed with ESGE recommendations in 56.3% (9/16) of the issues evaluated. Differences between ESGE recommendations and current practice concerned the management of patients with pacemakers or cardiac implantable defibrillators (which was in agreement with ESGE recommendations in 31.7% and 15.8% of Centres, respectively), the SBCE setting (only 51% of SBCEs were performed as outpatients procedures), the assessment of capsule excretion (timing and modality were in agreement with ESGE recommendation in 20.0% of Centres), and in the involvement of trained nurses or fellows in training as pre-readers (7/120; 5.8%). Conclusions Although SBCE is widely used and largely available in Italy, there are still some technical, practical and organizational issues that can be modified to bridge the gap between current practice and ESGE guideline recommendations.

Background and Aims Little is known about small-bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients with a history of gastric surgery. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic yield (DY) of orally ingested SB-CE in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy. Methods Twenty-four European centers retrospectively identified patients who had SB-CE after total or subtotal gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the DY of SB-CE (intermediate P1 to highly P2 relevant findings). Secondary outcomes were gastric and SB transit times, completion, cleanliness, and adverse event rates. Results Studied were 248 procedures from 243 patients (mean age, 62 years) with a history of partial gastrectomy (Billroth I, 13.1%; Billroth II, 34.6%), total gastrectomy (7.4%), Whipple procedure (12.8%), sleeve gastrectomy (7.2%), or gastric bypass surgery (24.7%). Obscure GI bleeding was the most frequent indication (85.1%). SB completion rate was 84.3%. One capsule retention in the SB was noted (adverse event rate, .4%). Median SB transit time was 286 minutes (interquartile range [235; 387]). Cleanliness was rated as adequate in 92.1% of procedures. After exclusion of abnormalities found at the upper anastomotic site, the DY was 43.6%, with inflammatory/ulcerated lesions observed more frequently (23.4%) than vascular lesions (21.0%). Conclusions SB-CE seems to be feasible and safe in selected patients with a history of major gastric surgery and comes with a high DY. The spectrum of abnormal SB findings in these patients may be different from what is known from the literature in nonoperated patients.

Background and Aims: Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often in the workforce. Therefore, colonoscopy may affect patients’ work productivity in terms of missed working days and/or reduced working efficiency. We aimed to investigate the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity and factors influencing this impact. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 10 Italian hospitals between 2016 and 2017. We collected information on individual characteristics, work productivity, symptoms, and conditions before, during, and after the procedure from patients undergoing colonoscopy for several indications using validated tools. Outcomes were interference of preparation with work, absenteeism, and impaired work performance after the procedure. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential predictors of the outcomes. Results: Among 1137 subjects in the study, 30.5% reported at least 1 outcome. Impaired work performance was associated with bowel preparation regimen (full dose on the day of colonoscopy vs split dose: OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.43-11.5), symptoms during bowel preparation (high symptom score: OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.15-8.95), and pain during the procedure (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.40-4.35). Increasing number of working hours and less comfortable jobs were associated with absenteeism (P for trend =.06) and impairment of working performance (P for trend =.01) and GI symptoms both before and after colonoscopy. Conclusions: Occupational and individual characteristics of patients should be considered when scheduling colonoscopy because this procedure may impair work productivity in up to one-third of patients. Split-dose bowel preparation, performing a painless colonoscopy, and preventing the occurrence of GI symptoms may minimize the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity.

Background and Aims Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. Methods Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. Results In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). Conclusions The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Background Colonoscopy demands a considerable amount of resources, and little is known about its diagnostic yield among inpatients. Aims To assess indications, diagnostic yield and findings of colonoscopy for inpatients, and to identify risk factors for relevant findings and cancer. Methods Multicentre, prospective, observational study including 12 hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy were evaluated from February through November 2019. Results 1,302 inpatients underwent colonoscopy. Diagnostic yield for relevant findings and cancer was 586 (45%) and 112 (8.6%), respectively. Adequate colon cleansing was achieved in 896 (68.8%) patients. Split-dose/same-day regimen was adopted in 847 (65%) patients. Factors associated to relevant findings were age ≥70 years (RR 1.32), male gender (RR 1.11), blood loss (RR 1.22) and adequate cleansing (RR 1.63). Age ≥70 years (RR 2.08), no previous colonoscopy (RR 2.69) and split-dose/same-day regimen (RR 1.59) significantly increased cancer detection. Implementing adequate cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen in all patients would increase the diagnostic yield for any relevant findings and cancer from 43% to 70% and from 6% to 10%, respectively. Conclusion Relevant colorectal diseases and cancer were frequent among inpatients. Factors associated with detection of relevant findings were identified. Adequate colon cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen significantly increased colonoscopy diagnostic yield.

Background and aim As the post-peak phase of the epidemic is approaching, there is an urgent need of an action plan to help resume endoscopy activity. To manage the Covid-19 pandemic-imposed backlog of postponed colonoscopy examinations, an efficient approach is needed. The practice of on-demand sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opiates will allow most patients to complete a water-aided examination with minimal or no sedation. Other methods reported to minimize patient discomfort during colonoscopy can be used, in addition to water-aided techniques. Unsedated or minimally sedated patients who do not require recovery or require a shorter one allow rapid turnaround. The practice obviates the need for assistance with deep sedation from anesthesiologists, who may be in short supply. Trainee education in water-aided colonoscopy has been demonstrated to confer benefits. This review provides some insights into the impact of Covid-19 on endoscopy services, challenges ahead, and possible solutions to help recovery of colonoscopy work and training.

BACKGROUND: Underwater polypectomy (UWP) of large (≥20mm) colorectal lesions is well described, but reports of UWP for lesions ≤20mm in size, which account for >95% of polyps encountered in routine clinical practice, are limited. We assessed the feasibility of UWP in routine practice across various sites for colorectal lesions ≤20mm in size. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on pooled data from 9 colonoscopists at 3 U.S., 1 Taiwanese and 2 Italian sites. Outcomes related to UWP on lesions ≤20mm in size were analyzed. RESULTS: In 117 patients, UWP netted 169 lesions. Polypectomy by hot (HSP, 54%) or cold (CSP, 41%) snare, and cold forceps (CFP, 5%) were performed successfully without endoscopic evidence of residual neoplasia or immediate clinically significant adverse events. The majority (74.6%) were tubular adenomas; 60.9% were from the proximal colon. Histopathologic margins were positive in 4 and unavailable in 26 CSP and 24 HSP specimens. The remainder had negative resection margins on pathologic reports. CONCLUSION: UWP for colorectal lesions ≤20mm in routine practice across multiple sites confirms the feasibility and acceptability of this technique. Improvement of resection outcomes by UWP in routine practice deserves further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging strategy for the management of colorectal polyps. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for clinically significant (≥ 10 mm) colorectal polyps. We performed a prospective dual-centre study of polyps ≥ 10 mm undergoing UEMR between June 2014 and March 2017. Outcomes measured comprised: (1) completeness of resection at index UEMR, (2) intraprocedural and 30-day complications, (3) rates and predictors of submucosal lift, en bloc resection, polyp/adenoma recurrence and (4) pain score. Endoscopy records were correlated with histology. 85 patients underwent UEMR of 97 polyps. Resection was endoscopically complete at index UEMR in 97.9%. The median pain score was 0 (no pain). Submucosal lift was required in 29.9% and correlated with polyp size ≥ 30 mm (p = 0.03) and clip placement (p = 0.004). En bloc resection was achieved in 45.4%, and inversely correlated with polyp size ≥ 20 mm (p

Background and study aims Single-center studies, which were retrospective and/or involved unblinded colonoscopists, have suggested that water exchange, but not water immersion, compared with air insufflation significantly increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR), particularly in the proximal and right colon. Head-to-head comparison of the three techniques with ADR as primary outcome and blinded colonoscopists has not been reported to date. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded colonoscopists, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the three insertion techniques on ADR. Patients and methods A total of 1224 patients aged 50 – 70 years (672 males) and undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to water exchange, water immersion, or air insufflation. Split-dose bowel preparation was adopted to optimize colon cleansing. After the cecum had been reached, a second colonoscopist who was blinded to the insertion technique performed the withdrawal. The primary outcome was overall ADR according to the three insertion techniques (water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation). Secondary outcomes were other pertinent overall and right colon procedure-related measures. Results Baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Compared with air insufflation, water exchange achieved a significantly higher overall ADR (49.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 44.3 % – 54.2 % vs. 40.4 % 95 %CI 35.6 % – 45.3 %; P = 0.03); water exchange showed comparable overall ADR vs. water immersion (43.4 %, 95 %CI 38.5 % – 48.3 %; P = 0.28). In the right colon, water exchange achieved a higher ADR than air insufflation (24.0 %, 95 %CI 20.0 % – 28.5 % vs. 16.9 %, 95 %CI 13.4 % – 20.9 %; P = 0.04) and a higher advanced ADR (6.1 %, 95 %CI 4.0 % – 9.0 % vs. 2.5 %, 95 %CI 1.2 % – 4.6 %; P = 0.03). Compared with air insufflation, the mean number of adenomas per procedure was significantly higher with water exchange (P = 0.04). Water exchange achieved the highest cleanliness scores (overall and in the right colon). These variables were comparable between water immersion and air insufflation. Conclusions The design with blinded observers strengthens the validity of the observation that water exchange, but not water immersion, can achieve significantly higher adenoma detection than air insufflation. Based on this evidence, the use of water exchange should be encouraged. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02041507).

Background & Aims Hospitalization is associated with inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a model to identify inpatients with inadequate cleansing. Methods We performed a prospective observational study at 12 hospitals in Italy. Consecutive adult inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy for any indication were enrolled from February through May 2019 (derivation cohort, n = 1016) and from June through August 2019 (validation cohort, n = 508). Inadequate cleansing was defined as Boston bowel preparation scale scores below 2 in any colon segment. We performed multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with inadequate cleansing. Results In the combined cohorts, 1032 patients (68%) had adequate colon cleansing. Physicians’ meetings to optimize bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65), written and oral instructions to patients (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36–0.65), admission to gastroenterology unit (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–0.98), split-dose regimens (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20–0.35), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol-based bowel purge (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23—0.65), and 75% or more intake of bowel preparation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05–0.15) significantly reduced odds of inadequate colon cleansing. Alternatively, bedridden status (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55–2.98), constipation (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.55–3.0), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18–2.20), use of anti-psychotic drugs (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.62–6.56), and 7 or more days of hospitalization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00–1.04) increased risk of inadequate colon cleansing. We developed a model to identify patients with inadequate cleaning using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. Calibration values were P = .218 for the discrimination cohort and P = .232 for the validation cohort. Discrimination values were c-statistic, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74–0.81) for the discrimination cohort and c-statistic, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69–0.78) for the validation cohort. We developed app for use by clinicians. Conclusions In a prospective observational study, we identified setting-, patient- and preparation-related factors that affect colon cleansing among inpatients. We derived and validated a model to identify patients with inadequate preparation and developed an app for clinicians. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT03925506

Background: Hospitalization is a strong predictor for inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a predictive model. Methods: Multicentre prospective observational study in 12 Italian hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients were enrolled from February to May 2019 (derivation cohort) and from June to August 2019 (validation cohort). Inadequate cleansing was defined as BBPS

Background Single site studies in male Veterans in the U.S. reported increased detection of presumptive cancer precursors (adenomas, hyperplastic polyps) in the proximal colon (cecum-splenic flexure) by water exchange. Aims Assess the reproducibility of the observation. Methods Analysis of secondary outcomes collected prospectively in 3 similarly designed randomized controlled trials using water exchange, water immersion and insufflation (air or carbon dioxide). Main outcome: detection rates of adenomas and hyperplastic polyps in proximal, transverse and right colon (cecum-ascending). Results 704 males (173 screening) were evaluated. In the proximal colon, WE showed increased detection of small adenomas ( p = 0.009) and adenomas plus hyperplastic polyps ( p = 0.015) (vs insufflation); increased detection of adenomas plus hyperplastic polyps of any size ( p = 0.045) and of small size ( p = 0.04) (vs water immersion). In the right colon water exchange increased detection of small adenomas (19% vs 12.1%, p = 0.04) (vs insufflation); small adenomas (19% vs 12%, p = 0.038), adenomas plus hyperplastic polyps of any size (25% vs 16.7%, p = 0.028) and of small size (23.7% vs 14.6%, p = 0.012) (vs water immersion). Water exchange significantly improved bowel cleanliness. Sedation had no impact on lesion detection. Conclusions Water exchange is a superior insertion technique for detection of adenomas and hyperplastic polyps primarily in the right colon, especially those of small size.

To test the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) significantly increases adenoma detection rates (ADR) compared with water immersion (WI).Low ADR was linked to increased risk for interval colorectal cancers and related deaths. Two recent randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparison of WE, WI, and traditional air insufflation (AI) each showed that WE achieved significantly higher ADR than AI, but not WI. The data were pooled from these 2 studies to test the above hypothesis.Two trials (5 sites, 14 colonoscopists) that randomized 1875 patients 1:1:1 to AI, WI, or WE were pooled and analyzed with ADR as the primary outcome.The ADR of AI (39.5%) and WI (42.4%) were comparable, significantly lower than that of WE (49.6%) (vs. AI P=0.001; vs. WI P=0.033). WE insertion time was 3 minutes longer than that of AI (P0.001). WE showed significantly higher detection rate (vs. AI) of the10 mm advanced adenomas. Right colon combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR of AI (3.4%) and WI (5%) were comparable and were significantly lower than that of WE (8.5%) (vs. AI P0.001; vs. WI P=0.039).Compared with AI and WI, the superior ADR of WE offsets the drawback of a significantly longer insertion time. For quality improvement focused on increasing adenoma detection, WE is preferred over WI. The hypothesis that WE could lower the risk of interval colorectal cancers and related deaths should be tested.

Background Endoscopic mucosal resection is well-established for resecting flat or sessile benign colon polyps. The novel underwater endoscopic mucosal resection eschews submucosal injection prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. Reports about underwater endoscopic mucosal resection were limited to small series of single and/or tertiary-care referral centers, with single or supervised operators. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine feasibility and efficacy of underwater resection of polyps of any morphology (underwater polypectomy, here includes underwater endoscopic mucosal resection) in routine clinical practice. Methods This study involved a comparison of colonoscopy records of two community hospitals (January 2015–December 2016) for underwater polypectomy ( n = 195) and gas insufflation polypectomy ( n = 186). Results Comparable demographics, procedural data, overall distribution, morphology and size of resected lesions, number of en bloc and R0 resections (any polyp morphology and size); exception: overall, underwater polypectomy pedunculated polyps were significantly larger than those in the gas insufflation polypectomy group, p = 0.030. Underwater polypectomy (median, min) resection time was significantly shorter than gas insufflation polypectomy: sessile and flat polyps 6–9 mm, 0.8 vs 2.7 ( p = 0.040); 10–19 mm, 2.0 vs 3.3 ( p = 0.025), respectively; pedunculated polyps 6–19 mm, 0.8 vs 3.3 ( p Conclusions Underwater polypectomy can be efficaciously used in routine clinical practice for the complete resection of colon polyps, with several advantages over gas insufflation polypectomy.

Background A recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Status Evaluation Report recommended comparative studies of water-aided colonoscopy methods to refine the optimal insertion technique. Objective Air insufflation (AI), water immersion (WI), and water exchange (WE) were compared head-to-head to test the hypothesis that WE produces the least insertion pain. Design Patient-blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trials. Setting Two community hospitals in Italy. Patients First-time diagnostic or screening colonoscopy in unsedated patients with the option of on-demand sedation. Intervention Colonoscopy with AI, WI, or WE. Main Outcome Measurements Real-time maximum insertion pain (0 = none, 10 = worst). To avoid interventional bias, the timing of recording was at the discretion of the nurse assistant. Adjunct measures were implemented to ensure patient perception of minimal discomfort. Recalled pain and patients' guess of insertion methods were recorded after colonoscopy. Results Results were merged for 576 randomized patients. Correct patient guesses lower than 33% confirmed adequate blinding. Significant correlation (Pearson coefficient 0.6, P P P = .009; vs AI, 65.3%; P = .04). WE required the least implementation of adjunct maneuvers. Limitations Unblinded colonoscopists. Conclusion The current findings with an internally validated primary outcome in adequately blinded patients support the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in attenuating real-time insertion pain and enhancing completion of unsedated colonoscopy.

The current review will attempt to describe the important lessons learned from published randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing water immersion (WI) or water exchange (WE) techniques with gas insufflation colonoscopy. Air insufflation (AI) to distend the colon to permit visualization and passage through the lumen was developed for diagnostic colonoscopy. When screening colonoscopy was adopted, the same AI method was used. Interval cancers, diagnosed within 3 to 5 years after an index screening colonoscopy, appeared to be linked to low adenoma detection rate (ADR). Conscious sedation was introduced to manage insertion pain a few decades ago, incurring moderate costs of nursing staff, space for recovery, patient burdens of escort requirement, and at home recovery time. Recent advancement to deep sedation entailed additional costs of anesthesia staff support. In the past decade, investigators worldwide evaluated the use of water-assisted methods as an adjunct or in lieu of gas insufflation during insertion to minimize discomfort and improve ease of insertion. For convenience, one approach embraced the removal of infused water during withdrawal (WI). A subsequent evolution entailed removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (WE), specifically designed to further minimize insertion pain. Results of RCT shed light on the impact of WI and WE on insertion pain (primary outcome) and adenoma detection (secondary outcome). Water immersion is easier to learn and apply than WE, but mastery of the WE technique appears to have two major advantages. Current RCT data suggest that both WI and WE decrease insertion pain and facilitate completion of difficult colonoscopy, with WE having a superior impact than WI. Water exchange was serendipitously associated with an increase in ADR; this has been repeatedly confirmed in follow-up studies. When it is unknown which patient’s colonoscopy will be difficult, it would seem prudent for the average colonoscopist to optimize the chance of success and increase in ADR by using WE from the very start.