Search

Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk. We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of.25,.40,.50, and.70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination. In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference):.25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR),.35; 95% confidence interval (CI),.22-.56;.40 to <.50: HR,.31; 95% CI,.20-.49;.50 to <.70: HR,.20; 95% CI,.11-.36; and ≥.70: HR,.19; 95% CI,.09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists—one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)—had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50. Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have endoscopically encountered a zone of transitional mucosa between the colonic and ileal mucosa located in a 3- to 10-mm-wide ring around the ileocecal valve (ICV) orifice. We aimed to describe the features of the ICV transitional zone mucosa. We used videos and photographs from normal ICVs and biopsy samples from normal colonic mucosa, transitional zone mucosa, and normal ileal mucosa to characterize the endoscopic and histologic features of the ICV transitional zone mucosa. The ICV transitional zone is identifiable on every ICV without a circumferential adenoma or inflammation that obliterates the zone. The zone is characterized endoscopically by an absence of villi, which distinguishes it from the ileal mucosa, but the pits are more tubular and with more prominent blood vessels compared with normal colonic mucosa. Histologically, the villi of the transitional zone are blunted, and the amount of lymphoid tissue is intermediate between the colonic mucosa and ileal mucosa. This is the first description of the normal transitional zone of mucosa on the ICV. This zone has unique endoscopic features that should be recognized by colonoscopists and that can potentially create difficulty in identifying the margins of adenomas located on the ICV. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various endoscopic resection techniques have been proposed for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6–20 mm, however the optimal technique still remains unclear. A comprehensive literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), investigating the efficacy of endoscopic treatments for the management of 6–20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. Primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates and adverse event rate was the secondary. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI]). Fourteen RCTs (5219 polypectomies) were included. Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) significantly outperformed cold snare polypectomy(CSP) in terms of complete [(RR 95%CI): 1.04(1.00–1.07)] and en bloc resection rate [RR:1.12(1.04–1.21)]. EMR was superior to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) [RR:1.04(1.00–1.08)] regarding complete resection, while underwater EMR (U-EMR) achieved significantly higher rate of en bloc resection compared to CSP [RR:1.15(1.01–1.30)]. EMR yielded the highest ranking for complete resection(SUCRA-score 0.81), followed by cold-snare EMR(CS-EMR,SUCRA-score 0.76). None of the modalities was different regarding adverse event rate compared to CSP, however EMR and CS-EMR resulted in fewer adverse events compared to HSP [RR:0.44(0.26–0.77) and 0.43(0.21–0.87),respectively]. EMR achieved the highest performance in resecting 6–20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with this effect being consistent for polyps 6–9 and ≥10 mm; findings supported by very low quality of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing lesion size is a risk factor for recurrence after piecemeal EMR (pEMR). Snare-tip soft coagulation (STSC) treatment of the normal-appearing margin after pEMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm has been shown to reduce recurrence rates by 75% to 80%. We sought to evaluate the impact of STSC on giant (≥ 40 mm) lateral spreading lesions treated by pEMR. We describe the relative risk and absolute risks of recurrence with and without STSC margin treatment after EMR of ≥ 40-mm lesions. We performed a retrospective evaluation of a prospectively collected database on large lesions describing lesion size, location, and methods of resection. We excluded lesions < 40 mm in maximum dimension, those that did not undergo follow-up care at our center, and those in which argon plasma coagulation was used for either ablative treatment of residual polyp or margin treatment. Propensity score analysis was used to account for potential differences between patients treated with and without STSC. There were 68 lesions ≥ 40 mm removed by pEMR without STSC treatment and 133 removed and treated with STSC. There were no differences between groups in demographics, polyp size, location, histologic features, and mean follow-up time. The recurrence rate in the no-treatment group was 35% versus 9% with STSC (P <.00001 by direct comparison and P =.008 by using the propensity score analysis). STSC treatment after pEMR of large lateral spreading lesions in the colorectum reduced recurrences by 75%. However, the absolute recurrence rate of 9% remained clinically significant in the STSC-treated group. Short-term follow-up care after STSC of lesions ≥ 40 mm is still warranted, and additional study of technical factors that eliminate recurrence after pEMR of giant lateral spreading lesions is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ORISE (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA) is a viscous gel used for submucosal injection. We noted anecdotally that ORISE is associated with submucosal distortion of EMR scars at follow-up. We blindly reviewed photographs of 30 consecutive EMR scars at follow-up after resections using ORISE and 30 resections using other agents. Distortion was scored on a scale of 0 (no submucosal distortion) to 5 (overt submucosal distortion). The median submucosal distortion score at follow-up in ORISE cases was 3 (range, 0-5) versus 0 (range, 0-2) with other fluids (P <.001, Mann-Whitney U test) by 1 reviewer and 3 (range, 0-5) versus 2 (range, 0-5), respectively, by a second reviewer (P =.018). The kappa value for agreement in the submucosal distortion scores between the 2 experts was.148 for all photographs and.214 for the ORISE cases (overall minimal agreement). ORISE can cause submucosal distortion in the region of EMR scars when they are viewed at follow-up. Such distortions must not be mistaken for submucosal tumor growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dye-based chromoendoscopy (DBC) could be effective in increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy, but the technique is time-consuming and its uptake is limited. We aimed to assess the effect of DBC on ADR based on available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four databases were searched up to April 2022 for RCTs comparing DBC with conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, advanced ADR, and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate as well as the mean adenomas per patient and non-neoplastic lesions. Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes were calculated using random-effect models. The I 2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Overall, 10 RCTs (5334 patients) were included. Indication for colonoscopy was screening or surveillance (3 studies) and mixed (7 studies). Pooled ADR was higher in the DBC group versus the CC group (95% CI, 48.1% [41.4%-54.8%] vs 39.3% [33.5%-46.4%]; RR, 1.20 [1.11-1.29]), with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 29%). This effect was consistent for advanced ADR (RR, 1.21 [1.03-1.42]; I 2 =.0%), sessile serrated adenomas (6.1% vs 3.5%; RR, 1.68 [1.15-2.47]; I 2 = 9.8%), and mean adenomas per patient (MD,.24 [.17-.31]) overall and in the right-sided colon (MD,.28 [.14-.43]). A subgroup analysis considering only trials using high-definition white-light endoscopy reduced the heterogeneity while still showing a significant increase in adenoma detection with DBC: 51.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1%-56.1%) and 59.1% (95% CI, 54.7-63.3%), RR = 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06-1.23), P =.0004, I 2 =.0%, P =.50. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that DBC increases key quality parameters in colonoscopy, supporting its use in everyday clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cold snare resection of colorectal lesions has been found to be safe and effective for an expanding set of colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to understand the efficacy of simple cold snare resection and cold EMR versus hot snare resection and hot EMR for colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. At 3 U.S. centers, 235 patients with 286 colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size were randomized to cold snaring, cold EMR, hot snaring, or hot EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. The primary outcome was complete resection determined by 4 biopsy samples from the defect margin and 1 biopsy sample from the center of the resection defect. The overall incomplete resection rate was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI],.8%-7.5%). All 7 incompletely removed polyps were 10 to 15 mm in size and removed by hot EMR (n = 4, 6.2%), hot snare (n = 2, 2.2%), or cold EMR (n = 1, 1.8%). Cold snaring had no incomplete resections, required less procedural time than the other methods, and was not associated with serious adverse events. Cold snaring is a dominant resection technique for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03462706.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of concomitant small serrated polyps (SPs) on the risk of subsequent neoplasia when small tubular adenomas (TAs) are found is uncertain. Patients who on index colonoscopy had ≤2 TAs of <10 mm in size in isolation were compared with those with concomitant ≤2 small-sized SPs. SP was inclusive of polyps described by pathology as sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) or proximal hyperplastic polyps (HPs) <10 mm in size. The primary endpoint was the rate of total metachronous advanced neoplasia (T-MAN) compared among the TAs in the isolation group and the groups inclusive of SPs (SSLs or proximal HPs). For patients with TAs and small SPs found concomitantly, the rate of T-MAN was 9.6% (24/251), which was significantly higher than the rate of T-MAN in patients with isolated small TAs (5.2% [59/1138], P =.011). Within the concomitant SP cohort, the rate of T-MAN in the proximal HP subgroup remained significantly increased (9% [19/212]) compared with the isolated small TA group (P =.037). When small TAs are found concomitantly with small SPs, there is an increase in the rate of T-MAN in comparison with isolated TAs. This increase in T-MAN also occurs when small TAs are found in conjunction with small proximal HPs. The presence of concomitant small SPs should be considered in determining surveillance intervals when small TAs are identified in colonoscopy screening programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endocuff Vision (Olympus Europe, Hamburg, Germany) has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization, thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision–assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). Patients aged 40 to 75 years referred for non–immunochemical fecal occult blood test–based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at 10 hospitals and randomized into 4 groups: group 1, 2 × CC; group 2, CC followed by EVC; group 3, EVC followed by CC; and group 4, 2 × EVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR. A total of 717 patients were randomized, of whom 661 patients (92.2%) had 1 and 646 (90.1%) patients had 2 completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1%; [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.1-46.3] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 30.7-40.6], respectively; P =.125), but EVC did reduce AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95% CI, 23.6-36.5] vs 17.9% [95% CI, 12.5-23.5], respectively; P =.049). AMR of 2 × CC compared to 2 × EVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95% CI, 19.3-33.9] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 13.9-24.8], respectively; P =.172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P =.002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P =.008), and region where colonoscopy was performed (P <.001). Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significantly improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418948.) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Benefits of computer-aided detection (CADe) in detecting colorectal neoplasia were shown in many randomized trials in which endoscopists' behavior was strictly controlled. However, the effect of CADe on endoscopists' performance in less-controlled setting is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses were aimed at clarifying benefits and harms of using CADe in real-world colonoscopy. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from inception to August 20, 2023. We included nonrandomized studies that compared the effectiveness between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy. Two investigators independently extracted study data and quality. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed utilizing risk ratio for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Eight studies were included, comprising 9782 patients (4569 with CADe and 5213 without CADe). Regarding benefits, there was a difference in neither adenoma detection rate (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.28) nor mean adenomas per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, –0.04 to 0.32) between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy, respectively. Regarding harms, there was no difference in the mean non-neoplastic lesions per colonoscopy (8 studies included for analysis; 0.52 vs 0.47; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.34) and withdrawal time (6 studies included for analysis; 14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; MD, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, –0.18 to 1.90). There was a substantial heterogeneity, and all outcomes were graded with a very low certainty of evidence. CADe in colonoscopies neither improves the detection of colorectal neoplasia nor increases burden of colonoscopy in real-world, nonrandomized studies, questioning the generalizability of the results of randomized trials. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures are critical for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of GI disorders. However, like the procedures in other medical disciplines, they are a source of environmental waste generation and energy consumption. We prospectively collected data on total waste generation, energy consumption, and the role of intraprocedural inventory audit of a single tertiary care academic endoscopy unit over a 2-month period (May–June 2022). Detailed data on items used were collected, including procedure type (esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy), accessories, intravenous tubing, biopsy jars, linen, and personal protective equipment use. Data on endoscope reprocessing-related waste generation and energy use in the endoscopy unit (equipment, lights, and computers) were also collected. We used an endoscopy staff-guided auditing and review of the items used during procedures to determine potentially recyclable items going to landfill waste. The waste generated was stratified into biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable items. A total of 450 consecutive procedures were analyzed for total waste management (generation and reprocessing) and energy consumption. The total waste generated during the study period was 1398.6 kg (61.6% directly going to landfill, 33.3% biohazard waste, and 5.1% sharps), averaging 3.03 kg/procedure. The average waste directly going to landfill was 219 kg per 100 procedures. The estimated total annual waste generation approximated the size of 2 football fields (1-foot-high layered waste). Endoscope reprocessing generated 194 gallons of liquid waste per day, averaging 13.85 gallons per procedure. Total energy consumption in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW·h energy per day; for every 100 procedures, amounting to 1200 miles of distance traveled by an average fuel efficiency car. The estimated carbon footprint for every 100 GI procedures was 1501 kg carbon dioxide (CO 2) equivalent (= 1680 lbs of coal burned), which would require 1.8 acres of forests to sequester. The recyclable waste audit and review demonstrated that 20% of total waste consisted of potentially recyclable items (8.6 kg/d) that could be avoided by appropriate waste segregation of these items. On average, every 100 GI endoscopy procedures (esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy) are associated with 303 kg of solid waste and 1385 gallons of liquid waste generation, and 1980 kW·h energy consumption. Potentially recyclable materials account for 20% of the total waste. These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and decrease landfill waste and water waste toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units. A prospective study at a single endoscopy unit found that the estimated carbon footprint for every 100 gastrointestinal procedures was high, at 1501 kg carbon dioxide equivalents which equals to 1680 pounds of coal burned, and that up to 20% of this could be reduced if appropriate waste segregation were performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thermal treatment of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions reduces the recurrence rate. Both snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been used for thermal margin treatment, but there are few data directly comparing STSC with APC for this indication. We performed a randomized 3-arm trial in 9 US centers comparing STSC with APC with no margin treatment (control) of defects after EMR of colorectal nonpedunculated lesions ≥15 mm. The primary end point was the presence of residual lesion at first follow-up. There were 384 patients and 414 lesions randomized, and 308 patients (80.2%) with 328 lesions completed ≥1 follow-up. The proportion of lesions with residual polyp at first follow-up was 4.6% with STSC, 9.3% with APC, and 21.4% with control subjects (no margin treatment). The odds of residual polyp at first follow-up were lower for STSC and APC when compared with control subjects (P =.001 and P =.01, respectively). The difference in odds was not significant between STSC and APC. STSC took less time to apply than APC (median, 3.35 vs 4.08 minutes; P =.019). Adverse event rates were low, with no difference between arms. In a randomized trial STSC and APC were each superior to no thermal margin treatment after EMR. STSC was faster to apply than APC. Because STSC also results in lower cost and plastic waste than APC (APC requires an additional device), our study supports STSC as the preferred thermal margin treatment after colorectal EMR. (Clinicaltrials.gov , Number NCT03654209.) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential for transmission of pathogenic organisms is a problem inherent to the current reusable duodenoscope design. Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms transmitted via duodenoscopes has brought to light the urgency of this problem. Microbiologic culturing of duodenoscopes and reprocessing with repeat high-level disinfection (HLD) or liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) have been offered as supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to compare the efficacy of reprocessing duodenoscopes with double HLD (DHLD) versus LCS. We prospectively evaluated 2 different modalities of duodenoscope reprocessing from October 23, 2017 to September 24, 2018. Eligible duodenoscopes were randomly segregated to be reprocessed by either DHLD or LCS. Duodenoscopes were randomly cultured after reprocessing for surveillance based on an internal protocol. During the study period, there were 878 post-reprocessing surveillance cultures (453 in the DHLD group and 425 in the LCS group). Of all cultures, 17 were positive for any organism (1.9%). There was no significant difference of positive cultures when comparing the duodenoscopes undergoing DHLD (8 positive cultures, 1.8%) with duodenoscopes undergoing LCS (9 positive cultures, 2.1%; P =.8). Both groups had 2 cultures that grew high-concern organisms (.5% vs.5%, P =1.0). No multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, were detected. DHLD and LCS both resulted in a low rate of positive cultures, for all organisms and for high-concern organisms. However, neither process completely eliminated positive cultures from duodenoscopes reprocessed with 2 different supplemental reprocessing strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data are limited on safety and outcomes of colorectal EMR in octogenarians (≥80 years old). We sought to review outcome data for patients aged ≥80 in a prospectively collected database of patients referred for large polyp removal. We retrospectively evaluated a database of patients referred for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyp removal. From 2000 to 2019, we compared the rates of follow-up, recurrence, adverse events, and synchronous neoplasia detection between younger patients and patients aged ≥80. There were 167 patients aged ≥80 years and 1686 <80 years. Patients in the elderly group returned for surveillance less often (67.1% vs 75.1%, P =.024), had greater first follow-up recurrence rates (27.5% vs 13.8%, P <.001), but had similar adverse event rates (1.8% vs 2.8%, P =.619) compared with younger patients. Rates of synchronous neoplasia were similar and high in both groups. EMR is safe and well tolerated for large polyp removal in patients over 80 years old. Patients aged ≥80 years are less likely to present for follow-up after EMR. They had a higher recurrence rate and a similarly high prevalence of synchronous precancerous lesions. Follow-up after EMR should be encouraged in the elderly, and an attempt to clear the colon of synchronous disease at the time of the initial EMR may be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cold EMR is being increasingly used for large serrated lesions. We sought to measure residual lesion rates and adverse events after cold EMR of large serrated lesions. In a single academic center, we retrospectively examined a database of serrated class lesions ≥10 mm removed with cold EMR for safety and efficacy. Five hundred sixty-six serrated lesions ≥10 mm in size were removed from 312 patients. We successfully contacted 223 patients (71.5%) with no reported serious adverse events that required hospitalization, repeat endoscopy, or transfusion. The residual lesion rate per lesion at first follow-up colonoscopy was 18 of 225 (8%; 95% confidence interval, 5-12.1). Lesions with residual were larger at polypectomy compared with lesions without recurrence (median, 23 mm versus 16 mm, P =.017). Cold EMR appears to be safe and effective for the removal of large serrated lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Procedural sedation of ASA III/IV patients has increased risk. Remimazolam (an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine) has proven safe and efficient for outpatient colonoscopy sedation. A double-blind, randomized, multi-center, parallel group trial was performed, comparing remimazolam to placebo with an additional open-label arm for midazolam in procedural sedation of 79 ASA III/IV patients undergoing colonoscopy. This was the third of 3 Phase III trials for remimazolam in the procedural sedation program. The primary end point was the safety of remimazolam. Of 79 patients randomized at 3 US sites, 77 underwent sedation and colonoscopy (31 received remimazolam, 16 placebo and 30 midazolam). Incidence and frequency of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable in all three treatment arms, and independent of ASA status. One TEAE leading to discontinuation and one serious TEAE were reported; both in the open label midazolam arm. The efficacy endpoint was achieved for remimazolam, placebo, and midazolam in 87.1%, 0%, and 13.3% of patients (p <0.00001 for remimazolam versus placebo and versus midazolam, respectively). Remimazolam is safe and efficient in procedural sedation of high risk ASA patients undergoing colonoscopy, showing a safety profile comparable to that in low risk ASA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many jurisdictions and gastroenterological societies around the world have suspended nonurgent endoscopy. Subject to country-specific variability, it is projected that with current mitigation measures in place, the peak incidence of active COVID-19 infections may be delayed by over 6 months. Although this aims to prevent the overburdening of healthcare systems, prolonged deferral of elective endoscopy will become unsustainable. Herein, we propose that by incorporating readily available point-of-care tests and conducting accurate clinical risk assessments, a safe and timely return to elective endoscopy is feasible. Our algorithm not only focuses on the safety of patients and healthcare workers, but also assists in rationalizing the use of invaluable resources such as personal protective equipment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CT colonography (CTC) or barium enema are commonly ordered to complete colorectal imaging after an incomplete colonoscopy. We evaluated the sensitivity of radiographic studies performed for this purpose in clinical practice outside clinical trials. Adult patients referred to an expert endoscopist for incomplete colonoscopy because of a redundant colon or a difficult sigmoid and who underwent previous radiographic imaging between July 2001 and July 2019 were identified. None of the patients had a malignant obstruction as the cause of incomplete colonoscopy. Data on polyp size, location, and pathology were obtained from colonoscopy and radiology reports. Polyps identified on imaging and colonoscopy were matched based on polyp size and location. Among 769 patients referred for incomplete colonoscopy, we identified 65 with a radiographic examination performed within 36 months of colonoscopy at our center. Per-patient sensitivity for CTC was suboptimal (70%) and was very low for barium enema (26.7%). Per-polyp sensitivity for both CTC and barium enema was poor (23.8% and 7.6%). Quality of the examination did not seem to affect procedure sensitivity. Radiographic imaging after incomplete colonoscopy for reasons other than malignant obstruction had poor sensitivity for polyps. Patients with incomplete colonoscopies should be considered for repeat colonoscopy by an expert. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clip closure of the mucosal defect after resecting large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps reduces postprocedure bleeding and is cost saving for payers. Clip costs are not reimbursed by payers, posing a major barrier to adoption of this technique in the community. We aimed to determine appropriate clip costs to support broader use of this procedure in practice. We performed budget impact analysis using our recent decision analytic model, comparing prophylactic clip closure with no clip closure on national cost and outcomes data, to determine the maximum feasible clip price while maintaining cost savings in practice. Sensitivity analyses were performed on important clinical factors. In the original model, the baseline postprocedure bleeding risk was 6.8%, increasing cost of care by $614.11 averaged among all patients undergoing large polyp resection without clip closure. Prophylactic clip closure of only large right-sided polyps reduced postprocedure bleeding risk by 70.7% but resulted in cost saving only if the price of clips was $100 or less. Comparatively, prophylactic clip closure of large left-sided polyps had no clinical benefit and was not cost saving. Clip closure strategies focused only on extra-large polyps (≥40 mm), or patients taking antithrombotics regardless of polyp characteristics, were only minimally cost saving. Cost savings and maximum tolerated clip prices depended on medical comorbidity, which directly influences the costs of care to manage postprocedure bleeding. Prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps, particularly those in the right colon segment, is cost saving but requires clip costs less than $100. Translating these findings into practice requires gastroenterology practices to obtain reimbursement from payers for improved clinical outcomes and to align commercial clip prices with this clinical indication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endocuff improves detection at colonoscopy but seems to impede terminal ileal (TI) intubation. We assessed the impact of Endocuff Vision (EV) on TI intubation using adult or pediatric colonoscopes and evaluated whether filling the cecum with gas versus water affected the impact of EV on TI intubation. Using a prospectively recorded quality control database, we explored the impact of EV on TI intubation in ≤1 minute. We used adult and pediatric colonoscopes and tested the effect of filling the cecum with gas versus water. If the initial attempt failed, then the alternative (water vs gas) was tried as a rescue method. TI intubation in ≤1 minute occurred in 91% of colonoscopies without EV versus 65% with EV, but the use of the pediatric colonoscope with EV had a higher success rate for TI intubation in ≤1 minute compared with the adult colonoscope with EV (73% vs 57%, P =.043). TI intubation in ≤1 minute was more successful with EV when the cecum was filled with water rather than gas (74% vs 56%, P =.019), but the benefit of water filling was limited to the adult colonoscope with EV. When EV was in place, water filling was more successful as a rescue method of TI intubation (58% vs 21%, P =.011). EV adversely affects TI intubation, particularly for adult colonoscopes. Water filling of the cecum mitigates the impact of EV on TI intubation with adult colonoscopes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring-fitted cap (EndoRings; EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy. This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate, insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon. EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, P =.025), but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or sessile serrated polyp detection rate. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with Endo-Rings and contributed substantially to the overall results. EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without a significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. The use of EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418662.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal adenoma prevalence can be determined by autopsy studies, or imaging studies such as colonoscopy. We describe the prevalence of colorectal adenomas determined by a single high detecting colonoscopist using high definition colonoscopes. We conducted a cross-sectional study of consecutive patients aged ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy with a high level detector for the indications of screening, surveillance, and diagnostic reasons from December 29, 2016 to January 12, 2018. During the study period, 1172 eligible patients underwent colonoscopy. Women comprised 55% (n = 646) and the majority (89%, n = 1038) were aged ≥50 years (mean age, 62.1 years). In persons aged ≥50 years undergoing screening, the prevalence of ≥1 conventional adenoma was 48.5% and ≥1 sessile serrated polyp was 15.3%. Diminutive polyps (1–5 mm in size) comprised three-quarters of all resected polyps (2236/2986). Among 246 patients (21%), 1050 hyperplastic appearing polyps were not resected from the recto-sigmoid. Adenoma prevalence was strongly associated with age and indication but serrated lesion prevalence was not. The true prevalence of precancerous lesions in the colorectum determined by modern colonoscopy exceeds determination by autopsy studies. These data help define aspirational detection targets for colonoscopy. The economic burden associated with colonoscopic resection of tiny lesions is substantial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for EMR. SIC-8000 (Eleview; Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved solution, but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 with hetastarch as submucosal injection agents for colorectal EMR. This was a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial performed at a tertiary referral center. Patients were referred to our center with flat or sessile lesions measuring ≥15 mm in size. The primary outcome measures were the Sydney resection quotient (SRQ) and the rate of en bloc resections. Secondary outcomes were total volume needed for a sufficient lift, number of resected pieces, and adverse events. There were 158 patients with 159 adenomas (SIC-8000, 84; hetastarch, 75) and 57 serrated lesions (SIC-8000, 30; hetastarch, 27). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, P =.001). There was no difference in the proportion of lesions with en bloc resections. The total volume of injectate was significantly lower with SIC-8000 (14.8 mL vs 20.6 mL, P =.038). SIC-8000 is superior to hetastarch for use during EMR in terms of SRQ and total volume needed, although the absolute differences were small. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03350217.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]