Search

Objectives: Colonoscopy withdrawal times are associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the relationship between ADR and cecal insertion time has been inadequately characterized. We aimed to evaluate endoscopist-related factors involved in the ADR, including the average individual colonoscopy insertion and withdrawal times., Methods: This observational study used a colonoscopy database with pathology data from routine clinical practice in Japanese institutions. The odds ratios (OR) of endoscopist-related factors related to ADRs were examined using a generalized linear mixed model., Results: Of the 186,293 colonoscopies performed during the study period, 47,705 colonoscopies by 189 endoscopists in four hospitals were analyzed for ADR. The overall ADR was 38.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 37.8, 38.7). Compared to endoscopists with mean cecal insertion times of <5 min, the OR of ADR for those with mean cecal insertion times of 5-9, 10-14, and ≥15 min were 0.84 (95% CI 0.71, 0.99), 0.68 (95% CI 0.52, 0.90), and 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.78), respectively. Compared to endoscopists with mean withdrawal times of <6 min, the OR of ADR for those with mean withdrawal times of 6-9, 10-14, and ≥15 min were 1.38 (95% CI 1.03, 1.85), 1.48 (95% CI 1.09, 2.02), and 1.68 (95% CI 1.04, 2.61), respectively. There were no significant differences in ADRs by endoscopist specialty, gender, or the total number of examinations performed., Conclusion: Individual mean colonoscopy insertion time was associated with ADR and might be considered as a colonoscopy quality indicator as well as withdrawal time., (© 2023 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Objectives: To examine whether reasonable detection rate of endoscopically diagnosed lesions as adenoma ("endoscopic" adenoma detection rate [ADR]) could be calculated with a database generated from colonoscopy reports and whether it could be used as a surrogate colonoscopy quality indicator of "pathological" ADR., Methods: A lesion-by-lesion database of colonoscopies performed between 2010 and 2020 at eight Japanese endoscopy centers and corresponding pathology database were integrated. Differences in numbers of detected polyps, "endoscopic" and "pathological" adenomas, and what these differences could be attributed to were examined. Polyp detection rate (PDR), "endoscopic" and "pathological" ADRs, and correlation coefficients between "pathological" ADR and PDR or "endoscopic" ADR by each endoscopist were calculated., Results: Overall, 129,065 colonoscopy reports were analyzed. Among a total of 146,854 polyps, more "endoscopic" adenomas (n = 117,359) were observed than "pathological" adenomas (n = 70,076), primarily because adenomas were not resected on site, rather than because of a misdiagnosis. In all patients analyzed, PDR, "endoscopic" and "pathological" ADRs were 56.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.2-56.7), 48.0% (95% CI 47.7-48.3), and 32.7% (95% CI 32.5-33.0), respectively. "Endoscopic" and "pathological" ADRs from each endoscopist showed a high correlation in hospitals where adenomas were usually resected at the time of examination., Conclusions: By appropriately describing endoscopically diagnosed lesions as "adenomas" in endoscopy reports, "endoscopic" ADR might be used as a surrogate colonoscopy quality indicator of "pathological" ADR (UMIN000040690)., (© 2022 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Objectives: To verify the efficacy and safety of red dichromatic imaging (RDI) in hemostatic procedures during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)., Methods: This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 404 patients who underwent ESD of the esophagus, stomach, colorectum. Patients who received hemostatic treatments by RDI during ESD were defined as the RDI group (n = 204), and those who received hemostatic treatments by white light imaging (WLI) were defined as the WLI group (n = 200). The primary endpoint was a shortening of the hemostasis time. The secondary endpoints were a reduction of the psychological stress experienced by the endoscopist during the hemostatic treatment, a shortened treatment time, and a non-inferior perforation rate, in RDI versus WLI., Results: The mean hemostasis time in RDI (n = 860) was not significantly shorter than that in WLI (n = 1049) (62.3 ± 108.1 vs. 56.2 ± 74.6 s; P = 0.921). The median hemostasis time was significantly longer in RDI than in WLI (36.0 [18.0-71.0] vs. 28.0 [14.0-66.0] s; P = 0.001) in a sensitivity analysis. The psychological stress was significantly lower in RDI than in WLI (1.71 ± 0.935 vs. 2.03 ± 1.038; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ESD treatment time between RDI (n = 161) and WLI (n = 168) (58.0 [35.0-86.0] vs. 60.0 [38.0-88.5] min; P = 0.855). Four perforations were observed, but none of them took place during the hemostatic treatment., Conclusions: Hemostatic treatment using RDI does not shorten the hemostasis time. RDI, however, is safe to use for hemostatic procedures and reduces the psychological stress experienced by endoscopists when they perform hemostatic treatment during ESD. UMIN000025134., (© 2021 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)