Search

Background and aims  Colonoscopy is currently the reference method to detect colorectal neoplasia, yet some adenomas remain undetected. The water infusion technique and dying with indigo carmine has shown interesting results for reducing this miss rate. The aim of this study was to compare the adenoma detection rate (adenoma and adenocarcinoma; ADR) and the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) for blue-water infusion colonoscopy (BWIC) versus standard colonoscopy. Methods  We performed a multicenter, randomized controlled trial in eight units, including patients with a validated indication for colonoscopy (symptoms, familial or personal history, fecal occult blood test positive). Consenting patients were randomized 1:1 to BWIC or standard colonoscopy. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists. All colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded. Results  Among the 1065 patients included, colonoscopies were performed completely for 983 patients (514 men; mean age 59.1). The ADR was not significantly different between the groups; 40.4 % in the BWIC group versus 37.5 % in the standard colonoscopy group (odds ratio [OR] 1.13; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.87 - 1.48; P  = 0.35). MAP was significantly greater in the BWIC group (0.79) than in the standard colonoscopy group (0.64; P  = 0.005). For advanced adenomas, the results were 50 (10.2 %) and 36 (7.3 %), respectively ( P  = 0.10). The cecal intubation rate was not different but the time to cecal intubation was significantly longer in BWIC group (9.9 versus 6.2 minutes; P  < 0.001). Conclusion  Despite the higher MAP with BWIC, the routine use of BWIC does not translate to a higher ADR. Whether increased detection ultimately results in a lower rate of interval carcinoma is not yet known., Clinical Trials Registration: EudraCT 2012-A00548 - 35; NCT01937429., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy has not been compared to anaesthetist-administered deep sedation in clinical trials. Our aim was to compare patients' satisfaction and safety during these two sedation modalities., Methods: 90 adult patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into Group A, Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation and Group B, anaesthetist-administered deep sedation. Group A patients received an initial dose of 30-50 mg of intravenous propofol; additional doses were injected by the endoscopist using a pre-programmed pump. Global satisfaction was measured on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale., Results: The average satisfaction scores after examination completion amongst group were not statistically different (90.8 mm for Group A vs. 89 mm for Group B). Group A patients expressed more frequently a good level of satisfaction (95% vs. 75%; p=0.03) and willingness to undergo further colonoscopies under the same conditions (95% vs. 79%; p=0.02). Total duration time and procedural difficulty did not differ between the groups. Group A received a lower total propofol dose than Group B (94 mg vs. 260 mg) and experienced fewer side-effects (16 vs. 3, respectively; p < 0.008)., Conclusion: Endoscopist-administered propofol sedation for colonoscopy offered a better level of satisfaction and fewer side-effects than anaesthetist-administered deep sedation., (Copyright © 2011 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In France, general anesthesia is given to more than 90% of patients undergoing colonoscopy although in several countries sedation is limited to intolerant patients. This study was carried out to determine whether Patient-Controlled Sedation (PCS) could provide a lighter sedation than general anesthesia adapted to the patient's individual requirement., Methods: Patients aged from 18 to 80 scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive either standard sedation (control group) or patient-controlled-sedation (PCS). In the control group, patients received a continuous infusion of propofol. Patients in the PCS group were connected to an infusion pump containing propofol and self-administered 20-mg boluses as often as they required. An anesthetist was present throughout the procedure. Patient satisfaction measured on a visual analog scale four hours after colonoscopy was the main outcome criterion., Results: From December 2002 to September 2003, 402 patients underwent elective colonoscopy, 173 of them were eligible and were asked to participate in the study. Seventy-two gave their informed consent and were prospectively randomized. The patients' mean satisfaction scores were not statistically different between the two groups: 84.7 mm (PCS group) vs. 91.5 mm (control group); P = 0.24. Mean doses of propofol (60 mg vs. 248 mg; P <0.001), depth of sedation and time before discharge (1.75 hours vs. 4.45 hours) were significantly lower for patients in the PCS group; nine of them (25.7%) did not use the pump and had total colonoscopy without sedation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding total duration of colonoscopy (19.4 min (PCS) vs. 18 min (control)) difficulty and therapeutic procedures (biopsy or polypectomy). Two weeks after the procedure, 96.5% of patients in the PCS group were willing to repeat the examination under the same conditions vs. 72.5% of patients in the control group (P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that need of sedation is widely overestimated in France. A subset of our patients is willing to consider colonoscopy without general anesthesia. For them, PCS with propofol is an effective and very well accepted form of sedation.