Search

Background: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear.Methods: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause.Results: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04).Conclusions: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance., Design: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients., Results: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%)., Conclusion: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden., Trial Registration Number: NCT02319928., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an emerging treatment modality, but its current clinical use and organisation are unknown. We aimed to describe the clinical use, conduct, and potential for FMT in Europe., Methods: We invited all hospital-based FMT centres within the European Council member states to answer a web-based questionnaire covering their clinical activities, organisation, and regulation of FMT in 2019. Responders were identified from trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov and from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) working group for stool banking and FMT., Findings: In 2019, 31 FMT centres from 17 countries reported a total of 1,874 (median 25, quartile 10-64) FMT procedures; 1,077 (57%) with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) as indication, 791 (42%) with experimental indications, and 6 (0•3%) unaccounted for. Adjusted to population size, 0•257 per 100,000 population received FMT for CDI and 0•189 per 100,000 population for experimental indications. With estimated 12,400 (6,100-28,500) annual cases of multiple, recurrent CDI and indication for FMT in Europe, the current European FMT activity covers approximately 10% of the patients with indication. The participating centres demonstrated high safety standards and adherence to international consensus guidelines. Formal or informal regulation from health authorities was present at 21 (68%) centres., Interpretation: FMT is a widespread routine treatment for multiple, recurrent CDI and an experimental treatment. Embedded within hospital settings, FMT centres operate with high standards across Europe to provide safe FMT. A significant gap in FMT coverage suggests the need to raise clinical awareness and increase the FMT activity in Europe by at least 10-fold to meet the true, indicated need., Funding: NordForsk under the Nordic Council and Innovation Fund Denmark (j.no. 8056-00006B)., Competing Interests: Andreas Stallmach reports consulting fees from Institut Allergosan, MSD, Norgine, lecture fees and travel support from Astellas, Ferring, Janssen, MSD. Benjamin H. Mullish reports consultancy fees from Finch Therapeutics Group. Simon D. Goldenberg reports Consultancy fees from Astellas, Enterobiotix, Menarini, MSD, Pfizer, Shionogi and research grants from Shionogi. Laurent Alric reports consultant/speaker/investigator fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, and Merck. Cyriel Ponsioen reports grant support form Takeda, consultancy fees from Takeda, Shire, and Pliant, and speaker's fees from Tillotts and Pfizer. Caroline Trang-Poisson reports lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, MaaT Pharma, MSD, takeda, advisory board fees from Arena, CT scout, MSD and meeting from AbvVie, takeda, MSD, and Janssen. Maria Vehreschild reports research grants from 3 M, Astellas Pharma, Biontech, DaVolterra, Evonik, Gilead Sciences, Glycom, Immunic, MaaT Pharma, Merck/MSD, Organobalance, Seres Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceutical, and speaker fees and/or consulting from Alb Fils Kliniken GmbH, Arderypharm, Astellas Pharma, Basilea, Bio-Mérieux, DaVolterra, Farmak International Holding GmbH, Ferring, Gilead Sciences, Immunic AG, MaaT Pharma, Merck/MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Organobalance, and SocraTec R&D GmbH. Severine Vermeire reports consulting fees from Prodigest/MRM Health. Elisabeth Terveer and Ed Kuijper reports research grants from Vedanta Bioscience, Boston. Simon Mark Dahl Baunwall, Christian Lodberg Hvas, Jens Frederik Dahlerup, Christian Erikstrup report research grant from the Innovation Fund Denmark (j.no. 8056–00006B). All other authors declare no competing interest., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Opinion Statement: Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed endoscopic procedures. It is the gold standard examination for work-up of colonic symptoms, for follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening tests and for detection and removal of neoplastic polyps. Colonoscopy is a complex and invasive procedure with a potential not only for colorectal cancer prevention, but also for serious complications. Numerous factors may affect the balance of benefit versus harm of colonoscopy, including the performance of the endoscopist. These factors are commonly called quality indicators. As an increasing number of countries are recommending the general population to undergo colorectal cancer screening, the quality of colonoscopy should be considered a public health concern. Key quality indicators have been identified, and several professional organizations have issued recommendation statements to promote high-quality colonoscopy. To achieve high quality, these key quality indicators must be monitored, results must be analysed, and measures must be undertaken to correct substandard performance. High-quality training in colonoscopy and polypectomy should be a quality assurance priority.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2  Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Colonoscopes with gradual stiffness have recently been developed to enhance cecal intubation., Objective: We aimed to determine if the performance of gradual stiffness colonoscopes is noninferior to that of magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI)-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes., Methods: Consecutive patients were randomized to screening colonoscopy with Fujifilm gradual stiffness or Olympus MEI-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation rate (noninferiority limit 5%). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time. We estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: We enrolled 475 patients: 222 randomized to the gradual stiffness instrument, and 253 to the MEI-guided variable stiffness instrument. Cecal intubation rate was 91.7% in the gradual stiffness group versus 95.6% in the variable stiffness group. The adjusted absolute risk for cecal intubation failure was 4.3% higher in the gradual stiffness group than in the variable stiffness group (upper CI border 8.1%). Median cecal intubation time was 13 minutes in the gradual stiffness group and 10 minutes in the variable stiffness group ( p  < 0.001)., Conclusions: The study is inconclusive with regard to noninferiority because the 95% CI for the difference in cecal intubation rate between the groups crosses the noninferiority margin. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01895504).

Goals: The aim of this study was to compare upper gastrointestinal (UGI) versus lower gastrointestinal (LGI) delivery routes of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for refractory or recurrent/relapsing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI)., Background: FMT has been proven to be a safe and highly effective therapeutic option for CDI. Delivery, however, could be via the UGI or LGI routes, and it is unclear as to which route provides better clinical outcome., Study: A systematic search for studies that reported the use of FMT for CDI treatment was conducted. Individual patient data that included demographic (age and sex) and clinical (route of FMT delivery, CDI outcome after FMT, and follow-up time) information were obtained. Kaplan-Meier cumulative hazard curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess clinical failure after FMT by the route of delivery., Results: Data from 305 patients treated with FMT (208 via LGI route and 97 via UGI route) for CDI were analyzed. At 30 and 90 days, the risk of clinical failure was 5.6% and 17.9% in the UGI group compared with 4.9% and 8.5% in the LGI delivery route group, respectively. A time-varying analysis suggested a 3-fold increase in hazard of clinical failure for UGI delivery (hazard ratio, 3.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-8.93) in the period after 30 days., Conclusions: FMT delivered via the LGI seems to be the most effective route for the prevention of recurrence/relapse of CDI. A randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm whether FMT delivered via the LGI is indeed superior to that delivered via the UGI route.

Objective: To create and validate an objective and reliable score to assess referral quality in gastroenterology., Design: An observational multicentre study., Setting and Participants: 25 gastroenterologists participated in selecting variables for a Thirty Point Score (TPS) for quality assessment of referrals to gastroenterology specialist healthcare for 9 common indications. From May to September 2014, 7 hospitals from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority participated in collecting and scoring 327 referrals to a gastroenterologist., Main Outcome Measure: Correlation between the TPS and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for referral quality., Results: The 327 referrals had an average TPS of 13.2 (range 1-25) and an average VAS of 4.7 (range 0.2-9.5). The reliability of the score was excellent, with an intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.87 and inter-rater ICC of 0.91. The overall correlation between the TPS and the VAS was moderate (r=0.42), and ranged from fair to substantial for the various indications. Mean agreement was good (ICC=0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.57)), ranging from poor to good., Conclusions: The TPS is reliable, objective and shows good agreement with the subjective VAS. The score may be a useful tool for assessing referral quality in gastroenterology, particularly important when evaluating the effect of interventions to improve referral quality., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background and Study Aims: Colonoscopy is frequently performed with opioid analgesia, but the impact of drug delivery timing has not been studied in detail. Low-dose opioids administered before the procedure may provide better pain control than on-demand administration when the patient experiences pain., Patients and Methods: A total of 119 outpatients were randomized to receive 50 μg of fentanyl either before colonoscopy (routine group) or on demand if needed during the colonoscopy (on-demand group). Additional fentanyl or midazolam was allowed in both groups if required. The primary outcome was pain measured on both a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst possible pain) and a four-point Likert scale (no, slight, moderate, or severe pain) immediately after the procedure., Results: A total of 61 patients in the routine group and 58 patients in the on-demand group were included in the study. Mean VAS pain scores were 27.4 mm in the routine group and 30.5 mm in the on-demand group (mean difference - 3.2 mm; 95 % confidence interval - 11.9 to 5.5; P = 0.5). On the Likert scale, moderate or severe pain was experienced by 25.0 % and 31.5 % of patients in the routine and on-demand groups, respectively (p = 0.5). Cecal intubation rate and time to reach the cecum were similar between the groups. More patients in the on-demand group (81.0 %) than in the routine group (62.3 %) were able to leave the clinic without the need for recovery time (P = 0.03)., Conclusion: Routine administration of fentanyl did not provide better analgesia during colonoscopy than on-demand fentanyl, and more patients needed time for recovery., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01786434)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

BACKGROUND Questionnaire surveys are important for surveying the health and disease behaviour of the population, but recent years have seen a fall in participation. Our study tested whether incentives can increase participation in these surveys.MATERIAL AND METHOD We sent a questionnaire on risk factors for colorectal cancer (height, weight, smoking, self-reported diagnoses, family medical history) to non-screened participants in a randomised colonoscopy screening study for colorectal cancer: participants who were invited but did not attend for colonoscopy examination (screening-invited) and persons who were not offered colonoscopy (control group). The persons were randomised to three groups: no financial incentive, lottery scratch cards included with the form, or a prize draw for a tablet computer when they responded to the form. We followed up all the incentive groups with telephone reminder calls, and before the prize draw for the tablet computer.RESULTS Altogether 3 705 of 6 795 persons (54.5  %) responded to the questionnaire; 43.5  % of those invited for screening and 65.6  % of the control group (p < 0.001). The proportion that answered was not influenced by incentives, either among those invited for screening (42.4  % in the non-prize group, 45.5  % in the lottery scratch card group and 42.6  % in the prize draw group; p = 0.24), or in the control group (65.6  % in the non-prize group, 66.4  % in the lottery scratch card group and 64.7  % in the prize draw group; p = 0.69). Prior to reminder calls, 39.2  % responded. A further 15.3  % responded following telephone reminder calls (14.1  % of the screening-invited and 16.5  % of the control group; p < 0.001).INTERPRETATION Incentives did not increase participation in this medical questionnaire survey. Use of telephone reminder calls and telephone interviews increased participation, but whether this is more effective than other methods requires further study.

Importance: Although some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist., Objective: To investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries., Design, Setting, and Population: A population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014., Interventions: Colonoscopy screening or no screening., Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist., Results: Of 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Colonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality in the Western world. Advances in surgical and medical management have led to improved outcomes; however, the prognosis of CRC is often poor when detected at a symptomatic stage. Most cases of CRC develop over years from removable well-defined precursor lesions, and asymptomatic, curable disease may be detected by convenient noninvasive tests. These features make CRC a suitable candidate for screening, and several options are available. This article outlines the evidence for established CRC screening tests along with a discussion on newer tests and ongoing research., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aims: Compared with air insufflation, water exchange and carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation have been shown to reduce colonoscopy discomfort; however, head-to-head studies of the two methods are lacking. We aimed to compare water exchange and CO2 insufflation directly with regard to pain during primary unsedated colonoscopy., Methods: Patients willing to undergo unsedated colonoscopy at three centers in Norway and Poland were randomized 1:1 to water exchange or CO2 insufflation during colonoscope insertion. Patients were blinded to group allocation. The primary end point was the proportion of patients reporting moderate or severe procedural pain on a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS-4) at discharge. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients reporting no pain on the VRS-4., Results: A total of 473 patients were randomized. A discharge pain questionnaire was completed by 226 of 234 patients (97 %) in the water exchange group versus 226 of 239 patients (95 %) in the CO2 group (P = 0.37). Moderate or severe pain was reported by 47 of 226 patients (21 %) in the water exchange group versus 60 of 226 patients (27 %) in the CO2 group (P = 0.15). No pain was reported by 100 of 226 patients (44 %) and 69 of 226 patients (31 %) in the water exchange and CO2 groups, respectively (P = 0.003). On-demand sedation was used in 15 patients (6 %) in each group (P = 0.95)., Conclusions: There was no significant reduction in moderate or severe pain in a comparison of water exchange with CO2 insufflation. The secondary outcome of no pain was significantly more frequent in the water exchange group. Clinical trials registry number: NCT01633333., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: Clostridium difficle-associated infection (CDI) is usually treated with antibiotics; nevertheless, the infection has a high relapse rate. Case series and case reports using fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for CDI show promising results. However, there are no large studies to provide evidence for the efficacy of this therapy. The aim of this pooled patient data meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of FMT in CDI., Methods: We performed a literature search for FMT for CDI or pseudomembranous colitis. Individual patient data were obtained from each study. The primary endpoint was to assess the rate of diarrhea resolution. Secondary endpoints were to identify variables associated with treatment failure and side effects of therapy., Results: A total of 289 patients from 25 published articles who received FMT for CDI were included in the pooled data analysis. FMT had an overall success rate of 91.2%. On univariate analysis, shorter duration of symptoms before FMT (< 60 days) and gastroduodenal route of fecal instillation were associated with treatment failure. On multivariate regression analysis, shorter duration of symptoms (< 60 days) before the FMT (OR= 11.08; p = 0.0009) was associated with treatment failure. Reported adverse events following FMT were irritable bowel syndrome (n = 1), symptoms of mild enteritis (n = 3), and suspected peritonitis following the procedure (n = 1)., Conclusion: FMT is a safe and effective treatment option for CDI. Shorter duration of symptoms (< 60 days) before administering FMT is associated with treatment failure.

Background and Study Aim: While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial., Study Design: Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. POWER ANALYSIS: We hypothesize a 50 % CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50 % compliance, yielding a 25 % mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90 % power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2:1 randomization, 45 600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22 800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up., Conclusions: The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Knowing the position of the endoscope within the abdomen is important for performing a high-quality, painless colonoscopy. The recently introduced magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) system provides a continuous, real-time image of the endoscope during the entire procedure., Objective: To compare MEI versus standard colonoscopy with on-demand fluoroscopy on unsedated patients, as performed by experienced and inexperienced endoscopists., Design: Randomized, controlled trial., Setting: Endoscopy outpatient clinic., Patients: This study involved 810 consecutive patients (391 randomized to standard group; 419 randomized to MEI) referred for colonoscopy., Intervention: MEI or standard approach (involving on-demand fluoroscopy) during colonoscopy., Main Outcome Measurements: Perceived patient pain and cecal intubation rate and time to cecum., Results: For inexperienced endoscopists, the cecal intubation rate was significantly higher in the MEI group (77.8%) compared with the standard group (56.0%), P = .02 but not for experienced endoscopists (94.0% for MEI and 96.0% for standard group, P = .87). Inexperienced endoscopists had less need for assistance from a senior colleague when they used MEI (18.5%) compared with the standard technique (40.0%), P = .02. Mean (± standard deviation) time to reach the cecum was 14.0 ± 12.2 minutes in the MEI group and 15.3 ± 14.2 minutes in the standard group, P = .67., Limitations: Single center, unblinded study., Conclusion: Inexperienced endoscopists improved their colonoscopy performance when they used MEI, compared with the standard technique, but experienced endoscopists did not. The MEI may be advantageous to use for colonoscopy centers educating endoscopists. (, Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT00519129.)., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

We report a success rate of 83% with faecal donor instillation therapy (FDIT) in this retrospective study of 40 patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD), treated at a medium sized Norwegian hospital from 1994 through 2008. The stool transplant was instilled either in the duodenum through a gastroscope or in the colon through a colonoscope with next of kin or other household member as donor. In 29 cases (73%) the first treatment was successful, with no documented recurrence of diarrhoeal disease within 80 days. Of the 11 patients failing to respond to the first instillation treatment, 6 patients received a second instillation, 4 of which were successful. A total of 33 patients (83%) were successfully treated with FDIT. Of the 7 non-responders, 5 were seriously ill due to long lasting diarrhoeal disease and co-morbidity and died within 80 days after the procedure, and 2 were believed to have inflammatory bowel disease with response to corticosteroid treatment. No adverse effects of FDIT were observed. In our experience the procedure is easy to perform, well tolerated, effective, and may be a valuable treatment option in selected cases.