0
selected
-
1.
The anti-spasmodic effect of peppermint oil during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Aziz, M, Sharma, S, Ghazaleh, S, Fatima, R, Acharya, A, Ghanim, M, Sheikh, T, Lee-Smith, W, Hamdani, SU, Nawras, A
Minerva gastroenterologica e dietologica. 2020;(2):164-171
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multiple pharmacological agents have been studied in literature with antispasmodic effect during colonoscopy. Peppermint oil, with its relaxing effect on colon has demonstrated varying results. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to evaluate its role during colonoscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Literature search of the following databases was undertaken: PubMed\Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Outcomes that were evaluated included incidence of any spasticity, severe spasticity, and peristalsis during examination. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) was evaluated as a quality outcome metric. Risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method and random effects where applicable. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Overall, six studies (with one abstract) were included in this review. Peppermint oil resulted in overall lower incidence for spasticity (RD: -0.39, P=0.02), severe spasticity (RD: -0.15, P=0.04), and peristalsis (-0.27, P≤0.001) during colonoscopy examination. An improved ADR (RR: 1.31, P=0.01) was also noted, however only two studies evaluated this effect. CONCLUSIONS Peppermint oil resulted in relaxation of colon during colonoscopy with decrease incidence of spasticity, severe spasticity, peristalsis and improved ADR. These results are encouraging however results are limited due to significant heterogeneity found in the outcomes. Larger studies with standardized dosing are needed to evaluate this effect. Furthermore, studies evaluating additional colonoscopy outcomes such as polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, and serrated adenoma detection rate are needed.
-
2.
Different dietary fibre sources and risks of colorectal cancer and adenoma: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Oh, H, Kim, H, Lee, DH, Lee, A, Giovannucci, EL, Kang, SS, Keum, N
The British journal of nutrition. 2019;(6):605-615
Abstract
Dietary fibre is believed to provide important health benefits including protection from colorectal cancer. However, the evidence on the relationships with different dietary fibre sources is mixed and little is known about which fibre source provides the greatest benefits. We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohorts to summarise the relationships of different fibre sources with colorectal cancer and adenoma risks. Analyses were restricted to publications that reported all fibre sources (cereals, vegetables, fruits, legumes) to increase comparability between results. PubMed and Embase were searched through August 2018 to identify relevant studies. The summary relative risks (RR) and 95 % CI were estimated using a random-effects model. This analysis included a total of ten prospective studies. The summary RR of colorectal cancer associated with each 10 g/d increase in fibre intake were 0·91 (95 % CI 0·82, 1·00; I2 = 0 %) for cereal fibre, 0·95 (95 % CI 0·87, 1·03, I2 = 0 %) for vegetable fibre, 0·91 (95 % CI 0·78, 1·06, I2 = 43 %) for fruit fibre and 0·84 (95 % CI 0·63, 1·13, I2 = 45 %) for legume fibre. For cereal fibre, the association with colorectal cancer risk remained statistically significant after adjustment for folate intake (RR 0·89, 95 % CI 0·80, 0·99, I2 = 2 %). For vegetable and fruit fibres, the dose-response curve suggested evidence of non-linearity. All fibre sources were inversely associated with incident adenoma (per 10 g/d increase: RR 0·81 (95 % CI 0·54, 1·21) cereals, 0·84 (95 % CI 0·71, 0·98) for vegetables, 0·78 (95 % CI 0·65, 0·93) for fruits) but not associated with recurrent adenoma. Our data suggest that, although all fibre sources may provide some benefits, the evidence for colorectal cancer prevention is strongest for fibre from cereals/grains.
-
3.
Diagnostic application of water exchange colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Xu, X, Ni, D, Lu, Y, Huang, X
The Journal of international medical research. 2019;(2):515-527
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few well-designed studies have investigated water exchange colonoscopy (WE). We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility of WE based on high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the impacts of WE, water immersion colonoscopy (WI), and gas-insufflation colonoscopy. METHODS We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang Data for RCTs on WE. We analyzed the results using fixed- or random-effect models according to the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. RESULTS Thirteen studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The colonoscopic techniques included WE as the study group, and WI and air- or CO2-insufflation colonoscopy as control groups. WE was significantly superior to the control procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, and cecal intubation rate according to odds ratios. WE was also significantly better in terms of maximal pain score and patient satisfaction score according to mean difference. CONCLUSIONS WE can remarkably improve the adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, patient satisfaction, and cecal intubation rate, as well as reducing the maximal pain score in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
-
4.
Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on endoscopy room efficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Cadoni, S, Hassan, C, Frazzoni, L, Ishaq, S, Leung, FW
Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2019;(1):159-167.e13
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Separate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed water exchange (WE) colonoscopy outperformed other techniques in minimizing insertion pain and optimizing adenoma detection rate. Longer insertion time required for removal of infused water, residual air, and feces might have hampered its wider adoption. We evaluate the impact of WE compared with air or carbon dioxide insufflation (GAS) on room turnaround efficiency measured by cecal intubation, withdrawal, and total procedure times. METHODS With a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, we identified RCTs (published before March 18, 2018) that compared WE with GAS. We focused on parameters of turnaround efficiency and patient-centered outcomes. RESULTS We analyzed 8371 subjects from 17 studies. Demographics and indications were comparable. Mean cecal intubation time (± standard deviation) was WE 12.5 ± 6.1 minutes versus GAS 11.1 ± 7.0 minutes, with a mean difference of 1.4 ± 3.4 minutes. Six studies showed significant differences in insertion time, with mean cecal intubation times of 11.6 ± 5.1 minutes for WE versus 7.7 ± 5.2 minutes for GAS, with a mean difference of 3.9 ± 1.1 minutes. Mean withdrawal time was similar. Mean total procedure time was WE 26.0 ± 9.7 versus GAS 24.2 ± 9.6, with a mean difference of 1.8 ± 6.2 minutes. All mean procedure times were significantly different. Patient-centered outcomes revealed that patients examined with WE had significantly lower real-time insertion pain score, less need for sedation, and higher willingness to repeat the procedure. CONCLUSIONS Based on parameters of procedural time, the impact of WE colonoscopy on endoscopy room turnaround yields an increase in total procedure time of about 2 minutes and is associated with significant improvement in specific patient-centered outcomes.
-
5.
Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Fuccio, L, Frazzoni, L, Hassan, C, La Marca, M, Paci, V, Smania, V, De Bortoli, N, Bazzoli, F, Repici, A, Rex, D, et al
Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2018;(4):589-597.e11
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. METHODS A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). RESULTS Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). CONCLUSIONS WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.