-
1.
Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
Patel, SG, May, FP, Anderson, JC, Burke, CA, Dominitz, JA, Gross, SA, Jacobson, BC, Shaukat, A, Robertson, DJ
The American journal of gastroenterology. 2022;(1):57-69
Abstract
This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.
-
2.
Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Shao, PP, Bui, A, Romero, T, Jia, H, Leung, FW
Digestive diseases and sciences. 2021;(4):1175-1188
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR. METHODS The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time. CONCLUSION WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.
-
3.
Mobile health technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
El Bizri, M, El Sheikh, M, Lee, GE, Sewitch, MJ
PloS one. 2021;(3):e0248679
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are innovative solutions for delivering instructions to patients preparing for colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the literature evaluating the effectiveness of mHealth technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth technologies for colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and appraised methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Data were pooled using random effects models and when heterogeneity, assessed using I2, was statistically significant, a qualitative synthesis of the data was performed. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. RESULTS Ten RCTs (3,383 participants) met inclusion criteria. MHealth interventions included smartphone apps, SMS text messages, videos, camera apps, and a social media app. Outcomes were bowel cleanliness quality, user satisfaction, colonoscopy quality indicators (cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate), adherence to diet, and cancellation/no-show rates. MHealth interventions were associated with better bowel cleanliness scores on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.57, 95%CI 0.37-0.77, I2 = 60%, p = 0.08] and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale [SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.59-0.19, I2 = 45%, p = 0.16], but they were not associated with rates of willingness to repeat the colonoscopy using the same regimen [odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95%CI 0.85-4.15, I2 = 48%, p = 0.12] or cancellations/no-shows [OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.68-1.35, I2 = 0%]. Most studies showed that adequate bowel preparation, user satisfaction and adherence to diet were better in the intervention groups compared to the control groups, while inconsistent findings were observed for the colonoscopy quality indicators. All trials were at high risk of bias for lack of participant blinding. Visual inspection of a funnel plot revealed publication bias. CONCLUSIONS MHealth technologies show promise as a way to improve bowel cleanliness, but trials to date were of low methodological quality. High-quality research is required to understand the effectiveness of mHealth technologies on colonoscopy outcomes.
-
4.
Higher rate of en bloc resection with underwater than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis.
Tziatzios, G, Gkolfakis, P, Triantafyllou, K, Fuccio, L, Facciorusso, A, Papanikolaou, IS, Antonelli, G, Nagl, S, Ebigbo, A, Probst, A, et al
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2021;(8):958-964
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs). MATERIAL AND METHODS PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence. RESULTS Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P<0.0001; I²=84%, GRADE Very low]. This effect was more prominent regarding resection of polyps sized ≥20 mm compared to polyps <20 mm [RR(95%CI):1.64(1.22-2.20) vs. 1.10(0.98-1.23)]. Post-resection recurrence [RR(95%CI):0.52(0.28-0.94);GRADELow] was lower significantly in U-EMR group. In contrast, no significant difference was detected between U-EMR and C-EMR regarding complete resection [RR(95%CI): 1.06(0.91-1.24) GRADEVery low] and adverse events occurrence[RR(95%CI):1.00 (0.72-1.39); GRADELow]. CONCLUSION Meta-analysis of RCTs supports that U-EMR resection achieves higher rate of en bloc resection compared to conventional EMR. This effect is driven when resecting large(≥20 mm) polyps.
-
5.
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.
-
6.
Effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus standard bowel preparations: A meta-analysis of randomized phase-3 clinical trials.
Maida, M, Macaluso, FS, Sferrazza, S, Ventimiglia, M, Sinagra, E
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2020;(8):833-839
Abstract
BACKGROUND A 1 L PEG-based preparation for colonoscopy (NER1006) has been recently developed. AIMS We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus traditional preparations. METHODS PubMed/Medline and Embase were systematically searched through January 2020 for phase-3 RCTs comparing NER1006 versus standard preparations. RESULTS Three RCTs (1879 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed a higher cleansing success for NER1006 compared standard preparations (OR=1.28; 95% CI 1.00-1.62; p = 0.047, I2=0%) as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon (OR=2.13; 95% CI 1.16-3.94; p = 0.015, I2=76.0%) when assessed by the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). The pooled estimate of the NER1006 effect on ADR showed a higher, although not significant, ADR of the right colon (OR=1.19; 95% CI 0.73-1.92; p = 0.485, I2=53%). When considering the impact of NER1006 on mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), we observed a significant pooled estimate of TEAEs (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.82-2.94; p<0.001, I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS When compared to traditional preparations, NER1006 showed a better overall cleansing of the colon as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon, with comparable ADR. A higher incidence of mild to moderate TEAEs was observed for NER1006, in the absence of serious adverse events.
-
7.
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.
-
8.
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.
-
9.
Is water exchange superior to water immersion for colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chen, Z, Li, Z, Yu, X, Wang, G
Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. 2018;(5):259-267
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recently, water exchange (WE) instead of water immersion (WI) for colonoscopy has been proposed to decrease pain and improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to assess whether WE is superior to WI based on the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched studies from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Only RCTs were eligible for our study. The pooled risk ratios (RRs), pooled mean difference (MD), and pooled 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model based on heterogeneity. RESULTS Five RCTs consisting of 2229 colonoscopies were included in this study. WE was associated with a significantly higher ADR than WI (RR = 1.18; CI = 1.05-1.32; P = 0.004), especially in right colon (RR = 1.31; CI = 1.07-1.61; P = 0.01). Compared with WI, WE was confirmed with lower pain score, higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, but more infused water during insertion. There was no statistical difference between WE and WI in cecal intubation rate and the number of patients who had willingness to repeat the examination. Furthermore, both total procedure time and cecal intubation time in WE were significantly longer than that in WI (MD = 2.66; CI = 1.42-3.90; P < 0.0001; vs MD = 4.58; CI = 4.01-5.15; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in improving ADR, attenuating insertion pain and providing better bowel cleansing, but inferior in time and consumption of infused water consumption during insertion.
-
10.
Do adjuvants add to the efficacy and tolerance of bowel preparations? A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Restellini, S, Kherad, O, Menard, C, Martel, M, Barkun, AN
Endoscopy. 2018;(2):159-176
Abstract
UNLABELLED BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Recommendations on adjuvant use with bowel preparations remain disparate. We performed a meta-analysis determining the clinical impact of adding an adjuvant to polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate (PICO), or oral sulfate solutions (OSS)-based regimens. METHODS Systematic searches were made of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge for randomized trials from January 1980 to April 2016 that assessed preparations with or without adjuvants, given in split and non-split dosing, and PEG high- (> 3 L) or low-dose (≤ 2 L) regimens. Bowel cleansing efficacy was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to repeat the procedure, and polyp and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS Of 3093 citations, 77 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, addition of an adjuvant compared with no adjuvant, irrespective of the type of preparation and mode of administration, yielded improvements in bowel cleanliness (odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.01 - 1.51]) without greater willingness to repeat (OR 1.40 [0.91 - 2.15]). Adjuvants combined with high-dose PEG significantly improved colon cleansing (OR 1.96 [1.32 - 2.94]). The odds for achieving adequate preparation with low-dose PEG with an adjuvant were not different to high-dose PEG alone (OR 0.95 [0.73 - 1.22]), but yielded improved tolerance (OR 3.22 [1.85 - 5.55]). However, split high-dose PEG yielded superior cleanliness to low-dose PEG with adjuvants (OR 2.53 [1.25 - 5.13]). No differences were noted for OSS and PICO comparisons, or for any products regarding polyp or adenoma detection rates. CONCLUSIONS Critical heterogeneity precludes firm conclusion on the impact of adjuvants with existing bowel preparations. Additional research is required to better characterize the methods of administration and resulting roles of adjuvants in an era of split-dosing.