Changes in impedance planimetry metrics predict clinical response to flexible endoscopy in Zenker's diverticulotomy.

Background and study aims Various techniques have been described for flexible endoscopic therapy for Zenker's diverticulum (ZD). Objective methods to assess myotomy effectiveness are lacking. We assessed the utility of impedance planimetry in flexible endoscopic ZD therapies and correlation with a validated symptom score. Patients and methods Patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for symptomatic ZD from February 2019 to March 2020 were included. Intraprocedural impedance planimetry was performed pre- and post-myotomy to assess esophageal diameter and distensibility index (DI). Eating Assessment Tool (EAT)-10 scores were assessed preintervention and post-intervention. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results Thirteen patients (46 % women; mean age 80 years; 77 % peroral endoscopic myotomy technique) were included. Technical and clinical success was 100 %. No adverse events occurred. At 40 mL and 50 mL, the diameter improved (mean 2.3 mm and 2.6 mm, respectively). At 40 mL and 50 mL, the DI improved (mean 1.0 mm 2 /mmHg and 1.8 mm 2 /mmHg, respectively). EAT-10 scores improved by a mean of 15 points. Mean follow-up was 97 days. Conclusions Intraprocedural impedance planimetry may provide objective data to define success for flexible endoscopic ZD. Further research is required to corroborate these results.

Hydrogen Breath Testing Predicts Bowel Preparation Quality Prior to Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of hydrogen breath testing as a predictor of bowel preparation. METHODS: Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov. Two investigators evaluated abstracts for inclusion criteria - report of correlation between hydrogen breath levels and bowel preparation quality, prospective design and non-emergent colonoscopy in adults. Included studies underwent duplicate data extraction using a standardized approach. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool assessed quality of the studies. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine publications were identified, and six unique studies met inclusion criteria. The number of patients analyzed ranged from 61 to 127. Three studies were performed in the USA, one in Japan and two in Italy. Three studies used a prebiotic in addition to a purgative, with the intention of enhancing the discriminating ability of hydrogen breath levels. Three studies assessed baseline hydrogen levels. In five of the six studies, hydrogen breath levels were predictive of inadequate bowel preparation. Suggested absolute hydrogen levels to distinguish adequate from inadequate bowel preparation ranged from 3 to 10 parts per million. Depending on the cutoff value, sensitivity ranged from 71% to 100% and specificity from 87% to 100%. There was significant heterogeneity among studies in breath testing protocol and breath analyzer used. Full-text studies had low risk of bias in most assessed domains. CONCLUSION: Hydrogen breath levels predict bowel preparation adequacy but existing studies have significant limitations. Further studies should use standardized methods and consider the real-world practicality of self-administered home breath testing.

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Bowel preparation is inadequate in a large proportion of colonoscopies, leading to multiple clinical and economic harms. While most patients receive some form of education before colonoscopy, there is no consensus on the best approach. AIMS: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of patient education interventions to improve bowel preparation. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a patient education intervention; (2) a primary aim of improving bowel preparation; (3) a validated bowel preparation scale; (4) a prospective design; (5) a concurrent control group; and, (6) adult participants. Study validity was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale. RESULTS: 1,080 abstracts were screened. Seven full text studies met inclusion criteria, including 2,660 patients. These studies evaluated multiple delivery platforms, including paper-based interventions (three studies), videos (two studies), re-education telephone calls the day before colonoscopy (one study), and in-person education by physicians (one study). Bowel preparation significantly improved with the intervention in all but one study. All but one study were done in a single center. Validity scores ranged from 13 to 24 (maximum 27). Four of five abstracts and research letters that met inclusion criteria also showed improvements in bowel preparation. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Compared to usual care, patient education interventions appear efficacious in improving the quality of bowel preparation. However, because of the small scale of the studies and individualized nature of the interventions, results of these studies may not be generalizable to other settings. Healthcare practices should consider systematically evaluating their current bowel preparation education methods before undertaking new interventions.