Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDS) is a promising modality for management of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with potential for better stent patency. We compared its outcomes with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stenting (ERCP-M). METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with MDBO secondary to borderline resectable, locally advanced, or unresectable peri-ampullary cancers across 10 Canadian institutions and 1 French institution. This was a superiority trial with a noninferiority assessment of technical success. Patients were randomized to EUS-CDS or ERCP-M. The primary end point was the rate of stent dysfunction at 1 year, considering competing risks of death, clinical failure, and surgical resection. Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2022, 144 patients were recruited; 73 were randomized to EUS-CDS and 71 were randomized to ERCP-M. The mean (SD) procedure time was 14.0 (11.4) minutes for EUS-CDS and 23.1 (15.6) minutes for ERCP-M (P < .01); 40% of the former was performed without fluoroscopy. Technical success was achieved in 90.4% (95% CI, 81.5% to 95.3%) of EUS-CDS and 83.1% (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.1%) of ERCP-M with a risk difference of 7.3% (95% CI, -4.0% to 18.8%) indicating noninferiority. Stent dysfunction occurred in 9.6% vs 9.9% of EUS-CDS and ERCP-M cases, respectively (P = .96). No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy and oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although not superior in stent function, EUS-CDS is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP-M in patients with MDBO. These findings provide evidence for greater adoption of EUS-CDS in clinical practice as a complementary and exchangeable first-line modality to ERCP in patients with MDBO. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03870386.

Aspirin exposure and its association with metal stent patency in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large international multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Stent dysfunction is common after ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Chronic aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) exposure has been previously shown to potentially decrease this risk. We aim to further ascertain the protective effect of ASA and to identify other predictors of stent dysfunction. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at 9 sites in Canada and 1 in the United States. Patients with MDBO who underwent ERCP with SEMS placement between January 2014 and December 2019 were included and divided into 2 cohorts: ASA exposed (ASA-E) and ASA unexposed (ASA-U). Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed to limit selection bias. Matched variables were age, sex, tumor stage, and type of metal stent. The primary outcome was the hazard rate of stent dysfunction. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of stent dysfunction. RESULTS: Of 1396 patients assessed, after PSM 496 patients were analyzed (248 ASA-E and 248 ASA-U). ERCP with SEMS placement was associated with a high clinical success of 82.2% in ASA-E and 81.2% in ASA-U cohorts (P = .80). One hundred eighty-four patients had stent dysfunction with a mean stent patency time of 229.9 ± 306.2 days and 245.4 ± 241.4 days in ASA-E and ASA-U groups, respectively (P = .52). On multivariable analysis, ASA exposure did not protect against stent dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], .96-1.63). An etiology of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61) predicted stent dysfunction, whereas cancer therapy was protective (HR, .73; 95% CI, .55-.96). Chronic ASA use was not associated with an increased risk for adverse events including bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and perforation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter study using PSM, chronic exposure to ASA did not protect against stent dysfunction in MDBO. Instead, the analysis revealed that the etiology of pancreatic cancer was an independent predictor of stent dysfunction and cancer therapy was protective.

Existing Bowel Preparation Quality Scales Are Reliable in the Setting of Centralized Endoscopy Reading.

BACKGROUND: Development of bowel preparation products has been based upon colon cleansing rating by a local endoscopist. It is unclear how bowel preparation scales perform when centrally evaluated. AIMS: To evaluate the reliability of bowel preparation quality scales when assessed by central readers. METHODS: Four central readers evaluated 52 videos in triplicate, 2 weeks apart, during the entire endoscopic procedure (insertion/withdrawal of the colonoscope) and exclusively on colonoscope withdrawal using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), Chicago Bowel Preparation scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), Aronchick score, a visual analogue scale, and additional items proposed in a modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-rater reliability of the quality scales ranged from 0.51 to 0.65 (consistent with moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability) during the entire procedure. Corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 (consistent with substantial intra-rater reliability). Reliability was highest in the right colon and lowest in the left colon. No differences were observed in reliability when assessed for the procedure overall (insertion/withdrawal) relative to assessment on withdrawal alone. CONCLUSION: All five bowel preparation quality scales had moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. Panelists considered the Aronchick score too simplistic for clinical trials and recognized that assessment of residual fluid in the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale was not amenable to central assessment.

The Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative: High-Volume Split-Dose Vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Preparations: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-volume PEG with bisacodyl split-dosing regimens. METHODS: Adult outpatients in 10 Canadian tertiary hospitals were randomized, stratified by morning or afternoon colonoscopy, to high-volume split-dose PEG (2 L + 2 L) (High-SD) or low volume (1 L + 1 L) + bisacodyl (15 mg) PEG (Low-SD), with a second randomization to liquid or low-residue diets. The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing, was adequate bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of ≥6, with each of 3 colonic segments subscores ≥2). Secondary objectives were willingness to repeat the preparation, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and polyp detection rates. RESULTS: Over 29 months, 2314 subjects were randomized to High-SD (N = 1157) or Low-SD (N = 1157) (mean age, 56.2 ± 13.4 y; 52.1% women). Colonoscopy indications were 38.2% diagnostic, 36.8% screening, and 25.0% surveillance, with no between-group imbalances in patient characteristics. Low-SD satisfied noninferiority criteria vs High-SD for adequate bowel cleanliness with only marginally inferior results (90.1% vs 88.1%; P = .02; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI [0.0%; 4.5%]). High-SD was associated with lower willingness to repeat (66.9% vs 91.9%; P < .01), was less well tolerated (7.3 ± 2.3 vs 8.1 ± 1.9; P < .01), causing more symptoms. No differences in procedural outcomes were noted except for more frequent cecal intubation rates after High-SD (97.4% vs 95.6%; P = .02). Among the High-SD group, adequate bowel preparation was greater after a clear liquid diet (93.6% vs 87.9%; P < .01), a finding not seen in the Low-SD group. CONCLUSIONS: Low-SD is noninferior to High-SD in providing adequate bowel preparation. Low-SD results in fewer symptoms, with greater willingness to repeat and tolerability. The overall impact of diet was modest.The study was approved by the research ethic boards from all sites and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02547571).

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period.

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost. RESULTS: 235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %-96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %-97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %-96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %-98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

Serrated Lesion Detection in a Population-based Colon Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Serrated lesions give rise to 15% to 30% of all colorectal cancers, driven predominantly by the sessile serrated polyp (SSP). Fecal immunochemical test (FIT), has low sensitivity for SSPs. SSP detection rate (SSPDR) is influenced by performance of both endoscopists and pathologists, as diagnosis can be subtle both on endoscopy and histology. GOALS: To evaluate the SSPDR in a population-based screening program, and the influence of subspecialty trained pathologists on provincial reporting practices. STUDY: The colon screening program database was used to identify all FIT-positive patients that received colonoscopy between January 2014 and June 2017. Patient demographics, colonoscopy quality indicators, pathologic diagnoses, and FIT values were collected. This study received IRB approval. RESULTS: A total of 74,605 colonoscopies were included and 26.6% had at least 1 serrated polyp removed. The SSPDR was 7.0%, with 59% of the SSPs detected having a concurrent conventional adenoma. The mean FIT value for colonoscopies with only serrated lesions was less than that for colonoscopies with a conventional adenoma or colorectal cancer (P<0.0001). Centers with a gastrointestinal subspecialty pathologist diagnosed proportionally more SSPs (P<0.0001), and right-sided SSPs than centers without subspecialists. CONCLUSIONS: Serrated lesions often occur in conjunction with conventional adenomas and are associated with lower FIT values. Knowledge of the characteristics of SSPs is essential for pathologists to ensure accurate diagnosis of SSPs.

Colorectal adenocarcinomas diagnosed following a negative faecal immunochemical test show high-risk pathological features in a colon screening programme.

AIMS: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is used every 2 years to screen average-risk British Columbians aged 50-74 years, with follow-up colonoscopy for positive results. Non-screen-detected colorectal adenocarcinomas are defined as those detected within 25 months following a negative FIT. We aimed to more clearly characterise these malignancies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A medical chart and focused pathology review of colorectal malignancies from 926 individuals who completed FIT in the British Columbia Colon Screening Program in 2014, and whose pathology reports were available for review, was conducted. This cohort was divided into two groups: individuals with colorectal adenocarcinomas diagnosed following a positive FIT (screen-detected) and individuals with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed within 25 months of a negative FIT (FIT-interval cancers). Rates of clinically relevant pathological parameters, as outlined in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 8th edition, were compared between the screen-detected and FIT-interval cancer groups. A total of 876 screen-detected and 50 FIT-interval cancers were identified. FIT-interval cancers exhibited higher rates of high-grade differentiation (including poorly differentiated and undifferentiated cases; P < 0.01) and aggressive histotype (signet ring cell and mucinous carcinomas; P < 0.01) than did screen-detected cancers after Bonferroni correction. Colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed after a negative FIT may therefore be associated with worse prognostic determinants than screen-detected cancers. CONCLUSION: FIT-interval cancers are associated with high-risk pathological features; the possibility that more aggressive, fast-growing lesions which arise in the interval after truly negative FITs cannot be ruled out. Further study of a larger cohort of FIT-interval cancers controlling for interaction among the different pathologic parameters will be undertaken.

The Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative: A Low-Volume Same-Day Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Preparation vs Low-Volume Split-Dose PEG With Bisacodyl or High-Volume Split-Dose PEG Preparations-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bowel cleanliness has been shown to be superior with split-dose vs nonsplit preparations; we aimed to directly assess the poorly characterized comparative efficacies of split-dose vs same-day polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens. METHODS: In this study, one of a series of randomized trials performed across 10 Canadian endoscopy units, patients undergoing colonoscopies between 10:30 and 16:30 were allocated to PEG low-volume same-day (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 2 L the morning of the procedure), low-volume split-dose (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 1 L + 1 L), or high-volume split-dose (2 L + 2 L). Coprimary endpoints were adequate bowel cleansing based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale using in turn different threshold cutoffs. RESULTS: Overall, 1,750 subjects were randomized equally across the 3 groups, with no differences in adequate bowel cleanliness rates (low-volume same-day, 90.5%; high-volume split-dose, 92.2%; P = 0.34; and low-volume split-dose, 87.9%; P = 0.17) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥6 and 2 for each segment. Willingness to repeat the preparation was not significantly different between low-volume same-day (91.0%) and low-volume split-dose (92.5%; P = 0.40) but was greater than the high-volume split-dose (68.9%; P < 0.01). No significant differences were noted for withdrawal time, cecal intubation, or polyp detection rates. DISCUSSION: In this large randomized trial of PEG regimens, low-volume same-day resulted in similar bowel cleanliness compared with high-volume or low-volume split-dosing. Willingness to repeat and tolerability were superior with low-volume same-day compared with high-volume split-dose and similar to low-volume split-dose.

Premature Fecal Immunochemical Testing in British Columbia Canada: a Retrospective Review of Physician and Screening Participant Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an evidence-based strategy to reduce CRC-related mortality. OBJECTIVE: This study identifies physician and participant characteristics, as well as previous FIT values associated with premature FIT usage. DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of all FITs ordered from January 1, 2016, until June 30, 2017. For each ordered FIT, the participant's chart was reviewed to identify if a previous FIT had occurred in the prior 21 months. A premature FIT was defined as an ordered test with a negative FIT in the preceding 21 months. PARTICIPANTS: Screening participants were average risk for CRC, aged 50-74, and had a FIT ordered by their primary care provider in British Columbia, Canada. MAIN MEASURES: The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons' database was used to identify the location of referring physician, date of graduation from medical school, and gender. The participant's age, gender, and value of previous FIT were recorded. Physician and participant variables and previous FIT value were examined with logistic regression to identify associations with premature FIT ordering. KEY RESULTS: In total, 385,375 FITs were ordered during this period with 116,727 representing participants returning following a previous negative FIT. In total, 35,148 (30.1%) returned early for screening. Men were more likely to return early than women (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.11-1.17; p < 0.0001). Male physicians were more likely to order premature FITs (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.24; p < 0.0001). A higher quantitative FIT value (ng/mL) of the previous FIT was also associated with early screening (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.09-1.14; < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that approximately 30% of FIT tests, ordered for CRC screening, were ordered before they were due. This may lead to wasted resources, unnecessary participant stress, and unwarranted patient risk.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals. METHODS: Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Colorectal cancer screening for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer or adenomas.

OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize the recently developed Canadian Association of Gastroenterology screening recommendations for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenoma from a family medicine perspective. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to synthesize knowledge regarding family history and CRC. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched with the following MeSH terms: colorectal cancers or neoplasms, screen or screening or surveillance, and family or family history. Known hereditary syndromes were excluded. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to establish certainty in reviewed evidence. Most recommendations are conditional recommendations with very low-quality evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Individuals who have 1 first-degree relative (FDR) with CRC or an advanced adenoma diagnosed at any age are recommended to undergo colonoscopy every 5 to 10 years starting at age 40 to 50 years or 10 years younger than the age at diagnosis of the FDR, although fecal immunochemical testing at an interval of every 1 to 2 years can be used. Individuals with FDRs with non-advanced adenomas or a history of CRC in second-degree relatives should be screened according to average-risk guidelines. Lifestyle modification can statistically significantly decrease risk of CRC and should be considered in all patients. CONCLUSION: These guidelines acknowledge the many factors that can increase an individual's risk of developing CRC and allow for judgment to be employed depending on the clinical scenario. Lifestyle advice already given to patients for weight, blood pressure, and heart disease management will reduce the risk of CRC if implemented, and this combined with more targeted screening for higher-risk individuals will hopefully be successful in decreasing CRC mortality in Canada.

When trainees reach competency in performing ERCP: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ERCP is an advanced endoscopic procedure that is technically more challenging and carries a higher risk of adverse events compared with standard endoscopy. A discrepancy currently exists among guidelines regarding the number of ERCPs that a trainee needs to complete before procedural competency should be assessed. Our aim was to assess the learning curve for performing ERCP. METHODS: Two authors independently searched MEDLINE (1946 to November 25, 2014) along with the gray literature to identify relevant citations. To warrant inclusion, citations were required to report successful trainee cannulation rate. Successful cannulation rate, set at a value of 80% or higher, was used as our baseline reference for competency. RESULTS: Nine studies, assessing 137 trainees and 17,100 ERCPs, were included in our analysis. Overall, competency was achieved among the included studies between 70 to 400 ERCPs. In the 2 studies that used pancreatic duct cannulation rate, competency was achieved by 70 to 160 ERCPs. Of the 5 studies that used selective duct cannulation rate, competency was achieved by 79 to 300 ERCPs. Finally, in the 4 studies that used common bile duct cannulation rate, 2 studies reached the reference competency threshold by 160 to 400 ERCPs. On further stratification, when assessing native papilla deep common bile duct cannulation, only 1 study reached the reference competency threshold by 350 to 400 ERCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that as ERCP has evolved from a predominantly diagnostic to therapeutic procedure, procedural thresholds have risen well above North American training guidelines. Therefore, advanced endoscopy training programs need to reassess their current structure to ensure that procedural competency is being reached.

2 L versus 4 L of PEG3350 + electrolytes for outpatient colonic preparation: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-volume bowel preparations are ideal to ensure patient compliance, thus enabling high-quality examinations to be achieved. OBJECTIVES: To examine the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose 2 L PEG3350 + electrolytes (PEG3350e) with 15 mg bisacodyl versus split-dose 4 L PEG3350e. DESIGN: Single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Single site, university-affiliated tertiary care center. PATIENTS: A total of 325 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl versus 4 L of PEG3350e, both given in a split-dose fashion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Efficacy and tolerability of a split dose of 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl. Efficacy was assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Patient satisfaction and tolerability were assessed by using a short survey. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (51% male) with a mean ± standard deviation age of 56 ± 11.2 years. No statistically significant difference in cleanliness was found by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (intention-to-treat, P = .381; per-protocol, P = .387) and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (intention-to-treat, P = .285; per-protocol, P = .334). Participants receiving 2 L of PEG3350e found the preparation easy to consume and were willing to repeat the procedure more often than the 4-L group (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study looking at outpatient colonoscopies; unable to comment on adenoma detection rate. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel-cleansing efficacy was similar in both the 2-L and 4-L PEG3350e groups; however, patient tolerability and willingness to repeat preparation were statistically greater with the 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl regimen.

A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of prescribed patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal on adenoma detection.

BACKGROUND: High-quality colonoscope withdrawal technique is associated with a higher adenoma detection rate. Position change is routinely used in barium enema and CT colonography to facilitate adequate distension of the colon and promote movement of fluid from the segment of the colon being assessed. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prescribed position changes during colonoscope withdrawal affect the adenoma detection rate compared with the usual care per endoscopist. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary-care, university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy between July 2011 and July 2012 were evaluated for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were outpatient status and age ≥40 years. Exclusion criteria were (1) complete colonoscopy within 1 year before the procedure, (2) inability to provide informed consent, (3) incomplete colonoscopy to the cecum, (4) previous bowel resection, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) colonic polyposis syndrome, (7) inadequate bowel preparation, and (8) musculoskeletal disorder or other mobility issues limiting effective patient position changes during colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Prescribed position changes during colonoscope withdrawal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS: A total of 776 patients were enrolled, with 388 in the dynamic group. There was no difference in PDR (odds ratio [OR] 0.99; P = .93) or ADR (OR 1.17; P = .28). Colonoscope withdrawal time was longer in the dynamic group (median time 466.5 vs 422.5 seconds; P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. Indication for procedure not controlled. Lack of standardized bowel preparation and blinding. CONCLUSION: Prescribed position changes during colonoscope withdrawal do not affect polyp/adenoma detection compared with the usual practice when the baseline ADR is above the recommended standard. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01395173.).

Periprocedural Anticoagulation Management of Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy with Polypectomy.

Introduction/Objective Colonoscopy with polypectomy is an integral component of colorectal cancer screening. There are limited data and consensus on periprocedural anticoagulation management, especially regarding bleeding risk with uninterrupted anticoagulation and thromboembolic risk with interruption. Our aim was to determine the incidence of bleeding and thromboembolic complications among colon screening participants undergoing colonoscopy following implementation of a novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management. Methods We conducted a retrospective study including all participants (age 50-74) on an oral anticoagulant (e.g., vitamin K antagonists, direct oral anticoagulants) referred to the British Columbia Colon Screening Program for colonoscopy following abnormal fecal immunochemical test in a 6-month period (March-August 2022). Data relating to their specific periprocedural anticoagulant management and colonoscopy results including method of polypectomy were obtained. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and arterial or venous thromboembolic events from time of oral anticoagulant interruption until 14 days of postcolonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included nonmajor and minor bleeding, acute coronary syndrome, emergency room visit, hospital admission, and death due to any cause. Results Over the 6-month period, 162 participants completed standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management, colonoscopy ± polypectomy, and 14-day follow-up. One (0.6%) had a major bleeding event and one (0.6%) had an arterial thromboembolic event. Conclusions A novel patient care pathway for standardized periprocedural anticoagulation management with a multidisciplinary team is associated with low rates of major bleeding and thrombotic complications after colonoscopy with polypectomy.

Esophageal Tuberculosis as a Rare Cause of Dysphagia: Case Report.

Introduction: The esophagus and duodenum are rare sites of manifestation for extrapulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Its rarity makes the diagnosis challenging, especially when no other organ is involved, and the endoscopic findings may resemble malignancy. Case Presentation: We report a unique case of a 37-year-old woman who presented with dysphagia secondary to esophageal TB with an endoscopic appearance of a submucosal mass resembling malignancy. Conclusion: Esophageal TB is a rare cause of dysphagia, especially in a western setting. It should always be considered as a potential etiology in patients with dysphagia.

Canadian colorectal cancer screening programs: How do they measure up using the International Agency for Research on Cancer criteria for organized screening?

Background: Canada has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) worldwide. CRC screening improves CRC outcomes and is cost-effective. This study compares Canadian CRC screening programs using essential elements of an organized screening program outlined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Methods: We collaborated with the Cancer Screening in 5 continents (CanScreen5) program, an initiative of IARC. Standardized data collection forms were sent to representatives of provincial and territorial CRC screening programs. Twenty-five questions were selected to reflect IARC's essential elements of an organized screening program. We performed a qualitative analysis of Canada's CRC screening programs and compared programs within Canada and internationally. Results: CRC screening programs exist in 10 provinces and 2 territories. None of the programs in Canada met all the essential criteria of an organized screening program outlined by IARC. Three programs do not send invitations to participate in screening. Among those that do, 4 programs do not include a stool test kit in the invitations. While all provinces met the essential elements for leadership, governance, finance, and access to essential services, there was more heterogeneity in the domains of service delivery as well as information systems and quality assurance. Conclusions: There is considerable heterogeneity in the design of CRC screening programs in Canada and worldwide. Programs should strive to meet all the essential IARC criteria for organized screening if local resources allow, such as issuing invitations and implementing systems to track and compare outcomes to maximize screening program quality, effectiveness, and impact.