Optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

There is robust evidence to indicate a strong correlation between the bowel preparation status and adenoma detection rate (ADR), which directly impacts the incidence and mortality rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Therefore, improving bowel preparation has been of increasing interest. In Japan, commercially available bowel preparation agents include polyethylene glycol, oral sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, magnesium citrate, and oral sodium phosphate; each has its own strengths and limitations. The timing of administration can also influence the efficacy of bowel preparation and patient tolerability. Furthermore, meta-analyses have suggested predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation. A detailed understanding of these factors could contribute to reducing the need for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, as recommended for patients with inadequate bowel preparation. Recent advancements, such as oral sulfate tablets, present promising alternatives with higher patient satisfaction and ADRs than traditional methods. Achieving optimal bowel preparation requires enhanced instructions, individualized regimens, and a comprehensive understanding of patient backgrounds and the characteristics of various bowel preparation agents. This article provides a concise overview of the current status and advancements in bowel preparation for enhancing the quality and safety of colonoscopy.

Long-term impact of artificial intelligence on colorectal adenoma detection in high-risk colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been demonstrated with artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy. However, data on the real-world application of AI and its effect on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outcomes is limited. AIM: To analyze the long-term impact of AI on a diverse at-risk patient population undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for positive CRC screening tests or symptoms. METHODS: AI software (GI Genius, Medtronic) was implemented into the standard procedure protocol in November 2022. Data was collected on patient demographics, procedure indication, polyp size, location, and pathology. CRC screening outcomes were evaluated before and at different intervals after AI introduction with one year of follow-up. RESULTS: We evaluated 1008 colonoscopies (278 pre-AI, 255 early post-AI, 285 established post-AI, and 190 late post-AI). The ADR was 38.1% pre-AI, 42.0% early post-AI (P = 0.77), 40.0% established post-AI (P = 0.44), and 39.5% late post-AI (P = 0.77). There were no significant differences in polyp detection rate (PDR, baseline 59.7%), advanced ADR (baseline 16.2%), and non-neoplastic PDR (baseline 30.0%) before and after AI introduction. CONCLUSION: In patients with an increased pre-test probability of having an abnormal colonoscopy, the current generation of AI did not yield enhanced CRC screening metrics over high-quality colonoscopy. Although the potential of AI in colonoscopy is undisputed, current AI technology may not universally elevate screening metrics across all situations and patient populations. Future studies that analyze different AI systems across various patient populations are needed to determine the most effective role of AI in optimizing CRC screening in clinical practice.

Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD) in a colorectal cancer screening population: Prevalence, endoscopic features and oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD) is characterized by a chronic inflammatory response involving the inter-diverticular colonic mucosa, sparing the rectum and the right colon. AIMS: to assess the prevalence of SCAD in a CRC screening program and to evaluate the differences in terms of oncological outcomes between SCAD and diverticulosis. METHODS: retrospective analysis from a prospectively-maintained database including all subjects undergoing first screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: 1518 patients were included (51.8 % male, mean age 63.48 ± 6.39). Adenomas were detected in 638 patients (ADR 42 %), CRC was diagnosed in 5.7 %. Diverticulosis was described in 37.5 %, while SCAD in 4.5 %. Among them, 69.6 % presented crescentic-fold disease, 20.3 % mild-to-moderate UC-like pattern, 8.7 % CD-like pattern and 1.4 % severe UC-like pattern. When SCAD was compared to uncomplicated/asymptomatic diverticulosis (501 patients), we found no differences in terms of gender (p = 0.46) or age (p = 0.47). Interestingly, the use of anticoagulant/antiplatelet (p = 0.79), anti-hypertensive (p = 0.89) or anti-hyperglycaemic drugs (p = 0.52) had no effect on SCAD onset as compared to diverticulosis. SCAD patients had significant lower rate of adenomas (ADR 31.9% vs 47.3 %, p = 0.018, OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.31-0.89), and lower-but not significant-rate of CRC (1.4% vs 6.2 %, p = 0.14, OR 0.22, 95 %CI 0.02-1.66). CONCLUSIONS: SCAD can be diagnosed in about 5 % of population undergoing screening colonoscopy and in 12 % of those with diverticulosis. SCAD seems to be associated with a reduced rate of adenomas or CRC as compared with diverticulosis.

Adenoma detection rate and tolerability of two ultra-low volume bowel preparations in screening: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR), recognized as a surrogate marker for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality reduction, is closely linked to the efficacy of bowel cleansing. However, there is a dearth of evidence examining the impact on ADR when employing two distinct very low-dose bowel cleansing products. This study sought to compare ADR in a fecal immunochemical occult blood testing (iFOBT) based organized screening program by utilizing 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEGA) versus magnesium citrate plus picosulphate (SPMC), both administered in a split-dose regimen. METHODS: We conducted a comparative, parallel, randomized, noninferiority, and low-intervention clinical trial, the study targeted individuals from a population colorectal cancer screening program aged 50-69 with a positive iFOBT result scheduled for a work-up colonoscopy in the morning. Participants were randomized to either 1L-PEGA or SPMC for bowel cleansing. Main outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were bowel preparation quality, individuals' safety, tolerability and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 1,002 subjects were included, 501 in each group. There were no differences between groups with respect to pooled ADR (SPMC, 56.5% [52.1-60.8]; 1L-PEGA, 53.7% [49.3-58.0]; RR 0.95 [0.85-1.06]); therefore, SPMC demonstrated noninferiority in ADR compared to 1L-PEGA (difference, 2.8%; 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit (LCL), -3.4). In addition, there were no significant differences in mean lesions regardless of size and location between arms. Bowel preparation favored 1L-PEGA (96.2% vs. 89.2%; p<0.001) whereas SPMC exhibited significantly higher safety and tolerability, as evidenced by fewer non-serious treatment-emergent adverse events CONCLUSIONS: SPMC emerged as a noninferior laxative compared to 1L-PEGA concerning ADR. Despite the superior bowel preparation quality associated with 1L-PEGA, the safety, tolerability and overall satisfaction of participants were higher with SPMC. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (EudraCT: 2019-003186-18) on March 18, 2019.

Barriers against Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Performance Measures for Colonoscopy in Clinical Practice.

Background and Objectives: The implementation and monitoring of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures for colonoscopy are suboptimal in clinical practice. Electronic reporting systems may play an important role in data retrieval. We aimed to define the possibility of systematically assessing and monitoring ESGE performance measures for colonoscopy through reporting systems. Materials and Methods: We conducted a survey during a nationwide event on the quality of colonoscopy held in Rome, Italy, in March 2023 by a self-administered questionnaire. Analyses were conducted overall and by workplace setting. Results: The attendance was 93% (M/F 67/26), with equal distribution of age groups, regions and public or private practices. Only about one-third (34%) and 21.5% of participants stated that their reporting system allows them to retrieve all the ESGE performance measures, overall and as automatic retrieval, respectively. Only 66.7% and 10.7% of respondents can systematically report the cecal intubation and the adenoma detection rate, respectively. The analysis according to hospital setting revealed no significant difference for all the items. Conclusions: We found a generalized lack of systematic tracking of performance measures for colonoscopy due to underperforming reporting systems. Our results underline the need to update reporting systems to monitor the quality of endoscopy practice in Italy.

Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is challenging to measure, given its dependency on pathology reporting. Polyp detection rate (PDR) (percentage of screening colonoscopies detecting a polyp) is a proposed alternative to overcome this issue. Overall PDR from all colonoscopies is a relatively novel concept, with no large-scale studies comparing overall PDR with screening-only PDR. The aim of the study was to compare PDR from screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications with overall PDR and evaluate any correlation between individual endoscopist PDR by indication to determine if overall PDR can be a valuable surrogate for screening PDR. Our study analyzed a prospectively collected national endoscopy database maintained by the National Institute of Health from 2009 to 2014. Out of 354,505 colonoscopies performed between 2009-2014, 298,920 (n = 110,794 average-risk screening, n = 83,556 average-risk surveillance, n = 104,770 diagnostic) met inclusion criteria. The median screening PDR was 25.45 (IQR 13.15-39.60), comparable with the median overall PDR of 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86, p = 0.21). Median surveillance PDR was higher at 33.73 (IQR 16.92-47.01), and median diagnostic PDR was lower at 19.35 (IQR 9.66-29.17), compared with median overall PDR 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86; p < 0.01). The overall PDR showed excellent concordance with screening, surveillance, and diagnostic PDR (r > 0.85, p < 0.01, 2-tailed). The overall PDR is a reliable and pragmatic surrogate for screening PDR and can be measured in real time, irrespective of colonoscopy indication.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Standard-definition White-light, High-definition White-light versus Narrow-band Imaging Endoscopy for Detecting Colorectal Adenomas: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the performance of standard-definition white-light endoscopy (SD-WL), high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WL), and high-definition narrow-band imaging (HD-NBI) in detecting colorectal lesions in the Chinese population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Patients undergoing endoscopy for physical examination, screening, and surveillance were enrolled from July 2017 to December 2020. The primary outcome measure was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma detected. The associated factors for detecting adenomas were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Out of 653 eligible patients enrolled, data from 596 patients were analyzed. The ADRs were 34.5% in the SD-WL group, 33.5% in the HD-WL group, and 37.5% in the HD-NBI group (P=0.72). The advanced neoplasm detection rates (ANDRs) in the three arms were 17.1%, 15.5%, and 10.4% (P=0.17). No significant differences were found between the SD group and HD group regarding ADR or ANDR (ADR: 34.5% vs. 35.6%, P=0.79; ANDR: 17.1% vs. 13.0%, P=0.16, respectively). Similar results were observed between the HD-WL group and HD-NBI group (ADR: 33.5% vs. 37.7%, P=0.45; ANDR: 15.5% vs. 10.4%, P=0.18, respectively). In the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, neither HD-WL nor HD-NBI led to a significant difference in overall adenoma detection compared to SD-WL (HD-WL: OR 0.91, P=0.69; HD-NBI: OR 1.15, P=0.80). CONCLUSION: HD-NBI and HD-WL are comparable to SD-WL for overall adenoma detection among Chinese outpatients. It can be concluded that HD-NBI or HD-WL is not superior to SD-WL, but more effective instruction may be needed to guide the selection of different endoscopic methods in the future. Our study's conclusions may aid in the efficient allocation and utilization of limited colonoscopy resources, especially advanced imaging technologies.

Effect of fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is higher after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) compared to direct screening colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis evaluated how ADR, the rates of advanced adenoma detection (AADR), colorectal cancer detection (CDR), and sessile serrated lesion detection (SSLDR) are affected by different FIT positivity thresholds. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews databases for studies reporting ADR, AADR, CDR, and SSLDR according to different FIT cut-off values in asymptomatic average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years old. Data were stratified according to sex, age, time to colonoscopy, publication year, continent, and FIT kit type. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 4280 articles were retrieved and fifty-eight studies were included (277,661 FIT-positive colonoscopies; mean cecal intubation 96.3%; mean age 60.8 years; male 52.1%). Mean ADR was 56.1% (95% CI 53.4 - 58.7%), while mean AADR, CDR, and SSLDR were 27.2% (95% CI 24.4 - 30.1%), 5.3% (95% CI 4.7 - 6.0%), and 3.0% (95% CI 1.7 - 4.6%), respectively. For each 20 µg Hb/g increase in FIT cut-off level, ADR increased by 1.54% (95% CI 0.52 - 2.56%, p < 0.01), AADR by 3.90% (95% CI 2.76 - 5.05%, p < 0.01) and CDR by 1.46% (95% CI 0.66 - 2.24%, p < 0.01). Many detection rates were greater amongst males and Europeans. CONCLUSIONS: ADRs in FIT-positive colonoscopies are influenced by the adopted FIT positivity threshold, and identified targets, importantly, proved to be higher than most current societal recommendations.

A smartphone application to enhance bowel preparation for first-time colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

Background and aims: Colonoscopy is an essential cancer screening tool; however, bowel preparation is a multifaceted process that involves several steps. Proper preparation is crucial for a successful colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety. We evaluated the performance of a smartphone application with bowel preparation instructions on individuals undergoing their first colonoscopy. Methods: In this randomized, prospective, endoscopist-blinded study, participants were scheduled to undergo their first colonoscopy between January 2020 and January 2022. The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002). They were randomly assigned to the smartphone education application (APP) or the standard education (control) group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were compared. Factors associated with excellent bowel preparation were also evaluated. Results: In total, 119 patients (APP group, n = 57; control group, n = 62) underwent their first colonoscopy. The mean BBPS score and proportion of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS≥8) were significantly higher in the APP group than in the control group. Smartphone application-guided bowel preparation achieved a higher proportion of adequate and excellent bowel preparation scores, was associated with other quality indicators, and achieved the target ADR, cecal intubation rate, and adequate withdrawal time. Conclusion: This application may be a user-friendly option to improve the first-time colonoscopy experience, resulting in effective screening of colorectal cancer. Clinical trial registration: The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002).

Linked color imaging improves colorectal lesion detection especially for low performance endoscopists: An international trial in Asia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Linked color imaging (LCI) is an image-enhanced endoscopy technique that accentuates the color difference between red and white, potentially improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, it remains unclear whether LCI performance in detecting colorectal lesions differs based on endoscopists' experience levels. We aimed to evaluate the differences in LCI efficacy based on the experience levels of endoscopists by conducting an exploratory analysis. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of an international randomized controlled trial comparing the detection of adenoma and other lesions using colonoscopy with LCI and high-definition white light imaging (WLI), we included patients from 11 institutions across four countries/regions: Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and Singapore. We retrospectively reviewed differences in the lesion detection of LCI according to endoscopists' colonoscopy history or ADR. RESULTS: We included 1692 and 1138 patients who underwent colonoscopies performed by 54 experts (experience of ≥ 5000 colonoscopies) and by 43 non-experts (experience of < 5000 colonoscopies), respectively. Both expert and non-expert groups showed a significant improvement in ADR with LCI compared to WLI (expert, 61.7% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001; non-expert, 56.6% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001). LCI had no effect on sessile serrated lesion detection rate in non-experts (3.1% vs 2.5%; P = 0.518). LCI significantly improved detection rates in endoscopists with relatively low detection performance, defined as an ADR < 50%. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study analyzed data from a previous trial and revealed that LCI is useful for both experts and non-experts and is even more beneficial for endoscopists with relatively low detection performance using WLI.

Human-artificial intelligence interaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The number and variety of applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is growing rapidly. New technologies based on machine learning (ML) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are at various stages of development and deployment to assist patients and endoscopists in preparing for endoscopic procedures, in detection, diagnosis and classification of pathology during endoscopy and in confirmation of key performance indicators. Platforms based on ML and CNNs require regulatory approval as medical devices. Interactions between humans and the technologies we use are complex and are influenced by design, behavioural and psychological elements. Due to the substantial differences between AI and prior technologies, important differences may be expected in how we interact with advice from AI technologies. Human-AI interaction (HAII) may be optimised by developing AI algorithms to minimise false positives and designing platform interfaces to maximise usability. Human factors influencing HAII may include automation bias, alarm fatigue, algorithm aversion, learning effect and deskilling. Each of these areas merits further study in the specific setting of AI applications in GI endoscopy and professional societies should engage to ensure that sufficient emphasis is placed on human-centred design in development of new AI technologies.

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2). METHODS: 240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure. RESULTS: A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62). CONCLUSION: While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

GI genius endoscopy module: a clinical profile.

INTRODUCTION: The identification of early-stage colorectal cancers (CRC) and the resection of pre-cancerous neoplastic lesions through colonoscopy allows to decrease both CRC incidence and mortality. However, colonoscopy miss rates up to 26% for adenomas and 9% for advanced adenomas have been reported. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been emerging as easy-to-use tools, potentially lowering the risk of missing lesions. AREAS COVERED: This review paper focuses on GI Genius device (Medtronic Co. Minneapolis, MN, U.S.A.) a computer-assisted tool designed to assist endoscopists during standard white-light colonoscopies in detecting mucosal lesions. EXPERT OPINION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that GI Genius is a safe and effective tool for improving adenoma detection, especially in CRC screening and surveillance colonoscopies. However, its impact seems to be less significant among experienced endoscopists and in real-world clinical scenarios compared to the controlled conditions of RCTs. Furthermore, it appears that GI Genius mainly enhances the detection of non-advanced, small polyps, but does not significantly impact the identification of advanced and difficult-to-detect adenoma. When using GI Genius, no complications were documented. Only a small number of studies reported an increased in withdrawal time or the removal of non-neoplastic lesions.

The Efficacy of Real-time Computer-aided Detection of Colonic Neoplasia in Community Practice: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of computer-aided detection (CADe) has increased the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but has not shown benefit in real-world implementation studies. We performed a single-center pragmatic RCT to evaluate the impact of real-time CADe on ADRs in colonoscopy performed by community gastroenterologists. METHODS: We enrolled 1100 patients undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening, surveillance, positive fecal-immunohistochemical tests, and diagnostic indications at one community-based center from September 2022 to March 2023. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to traditional colonoscopy or real-time CADe. Blinded pathologists analyzed histopathologic findings. The primary outcome was ADR (the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC), sessile-serrated lesion detection rate, and non-neoplastic resection rate. RESULTS: The median age was 55.5 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years), 61% were female, 72.7% were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 9.1% had inadequate bowel preparation. The ADR for the CADe group was significantly higher than the traditional colonoscopy group (42.5% vs 34.4%; P = .005). The mean APC was significantly higher in the CADe group compared with the traditional colonoscopy group (0.89 ± 1.46 vs 0.60 ± 1.12; P < .001). The improvement in adenoma detection was driven by increased detection of <5 mm adenomas. CADe had a higher sessile-serrated lesion detection rate than traditional colonoscopy (4.7% vs 2.0%; P = .01). The improvement in ADR with CADe was significantly higher in the first half of the study (47.2% vs 33.7%; P = .002) compared with the second half (38.7% vs 34.9%; P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center pragmatic RCT, real-time CADe modestly improved ADR and APC in average-detector community endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05963724).

Propofol sedation does not improve measures of colonoscopy quality but increase cost - findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Background: Propofol is often used for sedation during colonoscopy. We assessed the impact of propofol sedation on colonoscopy related quality metrics and cost in a population-based cohort study. Methods: All colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, during an 18-month period, from April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, using either propofol or conscious sedation were evaluated. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate. Binary outcomes were assessed using a modified Poisson regression model adjusted for clustering and potential confounders based on patient, procedure, and physician characteristics. Findings: A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed, of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation. Compared to conscious sedation, the use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p < 0.0001) but not ssPDR (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.26), PDR (40.5% vs 40.4%, p = 0.79), CIR (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.45). On multi-variable analysis, propofol sedation was not associated with any differences in ADR (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, p = 0.30), ssPDR (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.90-1.60, p = 0.22), PDR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.99), or CIR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26, p = 0.99). The additional cost associated with propofol sedation was $12,730,496 for every 100,000 cases. Interpretation: The use of propofol sedation was not associated with improved colonoscopy related quality metrics but increased costs. The routine use of propofol for colonoscopy should be reevaluated. Funding: None.

Single Versus Second Observer vs Artificial Intelligence to Increase the ADENOMA Detection Rate of Colonoscopy-A Network Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer. CONCLUSION: Artificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Excellent Bowel Preparation Quality Is Not Superior to Good Bowel Preparation Quality for Improving Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rate.

Background: Adequate bowel preparation quality is essential for high-quality colonoscopy according to the current guidelines. However, the excellent effect of bowel preparation on adenoma/polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) remained controversial. Methods: During the period from December 2020 to August 2022, a total of 1566 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy by an endoscopist. Their medical records were reviewed. According to the Boston bowel preparation scale, patients were divided into excellent, good, and poor bowel preparation quality groups. ADR/PDR, diminutive ADR/PDR, small ADR/PDR, intermediate ADR/PDR, large ADR/PDR, and number of adenomas/polyps were compared among them. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors that were significantly associated with ADR/PDR. Results: Overall, 1232 patients were included, of whom 463, 636, and 133 were assigned to the excellent, good, and poor groups, respectively. The good group had a significantly higher ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .015) and a larger number of adenomas/polyps (2.5 ± 3.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .030) than the poor group. Both ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .097) and number of adenomas/polyps (2.2 ± 2.8 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .219) were not significantly different between excellent and poor groups. The excellent (9% vs 4%, P = .045) and good (9% vs 4%, P = .040) groups had a significantly higher intermediate ADR/PDR than the poor group. Logistic regression analyses showed that either good (odds ratio [OR] = 1.786, 95% CI = 1.046-3.047, P = .034) or excellent (OR = 2.179, 95% CI = 1.241-3.826, P = .007) bowel preparation quality was independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with poor bowel preparation quality. Excellent (OR = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.848-1.704, P = .302) bowel preparation quality was not independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with good bowel preparation quality. Conclusions: The pursuit of excellence in bowel preparation does not show an association with increased ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps compared with a good level. In addition, our study further contributes to the existing evidence that poor bowel preparation compromises ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps.