Comparison of missed adenomas in deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Deep-sedated colonoscopy with propofol is widely used in China. However, its impact on quality metrics remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the effects of deep-sedated colonoscopy on missed adenomas, specifically in each colorectal segment. METHODS: Data of 3710 individuals from seven hospitals in China who underwent an initial colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation and a second colonoscopy without sedation within six months for surveillance or polypectomy by endoscopist of the same level between October 2020 and September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1113 missed adenomas in 3710 patients were evaluated. The adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscop [19.14% (578/3020) vs. 16.15% (535/3313), P < 0.05]. The risk of missing adenomas in deep-sedated colonoscopy was 1.229 times higher than in unsedated colonoscopy (OR, 1.229; 95% CI: 1.080-1.399). AMRs of the splenic flexure (26.02% [96/369] vs. 16.04% [47/293], P < 0.05) and descending colon (20.86% [102/489] vs. 13.37% [54/404], P < 0.05) were significantly higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy when performed by middle-level endoscopists rather than high-level endoscopists (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AMR was higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy. Furthermore, adenomas in the splenic flexure and descending colon were more frequently missed in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy, particularly when performed by less experienced endoscopists.

Comparison of adenoma detection in different colorectal segments between deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy.

To investigate if deep-sedated colonoscopy affects adenoma detection in certain colorectal segment. Review of colonoscopy reports, electronic images and medical records of individuals underwent screening colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation between October 2020 and March 2021 from seven hospitals in China. A total of 4500 individuals were analyzed. There was no significant difference in ADR between deep-sedated colonoscopy and unsedated colonoscopy [45.4% vs. 46.3%, P > 0.05]. The APP of deep-sedated colonoscopy was lower than unsedated colonoscopy (1.76 ± 0.81 vs. 2.00 ± 1.30, P < 0.05). Both average number of adenomas and luminal distention score of splenic flexure and descending colon were lower in deep-sedated colonoscopy (P < 0.05), and average number of adenomas was positively correlated with an improved distension score in splenic flexure and descending colon (splenic flexure r = 0.031, P < 0.05; descending colon r = 0.312, P < 0.05). Linear regression model showed deep-sedated colonoscopy significantly affected luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon as well as average number of adenomas detected in splenic flexure (P < 0.05). Deep-sedated colonoscopy decreased adenoma detection in splenic flexure and the luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon compared with unsedated colonoscopy.

Comparison of three sedation models for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We investigated the most beneficial propofol sedation model for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy (BDE). METHODS: Asymptomatic participants scheduled for same-day painless BDE examination from October 2020 to September 2021 were randomized to three groups: sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy (Group A); sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated colonoscopy (Group B); and sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated insertion colonoscopy (Group C). Patient discomfort, colonoscopy performance, doses of propofol, cardiovascular stress, anesthesia resuscitation, and sedation-related adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3200 participants were analyzed. Baseline demographics, patient discomfort, cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and sedation-related adverse events were similar in the three groups. Propofol dose was the lowest in Group A (137.65 ± 36.865 mg) compared with Group B (177.71 ± 40.112 mg, P < 0.05) and Group C (161.63 ± 31.789 mg, P < 0.05). Decline in vital signs was most obvious in Group B during the procedure (P < 0.05). Recovery time was the shortest in Group A (5.01 ± 1.404 min) compared with Group B (9.51 ± 2.870 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (5.83 ± 2.594 min, P < 0.05); discharge time was the shortest in Group A (3.53 ± 1.685 min) compared with Group B (11.29 ± 5.172 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (6.47 ± 2.338 min, P < 0.05). Adenomas per positive patient of Group A (2.29 ± 1.055) and Group C (2.28 ± 0.931) were more than that in Group B (2.11 ± 0.946, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy is the superior model for same-day painless BDE with the benefits of satisfactory patient comfort, reduced sedation dose, less cardiovascular stress, faster recovery, shorter discharge time and high colonoscopy quality.