Risks of digestive diseases in long COVID: evidence from a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the post-pandemic era, a wide range of COVID-19 sequelae is of growing health concern. However, the risks of digestive diseases in long COVID have not been comprehensively understood. To investigate the long-term risk of digestive diseases among COVID patients. METHODS: In this large-scale retrospective cohort study with up to 2.6 years follow-up (median follow-up: 0.7 years), the COVID-19 group (n = 112,311), the contemporary comparison group (n = 359,671) and the historical comparison group (n = 370,979) predated the COVID-19 outbreak were built using UK Biobank database. Each digestive outcome was defined as the diagnosis 30 days or more after the onset of COVID-19 infection or the index date. Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed utilizing the Cox regression models after inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Compared with the contemporary comparison group, patients with previous COVID-19 infection had higher risks of digestive diseases, including gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction (HR 1.38 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.51)); peptic ulcer disease (HR 1.23 (1.00 to 1.52)); gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (HR 1.41 (1.30 to 1.53)); gallbladder disease (HR 1.21 (1.06 to 1.38)); severe liver disease (HR 1.35 (1.03 to 1.76)); non-alcoholic liver disease (HR 1.27 (1.09 to 1.47)); and pancreatic disease (HR 1.36 (1.11 to 1.66)). The risks of GERD were increased stepwise with the severity of the acute phase of COVID-19 infection. Even after 1-year follow-up, GERD (HR 1.64 (1.30 to 2.07)) and GI dysfunction (HR 1.35 (1.04 to 1.75)) continued to pose risks to COVID-19 patients. Compared to those with one SARS-CoV-2 infection, reinfected patients were at a higher risk of pancreatic diseases (HR 2.57 (1.23 to 5.38)). The results were consistent when the historical cohort was used as the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insights into the association between COVID-19 and the long-term risk of digestive system disorders. COVID-19 patients are at a higher risk of developing digestive diseases. The risks exhibited a stepwise escalation with the severity of COVID-19, were noted in cases of reinfection, and persisted even after 1-year follow-up. This highlights the need to understand the varying risks of digestive outcomes in COVID-19 patients over time, particularly those who experienced reinfection, and develop appropriate follow-up strategies.

Comparison of Right Colon Flat Polyp Detection Rate by Water Exchange Versus Water Immersion-pooled Results of Data File of 3 Published Reports.

GOALS: We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) achieved a significantly higher right colon flat polyp detection rate (rFPDR) than water immersion (WI). BACKGROUND: Current endoscopy methods provide real-time morphology but not histopathology. Flat serrated polyps are difficult to find during colonoscopy. In 2022 2 studies reported that the serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) significantly inversely predicted the development of interval cancers. In 2021 1 systemic review with meta-analysis showed that WE, but not WI increased SPDR. The relative contributions of WE and WI on rFPDR are unknown. STUDY: Individual patient data from 3 reports comparing air insufflation, WI, and WE were pooled. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess the factors associated with a higher rFPDR. RESULTS: The pooled data showed that the rFPDR of air insufflation, WI, and WE were 15.4%, 14.1%, and 19.4% ( P =0.009), respectively. After adjusting for age and withdrawal time, multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that WE, when compared with WI, was significantly associated with a higher rFPDR (adjusted odds ratio[aOR]=1.53, P =0.002). Analysis of data on pathology and size were omitted to avoid duplicating our earlier publications. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly higher rFPDR was achieved by WE. Water exchange rather than WI merits consideration for use to maximize rFPDR. Removal of flat polyps, and by inference serrated polyps, ensures their optimal management to minimize the occurrence of interval cancers. The potential benefit of WE in maximizing SPDR and minimizing interval cancers deserves evaluation in long-term randomized controlled studies focused on flat polyps detection.

Associations of habitual glucosamine use with SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital admission and death with COVID-19: Evidence from a large population based cohort study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a fundamental number of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Glucosamine was indicated to help prevent and control RNA virus infection preclinically, while its potential therapeutic effects on COVID-19-related outcomes are largely unknown. To assess the association of habitual glucosamine use with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hospital admission, and mortality with COVID-19 in a large population based cohort. Participants from UK Biobank were reinvited between June and September 2021 to have SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. The associations between glucosamine use and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection were estimated by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for COVID-19-related outcomes were calculated using COX proportional hazards model. Furthermore, we carried out propensity-score matching (PSM) and stratified analyses. At baseline, 42 673 (20.7%) of the 205 704 participants reported as habitual glucosamine users. During median follow-up of 1.67 years, there were 15 299 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 4214 cases of COVID-19 hospital admission, and 1141 cases of COVID-19 mortality. The fully adjusted odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection with glucosamine use was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92-1.01). The fully adjusted HR were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.87) for hospital admission, and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95) for mortality. The logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analyses after PSM yielded consistent results. Our study demonstrated that habitual glucosamine use is associated with reduced risks of hospital admission and death with COVID-19, but not the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Lack of Causal Associations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Parkinson's Disease and Other Neurodegenerative Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have indicated associations between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the causal associations of IBD with PD and other selected neurodegenerative disorders using updated data. METHODS: Bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization studies using genome-wide association studies summary statistics of IBD and PD. RESULTS: We found a lack of evidence for the causal association of IBD on PD (odds ratio [OR], 1.014; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.967-1.063; P = 0.573). Reverse analysis also indicated no evidence of a causal effect for PD on IBD (OR, 0.978; 95% CI, 0.910-1.052; P = 0.549). The causality between IBD and Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis was unfounded (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The updated analyses provide no clear evidence for causal associations of IBD with PD or the other three neurodegenerative diseases. Potential confounders might contribute to the previously observed associations, and further investigations are warranted. © 2023 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Outcome of Water Exchange and Air Insufflation Colonoscopy Performed by Supervised Trainee and Their Assessment of the Training Experience.

GOALS: The hypotheses that supervised trainees would provide a more favorable assessment of the learning experience and could achieve superior results with water exchange (WE) compared with air insufflation were tested. BACKGROUND: WE decreased pain, increased cecal intubation rate (CIR), and polyp detection rate (PDR). STUDY: In a prospective pilot observational study, the trainees were taught WE in unsedated and WE and air insufflation in alternating order in sedated veterans. Trainee scores and procedural outcomes were tracked. RESULTS: 83 air insufflation and 119 WE cases were included. Trainee evaluations of the respective methods were scored based on a 5-point scale [1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree, with lower scores being more favorable]. Evaluation scores [mean (SD)] were as follows: my colonoscopy experience was better than expected: WE 2.02 (1.00) versus air insufflation 2.43 (1.19), P =0.0087; I was confident with my technical skills using this method: WE 2.76 (0.91) versus air insufflation 2.85 (0.87), P =0.4822. Insertion time was 40 (21) min for WE and 30 (20) min for air insufflation ( P =0.0008). CIR were 95% (WE, unsedated); 99% (WE, overall), and 89% (air insufflation, overall). WE showed significantly higher CIR (99% vs. 89%, P =0.0031) and PDR (54% vs. 32%, P =0.0447). CONCLUSIONS: The long air insufflation insertion time indicated the trainees were inexperienced. The significantly longer WE insertion time confirmed that learning WE required extra time. This pilot study revealed that supervised trainees reported more favorable learning experience with WE and equivalent confidence in technical skills scores. They completed both unsedated and sedated colonoscopy in over 89% of cases achieved significantly higher CIR and PDR with WE than air insufflation. It appeared that trainee education in WE might be an acceptable alternative to augment air insufflation to meet the challenges of training posed by traditional air insufflation colonoscopy.

Polyp detection and false-positive rates by computer-aided analysis of withdrawal-phase videos of colonoscopy of the right-sided colon segment in a randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Water exchange (WE) improves lesion detection but misses polyps because of human limitations. Computer-aided detection (CADe) identifies additional polyps overlooked by the colonoscopist. Additional polyp detection rate (APDR) is the proportion of patients with at least 1 additional polyp detected by CADe. The number of false positives (because of feces and air bubble) per colonoscopy (FPPC) is a major CADe limitation, which might be reduced by salvage cleaning with WE. We compared the APDR and FPPC by CADe between videos of WE and air insufflation in the right-sided colon. METHODS: CADe used a convolutional neural network with transfer learning. We edited and coded withdrawal-phase videos in a randomized controlled trial that compared right-sided colon findings between air insufflation and WE. Two experienced blinded endoscopists analyzed the CADe-overlaid videos and identified additional polyps by consensus. An artifact triggered by CADe but not considered a polyp by the reviewers was defined as a false positive. The primary outcome was APDR. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-five coded videos of colonoscopies inserted with WE (n = 123) and air insufflation (n = 122) methods were analyzed. The APDR in the WE group was significantly higher (37 [30.1%] vs 15 [12.3%], P = .001). The mean [standard deviation] FPPC related to feces (1.78 [1.67] vs 2.09 [2.09], P = .007) and bubbles (.53 [.89] vs 1.25 [2.45], P = .001) in the WE group were significantly lower. CONCLUSIONS: CADe showed significantly higher APDR and lower number of FPPC related to feces and bubbles in the WE group. The results support the hypothesis that the strengths of CADe and WE complement the weaknesses of each other in optimizing polyp detection.

GIE Editorial Board Top 10: advances in GI endoscopy in 2021.

The 9-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performed a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2021 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals on endoscopy-related topics. Votes from each editorial board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study, with a focus on 3 criteria: significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice. The 10 areas identified collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic topics: colonoscopy optimization, bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic needle sampling and drainage, peroral endoscopic myotomy, endoscopic defect closure, meeting systemic challenges in endoscopic training and practice, endohepatology, FNA versus fine-needle biopsy sampling, endoscopic mucosal and submucosal procedures, and cold snare polypectomy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 of the consensus topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2021.

A survey of colonoscopists with and without in-depth knowledge of water-aided colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopy featured water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in-depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in-depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified. RESULTS: Of 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co-authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta-analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On-demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: An important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board reviewed a systematic literature search of original endoscopy-related articles published during 2020 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study using 4 criteria: significance, novelty, impact on national health, and impact on global health. The 10 areas identified were as follows: artificial intelligence in endoscopy, coronavirus disease 2019 and GI practice, third-space endoscopy, lumen-apposing metal stents, single-use duodenoscopes and other disposable equipment, endosonographic needle technology and techniques, endoscopic closure devices, advances in GI bleeding management, improvements in polypectomy techniques, and bariatric endoscopy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2020.

Comparison of Right Colon Adenoma Miss Rates Between Water Exchange and Carbon Dioxide Insufflation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

GOALS: To test the hypothesis that water exchange (WE), when compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, significantly reduces the right colon adenoma miss rate (rAMR) in a blinded randomized controlled trial with cap-assisted colonoscopy. BACKGROUND: The unblinded consecutive group observational data showed that WE significantly decreased rAMR. The unblinded data are limited by potential bias. STUDY: Consecutive patients aged 45 years or more were randomized to undergo insertion with WE or CO2. Withdrawal and polypectomy were performed with CO2 in both groups to the hepatic flexure. The colonoscope was reinserted to the cecum. A second colonoscopist re-examined the right colon. The second colonoscopist was unaware, but made a guess, of the initial insertion method. The number of additional adenomas divided by the total number detected in both examinations equaled rAMR. RESULTS: Among 262 patients (131/group), demographic variables were similar. The body mass index was significantly higher in the WE group. Compared with CO2, WE significantly decreased rAMR [18.0% (33/183) vs. 34.6% (62/179), P=0.0025] and right colon serrated polyp miss rate [17.4% (27/155) vs. 39.3% (33/84), P=0.002]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that WE was an independent predictor of rAMR (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.86), and so was ≥2 adenomas in the right colon (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.76). Whether the second colonoscopist guessed the insertion method correctly or not, and demographic and procedure variables were not associated with rAMR. CONCLUSIONS: The randomized controlled trial validated unblinded observational data showing that WE significantly decreased rAMR and right colon serrated polyp miss rate (clinical trial registration number: NCT03845933).

Heat sink effect of underwater polypectomy in a porcine colon model.

BACKGROUND: Underwater polypectomy without the need for submucosal injection has been reported. A heat-sink effect by immersing the polyp in water was proposed but no such experiment has been performed to support the claim. We compared the temperature rise on the serosal side during polypectomy between air- and water-filled colon. METHOD: Freshly harvested porcine colons were placed in a metal tray with cautery electrode pad attached to its bottom. An upper endoscope was used with a cap and a rubber band mounted to the distal end. A mucosal site was randomly selected and identified on its serosal surface with a marker while suction was applied. Suction was applied again and a ligation band was applied to create a polyp. A cautery snare grasped the artificial polyp just below the band. An assistant placed the tip of a thermometer at the marked site on the serosal surface to record the baseline temperature before cautery and the highest temperature during polypectomy. Seven polypectomies in air and underwater were performed. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) baseline temperature were 23.3 (0.6) °C and 23.4 (0.6) °C in the air and water groups, respectively. The maximum rise in temperature during polypectomy was 6.1 (4.5) °C and 1.4 (1.0) °C in the air and water groups, respectively (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The maximum temperature rise during polypectomy was significantly less when polypectomy was performed underwater, supporting the hypothesis that a heat-sink effect does exist during underwater polypectomy.

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate of water exchange, Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) may contribute to interval cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, water exchange (WE) was shown to be superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. The strong positive correlation between adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) prompted us to hypothesize that WE could significantly improve SSA/PDR compared with Endocuff and cap colonoscopy. METHODS: The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported SSA/PDR 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 SSA/PDR of each method using air insufflation as the control and reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS: A total of 531 articles resulted from initial keywords search. Eleven RCTs were included in the analysis. A total of 7856 patients underwent air insufflation, WE, Endocuff, or cap colonoscopy. WE significantly increased SSA/PDR (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33-3.13). Endocuff (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41) and cap (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.42-2.74) did not significantly impact SSA/P detection. P-scores for WE (0.96), Endocuff (0.49), cap (0.37), and air insufflation (0.17) suggested that WE had the highest SSA/PDR. The results did not change after adjusting for mean withdrawal time and indication for colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Water exchange significantly increases SSA/PDR and is superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at detecting SSA/P.

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials.

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.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases the efficacy of colonoscopy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of approximately 2% to 30% for nondiminutive (>5 mm), nonpedunculated lesions are reported. Underwater resection (UR) is a novel technique. The aim of this study was to determine the incomplete resection rates of colorectal lesions removed by UR versus CR. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, patients with small (6-9 mm) and large (≥10 mm) nonpedunculated lesions were assigned to CR (gas-distended lumen) or UR (water-filled, gas-excluded lumen). Small lesions in both arms were removed with a dedicated cold snare. For CR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare after submucosal injection. For UR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare without submucosal injection. Four-quadrant biopsy samples around the resection sites were used to evaluate for incomplete resection. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-two eligible polyps (248 UR vs 214 CR) from 255 patients were removed. Incomplete resection rates for UR and CR were low and did not differ (2% vs 1.9%, P = .91). UR was performed significantly faster for lesions ≥10 mm in size (10-19 mm, 2.9 minutes vs 5.6 minutes, P < .0001); ≥20 mm, 7.3 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Low incomplete resection rates are achievable with UR and CR. UR is effective and safe with the advantage of faster resection and potential cost savings for removal of larger (≥10 mm) lesions by avoiding submucosal injection. As an added approach, UR has potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy by increasing efficiency and reducing cost while maintaining quality. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02889679.).

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2019.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's GIE Editorial Board reviewed original endoscopy-related articles published during 2019 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other leading medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual member were tallied to identify a consensus list of 10 topic areas of major advances in GI endoscopy. Individual board members summarized important findings published in these 10 areas of disinfection, artificial intelligence, bariatric endoscopy, adenoma detection, polypectomy, novel imaging, Barrett's esophagus, third space endoscopy, interventional EUS, and training. This document summarizes these "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2019.

Water Exchange (WE) and Quality Improvement-Enhanced Advanced Adenoma Detection: A Pooled Data Analysis of 6 Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Advanced adenomas (≥10 mm in diameter, >25% villous, or high-grade dysplasia), a marker of colorectal cancer risk, are used to stratify patients for closer surveillance. Modern accessories, endoscopes, and age-adjusted evaluation have variable impacts on the advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). In 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing air insufflation (AI) with water exchange (WE), the right colon AADR was significantly increased by WE. Four network meta-analyses reported that WE significantly increased overall adenoma detection rate (ADR), but the impact on AADR was not addressed. AIM: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that WE significantly increased AADR compared with AI. METHOD: Six Clinicaltrial.gov-registered RCTs were reported by a group of WE investigators. Data including AADR (primary outcome) and overall ADR (secondary outcome) were pooled. RESULTS: A total of 5407 patients were randomized to AI (2699) and WE (2708). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased AADR (5.7% vs. 8.3%, P=0.001) and overall ADR (20.9% vs. 27.4%, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to published reports, which showed variable impacts on AADR, WE was consistent in increasing AADR in 6 reported RCTs. The pooled data confirm that the impact of WE in increasing AADR was significant. The significantly enhanced overall ADR indicated that WE provided a higher quality outcome than AI. The significant improvement in AADR confirmed WE to be clinically relevant and has finally arrived as a timely addition to colorectal cancer prevention programs.

Feasibility of sedation on demand in Taiwan using water exchange and air insufflation: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Completion of colonoscopy without sedation eliminates sedation cost and complications. Reported in the United States and Europe, on-demand sedation is not routine practice in Taiwan. Water exchange (WE), characterized by infusion and nearly complete removal of infused water during insertion, reduces insertion pain compared to air insufflation (AI) during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility of on-demand sedation in Taiwan. In a randomized controlled trial of WE vs AI colonoscopy, we also aimed to determine if WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement. METHODS: This prospective patient-blinded study randomized patients to AI or WE (75 patients/group) to aid insertion. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing without sedation. RESULTS: In the AI and WE groups, 76.0% and 93.3% (P = 0.006) completed without need for sedation, respectively. The WE group had lower insertion pain score (mean [SD]) (4.0 [2.9] vs 2.1 [2.6], P < 0.001), lower doses of propofol (25.7 [52.7] mg vs 9.1 [35.6] mg, P = 0.012), and less time in the recovery room (3.4 [7.4] vs 1.5 [5.5], P = 0.027) than the AI group. Patient satisfaction scores and willingness to repeat if needed in the future were similar. CONCLUSION: On-demand sedation was feasible in Taiwan. The completion rate without sedation was high in patients (76.0% with standard AI) open to the option (no prior intent to receive the standard of full or minimal sedation). WE augmented the implementation by reducing insertion pain and decreasing sedation requirement without adversely affecting patient satisfaction or willingness to repeat.

Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on endoscopy room efficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2018.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board reviewed original endoscopy-related articles published during 2018 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other leading medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual member were tallied to identify a consensus list of 10 topic areas of major advances in GI endoscopy. Individual board members summarized important findings published in these 10 areas of adenoma detection, bariatric endoscopy, EMR/submucosal dissection/full-thickness resection, artificial intelligence, expandable metal stents for palliation of biliary obstruction, pancreatic therapy with lumen-apposing metal stents, endoscope reprocessing, Barrett's esophagus, interventional EUS, and GI bleeding. This document summarizes these "Top 10" endoscopic advances of 2018.