Prone positioning of obese patients for colonoscopy results in shortened cecal intubation times: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a risk factor for colorectal cancer, and colonoscopy can be technically challenging in obese patients. It has been proposed (with little supporting data) that prone positioning of obese patients might facilitate a difficult colonoscopy. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine if starting colonoscopy in the prone position for obese patients decreases cecal intubation times. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized study conducted at the North Texas VA Medical Center. Patients with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m(2) undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to either initial prone positioning or standard, left-lateral positioning. The outcome measurements were cecal intubation time, frequency of repositioning, sedative medications used, reports of pain, complications, and procedure tolerability. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized to have colonoscopy starting in the standard, left-lateral decubitus position, and 51 to the prone position. The average cecal intubation time for the standard group was 550 vs. 424 s in the prone group (p = 0.03). Patient repositioning was used in 28 % of patients in the standard group versus 8 % in the prone group (p = 0.009). There was no difference in subjective reports of pain between groups (p = 0.95) or in average pain scores (p = 0.79). Follow-up interviews were conducted in 93 % of patients, all of whom said that they would be willing to have repeat colonoscopy in the same position. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of colonoscopy in the prone position for obese patients results in significantly shorter cecal intubation times and decreased need for patient repositioning. Prone positioning is well accepted and does not significantly increase procedure-related discomfort.

The rate of post-polypectomy bleeding for patients on uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy during elective colonoscopy is acceptably low.

BACKGROUND: We do not routinely discontinue clopidogrel before colonoscopy because we have judged the cardiovascular risks of that practice to exceed the risks of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the rates of PPB for clopidogrel users and non-users. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, case-control study of patients who had colonoscopic polypectomy at our VA hospital from July 2008 through December 2009. We compared the frequency of delayed PPB (within 30 days) for patients on uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy with patients not taking clopidogrel. To minimize confounding from differences between groups in conditions that might contribute to PPB, propensity scoring was used to match clopidogrel users with controls based on numerous factors including age, aspirin use, number and size of polyps removed. RESULTS: A total of 1,967 patients had polypectomy during the study period; 118 were on clopidogrel and 1,849 were not. Logistic regression analysis revealed no significant difference in frequency of PPB between clopidogrel users and non-users (0.8% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.37, unadjusted OR = 2.63, 95% CI 0.31-22). Matched analyses using propensity scoring also revealed no significant difference in PPB rates between clopidogrel users and non-users (0.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The delayed PPB rate for our patients on clopidogrel was less than 1%, and PPB rates did not differ significantly between users and non-users. Our conclusions are limited by differences in therapeutic methodology between the groups, and our findings are most applicable to small polyps (<1 cm). We speculate that cardiovascular risks of routinely discontinuing clopidogrel before elective colonoscopy may exceed any excess risk of PPB.