Does Finding Cecal Adenoma Increase the Risk of Discovering More and Advanced Adenomas in the Remainder of the Colon?

OBJECTIVES: Adenomatous polyps are common, occurring in up to 25% of the population older than 50 years of age in the United States. Conflicting data are present in the literature about the impact of specific adenoma locations and the prediction on the number and advanced histology of adenomas elsewhere. With this study we aimed to review the association between cecal adenoma and the risk of discovering more and advanced adenomas in the remainder of the colon. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 1880 patients who received outpatient colonoscopies between June 2012 and December 2014 at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Oklahoma City. The data collected included patient demographics, indications for colonoscopy, smoking history, alcohol use, family history of colon cancer, quality of bowel preparation, number of adenomas, location, size of adenomas, and the histology of adenomas and colon cancer. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 61.6 ± 9.4 year, with 95% of the population being men. Cecal adenomas were found in 243 (12.9%) of patients. Patients with cecal adenoma tended to be older (65 ± 7 vs 61 ± 10, P < 0.0001), more likely to be men (97% vs 94%, P = 0.06) and less likely to have a colonoscopy done for screening indication (11% vs. 13%., P = 0.03). After adjusting for age, sex, indication, and quality of bowel preparation, patients with cecal adenoma were found to have a sixfold increase in finding ≥10 other adenomas elsewhere (4.5% vs 0.8% P = 0.0009) and a threefold increase in finding advanced adenomas (17.7% vs 9.9% P = 0.002) in the remainder of the colon. Stratifying by location, the increased risk was more pronounced in the right side (24.7% vs 8.9% P ≤ 0.0001) compared with the left side. CONCLUSIONS: Cecal adenoma is associated with an increased risk of finding more and advanced adenomas in the remainder of the colon, especially on the right side; therefore, the discovery of a cecal adenoma should prompt a more thorough evaluation of the entire colon, particularly the right colon.

Impact of fellowship training level on colonoscopy quality and efficiency metrics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies have described variable effects of fellow involvement on the adenoma detection rate (ADR), but few have stratified this effect by level of training. We aimed to evaluate the "fellow effect" on multiple procedural metrics including a newly defined adenoma management efficiency index, which may have a role in documenting colonoscopy proficiency for trainees. We also describe the impact of level of training on moderate sedation use. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 2024 patients (mean age, 60.9 ± 10 years; 94% men) who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between June 2012 and December 2014 at our Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Colonoscopies were divided into 5 groups. The first 2 groups were first-year fellows in the first 6 months and last 6 months of the training year. Second- and third-year fellows and attending-only procedures accounted for 1 group each. We collected data on doses of sedatives used, frequency of adjunctive agent use, procedural times, and location, size, and histology of polyps. We defined the adenoma management efficiency index as average time required per adenoma resected during withdrawal. RESULTS: Of the colonoscopies performed, 1675 involved a fellow and 349 were performed by the attending alone. There was no difference in ADR between fellows according to level of training (P = .8) or between fellows compared with attending-only procedures (P = .67). Procedural times decreased consistently during training and declined further for attending-only procedures. This translated into improvement in the adenoma management efficiency index (fellow groups by ascending level of training: 23.5 minutes vs 18.3 minutes vs 13.7 minutes vs 13.4 minutes vs attending group 11.7 minutes; P < .001). There was no difference in the average doses of midazolam and fentanyl used among fellow groups (P = .16 and P = .1, respectively). Compared with attending-only procedures, fellow involvement was associated with higher doses of fentanyl and midazolam and more frequent use of diphenhydramine and glucagon (P < .0001, P = .0002, P < .0001, and P = .01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ADR was similar at different stages of fellowship training and comparable with the attending group. Efficiency of detecting and resecting polyps improved throughout training without reaching the attending level. Fellow involvement led to a greater use of moderate sedation, which may relate to a longer procedure duration and an evolving experience in endoscopic technique.

Diabetics on Narcotics Are Less Likely to Achieve Excellent Bowel Preparation Than Are Patients with Either Condition.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes and chronic narcotic use negatively affect the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy. AIM: To investigate whether narcotic use and diabetes have an additive negative impact on bowel preparation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 2841 patients (mean age 61 ± 10.2; 94% male) who received outpatient colonoscopies at our Veterans Affairs Medical Center between June 2012 and December 2014. We collected information related to demographics, body mass index, indications, and medical/surgical history (diabetes mellitus, stroke, cirrhosis, dementia, constipation, hypothyroidism, and use of narcotics or antidepressants/anxiolytics for more than three months). Patients were classified into four groups: (1) diabetics on narcotics, (2) diabetics only, (3) on narcotics only, and (4) neither diabetic nor using narcotics. Quality of the bowel preparation was scored using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and categorized as either excellent (BBPS ≥7, with no individual segment scoring <2) or not excellent (BBPS <7). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the combined impact of narcotic use and diabetes on bowel preparation. RESULTS: Bowel preparation quality was excellent in 49%. Thirty-eight percent of patients with diabetes who were using narcotics (adjusted OR 0.6, CI [0.4, 0.8]) achieved excellent bowel preparation compared with 44% (adjusted OR 0.7, CI [0.6, 0.9]) of patients on narcotics only, 48% (adjusted OR 0.8, CI [0.7, 0.9]) of diabetics only, and 54% of patients with neither condition. CONCLUSION: Concomitant narcotic use and diabetes have a compounding effect on the quality of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.

The impact of chronic opioid use on colonoscopy outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed on patients chronically on opioids, raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of conventional sedation. AIMS: We hypothesized that chronic opioid use is associated with longer procedure times, higher dosages of sedation medications, and an increase in adverse effects. METHODS: This is a retrospective review from June 2012 to June 2013. Patients on chronic opioids (opioids use ≥ 12 weeks) were compared to randomly selected patients matched for age, race, and sex. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors that were independently predictive of longer procedure times. RESULTS: Patients on chronic opioids required higher doses of fentanyl (122.0 ± 45.3 vs. 105.8 ± 47.2 µg; P < 0.0001) and midazolam (5.3 ± 5.3 vs. 4.4 ± 2 mg; P = 0.0037) and were more likely to receive diphenhydramine (42.8 vs. 22.6 %; P < 0.001). The induction period (11.3 ± 8.8 vs. 7.5 ± 4.0 min), duration of procedure (39.1 ± 17.5 vs. 33.4 ± 14.1 min), and recovery times (38.7 ± 15.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.1 min) were significantly longer for patients on chronic opioids. In the multivariate regression analysis, opioid use was an independent predictor of longer procedure duration (P < 0.05). Hypotensive episodes did not differ between groups (2.8 vs. 2.7 %; P = 0.8). However, patients on chronic opioids experienced more pain (13.4 vs. 5.9 %; P 0.001) and hypertensive episodes (8.1 vs. 2.8 %; P 0.002). CONCLUSION: Patients on chronic opioids represent a high-risk population with longer procedural times and more discomfort, despite higher dosages of sedative agents. Prospective studies are required to define the risks and benefits of more costly alternative sedation strategies for patients on chronic opioids.