Impact of withdrawal time on adenoma detection rate: results from a prospective multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Performing a high-quality colonoscopy is critical for optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Colonoscopy withdrawal time (a surrogate measure) of ≥6 minutes is recommended; however, a threshold of a high-quality withdrawal and its impact on ADR are not known. METHODS: We examined withdrawal time (excluding polyp resection and bowel cleaning time) of subjects undergoing screening and/or surveillance colonoscopy in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We examined the relationship of withdrawal time in 1-minute increments on ADR and reported odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the maximal inspection time threshold that impacts the ADR. RESULTS: A total of 1142 subjects (age, 62.3 ± 8.9 years; 80.5% men) underwent screening (45.9%) or surveillance (53.6%) colonoscopy. The screening group had a median withdrawal time of 9.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.3) with an ADR of 49.6%, whereas the surveillance group had a median withdrawal time of 9.3 minutes (IQR, 4.3) with an ADR of 63.9%. ADR correspondingly increased for a withdrawal time of 6 minutes to 13 minutes, beyond which ADR did not increase (50.4% vs 76.6%, P < .01). For every 1-minute increase in withdrawal time, there was 6% higher odds of detecting an additional subject with an adenoma (OR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.10; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter, randomized controlled trial underscore the importance of a high-quality examination and efforts required to achieve this with an incremental yield in ADR based on withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03952611.).

High-Definition Colonoscopy Compared With Cuff- and Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy: Results From a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices including distal attachments such as the cuff and cap have shown variable results in improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with high-definition white light colonoscopy (HDWLE). METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy comparing HDWLE to 2 different types of distal attachments: cuff (CF) (Endocuff Vision) or cap (CP) (Reveal). The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rate, right-sided ADR, withdrawal time, and adverse events. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test using statistical software Stata version16. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1203 subjects were randomized to either HDWLE (n = 384; mean 62 years of age; 81.3% males), CF (n = 379; mean 62.7 years of age; 79.9% males) or CP (n = 379; mean age 62.1 years of age; 80.5% males). No significant differences were found among 3 groups for ADR (57.3%, 59.1%, and 55.7%; P = .6), adenomas per colonoscopy (1.4 ± 1.9, 1.6 ± 2.4, and 1.4 ± 2; P = .3), advanced adenoma (7.6%, 9.2%, and 8.2%; P = .7), sessile serrated lesion (6.8%, 6.3%, and 5.5%; P = .8), or right ADR (48.2%, 49.3%, and 46.2%; P = .7). The number of polyps per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CF group compared with HDWLE and CP group (2.7 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.5, and 2.2 ± 2.3; P = .013). In a multivariable model, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, withdrawal time, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, there was no impact of device type on the primary outcome of ADR (P = .77). In screening patients, CF resulted in more neoplasms per colonoscopy (CF: 1.7 ± 2.6, HDWLE: 1.3 ± 1.7, and CP: 1.2 ± 1.8; P = .047) with a shorter withdrawal time. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter randomized controlled trial do not show any significant benefit of using either distal attachment devices (CF or CP) over HDWLE, at least in high-detector endoscopists. The Endocuff may have an advantage in the screening population. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03952611).

Narrow-band imaging versus white light for the detection of proximal colon serrated lesions: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The value of narrow-band imaging (NBI) for detecting serrated lesions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess NBI for the detection of proximal colon serrated lesions. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Two academic hospital outpatient units. PATIENTS: Eight hundred outpatients 50 years of age and older with intact colons undergoing routine screening, surveillance, or diagnostic examinations. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization to colon inspection in NBI versus white-light colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The number of serrated lesions (sessile serrated polyps plus hyperplastic polyps) proximal to the sigmoid colon. RESULTS: The mean inspection times for the whole colon and proximal colon were the same for the NBI and white-light groups. There were 204 proximal colon lesions in the NBI group and 158 in the white light group (P = .085). Detection of conventional adenomas was comparable in the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: Lack of blinding, endoscopic estimation of polyp location. CONCLUSION: NBI may increase the detection of proximal colon serrated lesions, but the result in this trial did not reach significance. Additional study of this issue is warranted. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01572428.).

Balloon expulsion testing for the diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation in women with chronic constipation.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Dyssynergic defecation can be difficult to diagnose. Anorectal manometry and defecography are often used to make this diagnosis. However, these tests are expensive and require expertise. Balloon expulsion testing may be a simple alternative. We compared balloon expulsion to anorectal manometry and defecography for diagnosing dyssynergia in women with chronic constipation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review. All women presenting for evaluation of chronic constipation who underwent concurrent balloon testing, manometry, and defecography were included. A diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation was established by either defecography revealing prolonged/incomplete rectal evacuation and/or by manometry revealing paradoxical contraction/inadequate relaxation of the pelvic floor. Inability to expel a 50-ml balloon defined dyssynergic defecation by balloon testing. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 61 women met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 50 years. There were 36 women (59 %) who met Rome III criteria for dyssynergic defecation on defecography and/or manometry. Only 12 of these 36 (33 %) were similarly diagnosed by balloon testing. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of balloon testing for dyssynergia were 33 and 71 %, respectively. Of the 25 (41 %) women who did not meet Rome III criteria for dyssynergia on defecography and/or manometry, 20 (80 %) also had negative balloon testing. Thus, the specificity and negative predictive value of balloon testing for diagnosing dyssynergia were 80 and 50 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, balloon expulsion was not an ideal screening test for dyssynergic defecation in women with constipation. Multimodal testing is necessary for more accurate diagnosis.