An intraprocedural bowel cleansing system for difficult-to-prepare patients-A multicenter prospective feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy. However, up to 20% of colonoscopies remain inadequately prepared. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation often overlap with those of failed cecal intubation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an intraprocedural bowel cleansing system (BCS) in patients with a history of inadequate bowel preparation. METHODS: Patients (n = 44) with a history of inadequate bowel preparation in the past 2 years were included. After a limited preparation with 300 mL split-dose sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate, additional cleansing during colonoscopy was performed with the BCS. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rate, procedure times, usability, and safety. RESULTS: Median BBPS increased from 1-2-2 (IQR 1-2) to 3-3-3 (IQR) (p < 0.0001), with 31.8% and 88.6% of patients adequately prepared before and after using the BCS, respectively (p < 0.0001). Cecal intubation rate was 88.6%. Reasons for incomplete colonoscopy were looping (n = 2), technical failure (n = 1), relative stricture (n = 1), and residual feces (n = 1). In patients with complete colonoscopy, the adequate cleansing rate was 97.5%. Median total procedure time was 26 min, of which 5.3 min were spent on cleaning. General ease of use was scored with a median of 4 out of 5, representing "as good as conventional colonoscopy". No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate bowel cleaning can be achieved with an intraprocedural BCS in patients with a history of inadequate bowel preparation, which may reduce repeat colonoscopies and clinical admissions for bowel preparation. However, since these patients more frequently have complicated anatomy (surgical scarring, diverticulosis, etc.), adequate patient selection is advised to avoid incomplete procedures.

Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff VisionTM has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: Patients aged 40-75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at ten hospitals and randomized into four groups: Group 1; 2xCC, Group 2; CC followed by EVC, Group 3; EVC followed CC and Group 4; 2xEVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR. RESULTS: A total of 717 patients were randomized of which 661 patients (92.2%) had one and 646 (90.1%) patients had two completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1% [95%-CI;36.1-46.3] versus 35.5% [95%-CI;30.7-40.6], respectively, P=0.125), but EVC did reduced AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95%-CI;23.6-36.5] versus 17.9% [95%-CI;12.5-23.5], respectively, P=0.049). AMR of 2xCC compared to 2xEVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95%-CI;19.3-33.9] versus 18.8% [95%-CI;13.9-24.8], respectively, P=0.172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P=0.002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P=0.008) and region where colonoscopy was performed (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significant improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03418948.

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L). METHODS: We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety. RESULTS: Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I2 range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients. CONCLUSION: Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Volatile organic compounds in breath can serve as a non-invasive diagnostic biomarker for the detection of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosis in the Western world. AIM: To evaluate exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as a non-invasive biomarker for the detection of CRC and precursor lesions using an electronic nose. METHODS: In this multicentre study adult colonoscopy patients, without inflammatory bowel disease or (previous) malignancy, were invited for breath analysis. Two-thirds of the breath tests were randomly assigned to develop training models which were used to predict the diagnosis of the remaining patients (external validation). In the end, all data were used to develop final-disease models to further improve the discriminatory power of the algorithms. RESULTS: Five hundred and eleven breath samples were collected. Sixty-four patients were excluded due to an inadequate breath test (n = 51), incomplete colonoscopy (n = 8) or colitis (n = 5). Classification was based on the most advanced lesion found; CRC (n = 70), advanced adenomas (AAs) (n = 117), non-advanced adenoma (n = 117), hyperplastic polyp (n = 15), normal colonoscopy (n = 125). Training models for CRC and AAs had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.76 and 0.71 and blind validation resulted in an AUC of 0.74 and 0.61 respectively. Final models for CRC and AAs yielded an AUC of 0.84 (sensitivity 95% and specificity 64%) and 0.73 (sensitivity and specificity 79% and 59%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that exhaled VOCs could potentially serve as a non-invasive biomarker for the detection of CRC and AAs. Future studies including more patients could further improve the discriminatory potential of VOC analysis for the detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. (https://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03488537).

A novel device for intracolonoscopy cleansing of inadequately prepared colonoscopy patients: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The importance of high quality preprocedural bowel preparation is widely acknowledged, but suboptimal bowel cleansing still occurs in up to 20 % of all colonoscopy patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a novel intraprocedural cleaning device for cleaning poorly prepared colons. METHODS: This multicenter feasibility study included patients aged 18 - 75 years who were referred for colonoscopy. Intraprocedural cleaning was performed in patients after a limited preprocedural bowel preparation regimen (2 days of dietary restrictions and 2 × 10 mg bisacodyl). The primary outcome was the proportion of adequately prepared patients (Boston Bowel Preparation scale [BBPS] ≥ 2 in each segment) before and after segmental washing with the new device. Secondary outcomes included: cecal intubation rate, procedure time, system usability, patient satisfaction, and safety. RESULTS: 47 patients (42.6 % male), with a median age of 61 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46 - 67 years), were included at three clinical sites. Cecal intubation was achieved in 46/47 patients (97.9 %). The cleaning device significantly improved the proportion of patients with adequate bowel cleansing (from 19.1 % to 97.9 %; P < 0.001) and median BBPS score (from 3.0 [IQR 0.0 - 5.0] to 9.0 [IQR 8.0 - 9.0]). Median cecal intubation time and total procedure time were 16.5 minutes (IQR 9.0-28.3) and 34.0 minutes (IQR 25.0 - 42.8), respectively. Physicians were satisfied with the ease of use of the device and it was well tolerated by patients. No severe adverse events occurred during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study suggests that the intraprocedural cleaning device appears to be safe and effective in cleaning poorly prepared colons to an adequate level, allowing a thorough colorectal examination.