Impact of including epinephrine in the submucosal injectate for colorectal EMR on postprocedural pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR is first-line therapy for colorectal laterally spreading lesions. Some colonoscopists include epinephrine in the submucosal injectate, which we observed increased postprocedure discomfort. Our aim was to determine whether inclusion of epinephrine in the submucosal injectate increases postprocedure pain after EMR. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial comparing epinephrine in submucosal injectate versus injectate alone for abdominal pain at 30 and 60 minutes after EMR. RESULTS: Mean polyp diameter in both arms was >40 mm. There were no differences in procedure times or amounts of fluid injected. Mean pain was higher on a visual analog scale in the epinephrine group at 30 minutes (47 vs 14, P = .022) and at 60 minutes (44 vs 13, P = .035). Recovery room stay was longer in the epinephrine group (68 vs 53 minutes, P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Epinephrine in the submucosal injectate for EMR increases postprocedural pain, which could cause diagnostic confusion and prolong observation time in the recovery area. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04065451.).

Impact of water filling on terminal ileum intubation with a distal-tip mucosal exposure device.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff improves detection at colonoscopy but seems to impede terminal ileal (TI) intubation. We assessed the impact of Endocuff Vision (EV) on TI intubation using adult or pediatric colonoscopes and evaluated whether filling the cecum with gas versus water affected the impact of EV on TI intubation. METHODS: Using a prospectively recorded quality control database, we explored the impact of EV on TI intubation in ≤1 minute. We used adult and pediatric colonoscopes and tested the effect of filling the cecum with gas versus water. If the initial attempt failed, then the alternative (water vs gas) was tried as a rescue method. RESULTS: TI intubation in ≤1 minute occurred in 91% of colonoscopies without EV versus 65% with EV, but the use of the pediatric colonoscope with EV had a higher success rate for TI intubation in ≤1 minute compared with the adult colonoscope with EV (73% vs 57%, P = .043). TI intubation in ≤1 minute was more successful with EV when the cecum was filled with water rather than gas (74% vs 56%, P = .019), but the benefit of water filling was limited to the adult colonoscope with EV. When EV was in place, water filling was more successful as a rescue method of TI intubation (58% vs 21%, P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: EV adversely affects TI intubation, particularly for adult colonoscopes. Water filling of the cecum mitigates the impact of EV on TI intubation with adult colonoscopes.