Comparison of colonoscopic performance between medical and nurse endoscopists: a non-inferiority randomised controlled study in Asia.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that trained nurse endoscopists are not inferior to medical endoscopists in finding adenomas during colonoscopy. DESIGN: This is a prospective, randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority study comparing nurses with medical endoscopists in performing screening colonoscopy. The nurse endoscopists had been trained according to the British Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy curriculum and had completed at least 140 colonoscopic procedures prior to the study. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate. Secondary endpoints included the caecal intubation rate, intubation time, complication rate, patient pain and satisfaction scores. RESULTS: We enrolled and analysed a total of 731 patients over a 15-month period. At least one adenoma was found in 159 (43.8%) of 363 patients by nurse endoscopists and 120 (32.7%) of 367 patients by medical endoscopists and a proportion difference of +11.1% compared with the medical endoscopists (95% CI 4.1% to 18.1%). The withdrawal time was, however, significantly longer among nurses (998 vs 575 s, p<0.001). After adjusting for differences in a regression analysis, colonoscopy by nurses was associated with a lower adenoma detection rate (OR 0.475: 95% CI 0.311 to 0.725). Nurse endoscopists had a lower caecal intubation rate (97.3% vs 100%), received better pain and satisfaction scores and had a high rate of patient acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial, nurses can perform screening colonoscopy but require a longer procedural time to achieve a comparable adenoma detection rate as medical endoscopists. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01923155.

A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance.

BACKGROUND: Complete colonoscopy examination cannot be performed in as many as 10% of cases. The new 9.2-mm ultrathin colonoscope (UTC) with an extra bending section may improve procedure tolerance and allow improvement in colonoscopy completion rate compared with a 12.9-mm standard colonoscope (SC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the 9.2-mm UTC with that of the 12.9-mm SC. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Academic endoscopic unit. PATIENTS: Subjects 18 years and older undergoing their first colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomized to either the UTC or SC group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: First and rescue successful cecal intubation rates, subject satisfaction scores, and sedation requirements were compared. RESULTS: A total of 1121 patients (56% women, mean age 53.6 years) were randomized to the UTC group (n = 551) or the SC group (n = 570). There was no statistically significant difference in the first successful cecal intubation rate between the UTC and SC groups (98.9% vs 97.4%, P = .057). The mean (standard deviation) dose of midazolam and pethidine used was significantly lower in the UTC group (2.65 [0.65] mg vs 2.82 [0.85] mg, P < .001 and 27.6 [7.4] mg vs 29.7 [9.6] mg, P < .001, respectively). The mean (standard deviation) patient satisfaction score was similar between groups (6.99 [2.89] vs 7.04 [3.06], P = .762). Of the 21 patients (1.9%) with an incomplete initial colonoscopy (6 in the UTC group and 15 in the SC group), all 6 in the UTC group had their procedure completed with an SC. Eleven of 15 patients in the SC group had their procedures completed with a UTC in the same session. LIMITATIONS: Low failure rate may mask any difference between the 2 colonoscopes as a rescue instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The 9.2-mm UTC has performance characteristics similar to those of an SC in Chinese subjects undergoing their first colonoscopy performed by experienced and trainee endoscopists. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01142167.).