BACKGROUND: No reported prospective, randomized study has evaluated the impact of an endoscopy nurse participating as a second observer during colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the participation of an endoscopy nurse enhanced the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) during screening colonoscopy. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Academic hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 844 consecutive patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Single observation by colonoscopist or dual observation by colonoscopist and endoscopy nurse during colonoscope withdrawal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: PDR and ADR. RESULTS: No significant difference in patient demographic data, adequacy of bowel preparation, or mean withdrawal time was observed between the 2 groups. In total, 1153 polyps, including 762 adenomas, were detected in 791 patients. Seven nonpolypoid, depressed neoplastic lesions (0-IIc or combined types) were only detected in the dual observation group. A multivariate analysis revealed that experienced (≥ 2 years) endoscopy nurse participation significantly increased the PDR and ADR compared with those in the single observation group by a colonoscopist alone (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.32]; adjusted OR 1.47 [95% CI, 1.01-2.12], respectively). Additionally, the PDR was significantly higher in the dual-observation group with fellows (<500 colonoscopies) and an experienced endoscopy nurse versus that in the single observation group (adjusted OR 2.07 [95% CI, 1.15-3.74]). There was no significant benefit of experienced nurse participation in the subgroup with experienced colonoscopists. LIMITATIONS: Absence of colonoscopist blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced endoscopy nurse participation increased the PDR and ADR during screening colonoscopy. However, the benefit of participation by experienced nurses appears to be exclusively with inexperienced colonoscopists.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: No reported prospective, randomized study has evaluated the impact of an endoscopy nurse participating as a second observer during colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the participation of an endoscopy nurse enhanced the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) during screening colonoscopy. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Academic hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 844 consecutive patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Single observation by colonoscopist or dual observation by colonoscopist and endoscopy nurse during colonoscope withdrawal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: PDR and ADR. RESULTS: No significant difference in patient demographic data, adequacy of bowel preparation, or mean withdrawal time was observed between the 2 groups. In total, 1153 polyps, including 762 adenomas, were detected in 791 patients. Seven nonpolypoid, depressed neoplastic lesions (0-IIc or combined types) were only detected in the dual observation group. A multivariate analysis revealed that experienced (≥ 2 years) endoscopy nurse participation significantly increased the PDR and ADR compared with those in the single observation group by a colonoscopist alone (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.32]; adjusted OR 1.47 [95% CI, 1.01-2.12], respectively). Additionally, the PDR was significantly higher in the dual-observation group with fellows (<500 colonoscopies) and an experienced endoscopy nurse versus that in the single observation group (adjusted OR 2.07 [95% CI, 1.15-3.74]). There was no significant benefit of experienced nurse participation in the subgroup with experienced colonoscopists. LIMITATIONS: Absence of colonoscopist blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced endoscopy nurse participation increased the PDR and ADR during screening colonoscopy. However, the benefit of participation by experienced nurses appears to be exclusively with inexperienced colonoscopists.
Authors: Vivian Ussui; Susan Coe; Cynthia Rizk; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gottumukkala S Raju; Vikram Vadyala; Rebecca Slack; Somashekar G Krishna; William A Ross; Patrick M Lynch; Robert S Bresalier; Ernest Hawk; John R Stroehlein Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 4.452