Literature DB >> 27931951

Adenoma miss rates associated with a 3-minute versus 6-minute colonoscopy withdrawal time: a prospective, randomized trial.

Sheila Kumar1, Nirav Thosani1, Uri Ladabaum1, Shai Friedland1, Ann M Chen1, Rajan Kochar1, Subhas Banerjee1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The 6-minute withdrawal time for colonoscopy, widely considered the standard of care, is controversial. The skill and technique of endoscopists may be as important as, or more important than, withdrawal time for adenoma detection. It is unclear whether a shorter withdrawal time with good technique yields an acceptable lesion detection rate. Our objective was to evaluate a 3-minute versus a 6-minute withdrawal time by using segmental tandem colonoscopy.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized trial by using 4 expert endoscopists. Patients were randomized to a 3-minute or a 6-minute initial withdrawal, each followed by a tandem second 6-minute withdrawal. All polyps were removed. The primary outcomes were adenoma miss rates (AMRs), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) rates, and adenoma detection rates (ADRs).
RESULTS: A total of 99 and 101 patients were enrolled in the 3-minute and 6-minute withdrawal groups, respectively. The AMR was significantly higher in the 3-minute withdrawal group (48.0% vs 22.9%; P = .0001). After controlling for endoscopist, patient age and/or sex, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, and size and/or location and/or morphology of adenoma, the AMR remained significantly higher in the 3-minute withdrawal group (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-5.15; P = .0001). The ADR was similar between both groups (39.2% vs 40.6%; P = .84). However, the mean APC rate was significantly lower in the 3-minute withdrawal group (0.55 vs 0.80; P = .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The AMR was significantly higher, and the APC rate was significantly lower in the 3-minute withdrawal group versus the 6-minute withdrawal group. Despite expert technique, a shorter withdrawal time is associated with an unacceptably high AMR and low APC rate. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01802008.).
Copyright © 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27931951     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.11.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  15 in total

Review 1.  Computer-aided diagnosis for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Yuichi Mori; Shin-Ei Kudo; Tyler M Berzin; Masashi Misawa; Kenichi Takeda
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 10.093

2.  Accredited residents perform colonoscopy to the same high standards as consultants.

Authors:  Dedrick Kok Hong Chan; Reuben Kong Min Wong; Khay Guan Yeoh; Ker-Kan Tan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The right time for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Maria Moris
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-05-17

4.  Establishment and evaluation of a nomogram predicting risks of missed diagnoses of colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Xiaobo Wang; Haiyang Guo; Yong Tang; Lin Chen; Xianfei Wang
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 2.847

5.  Evaluation of a fecal immunochemistry test prior to colonoscopy for outpatients with various indications.

Authors:  Andrew Szilagyi; Xiaoqing Xue
Journal:  Clin Exp Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-11-10

6.  Adenoma miss rate determined by very shortly repeated colonoscopy: Retrospective analysis of data from a single tertiary medical center in China.

Authors:  Cheng-Long Wang; Zhi-Ping Huang; Kai Chen; Fei-Hu Yan; Liang-Liang Zhu; Yong-Qi Shan; Yong-Jun-Yi Gao; Bai-Rong Li; Hao Wang; En-Da Yu; Zi-Ye Zhao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Determination of withdrawal times in individualized opportunistic screening colonoscopies.

Authors:  Qiang Zhan; Li Xiang; Xinhua Zhao; Shengli An; Yongbai Zhou; Yangzhi Xu; Aimin Li; Side Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Reassessing the value of gastroscopy for the investigation of dyspepsia.

Authors:  Hey-Long Ching; Melissa F Hale; Reena Sidhu; Mark E McAlindon
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-08-05

9.  Impact of feedback and monitoring on colonoscopy withdrawal times and polyp detection rates.

Authors:  Amalie Bach Nielsen; Ole Haagen Nielsen; Jakob Hendel
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-06-01

10.  Is It Necessary to Intubate the Cecum to Examine the Whole Colorectum During Endoscopic Polypectomy?

Authors:  Shuangzhe Yao; Chao Sun; Tao Wang; Zhongqing Zheng; Bangmao Wang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-06-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.