Lorenzo Fuccio1, Leonardo Frazzoni1, Cesare Hassan2, Marina La Marca1, Valentina Paci1, Veronica Smania1, Nicola De Bortoli3, Franco Bazzoli1, Alessandro Repici4, Douglas Rex5, Sergio Cadoni6. 1. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 4. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research and University Hospital, Rozzano (MI), Italy. 5. Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 6. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Iglesias, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). CONCLUSIONS: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). CONCLUSIONS: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.
Authors: Sergio Cadoni; Sauid Ishaq; Cesare Hassan; Pradeep Bhandari; Helmut Neumann; Toshio Kuwai; Noriya Uedo; Adolfo Parra-Blanco; Chris J J Mulder; Kenneth F Binmoeller; Felix W Leung Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-06-24
Authors: Fahima Dossa; Catherine Dubé; Jill Tinmouth; Anne Sorvari; Linda Rabeneck; Bronwen R McCurdy; Jason A Dominitz; Nancy N Baxter Journal: BMJ Open Gastroenterol Date: 2020-02-16
Authors: Muhammad Aziz; Sachit Sharma; Rawish Fatima; Wade Lee-Smith; Thomas Sodeman; Ali Nawras; Douglas G Adler Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2020-02-14
Authors: Colin Sue-Chue-Lam; Matthew Castelo; Jill Tinmouth; Diego Llovet; Teruko Kishibe; Nancy N Baxter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 2.692