Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation

Background and Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma of any size, is a quality indicator. We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) improves ADR but water immersion (WI) has no adverse effect on ADR compared with air insufflation (...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2017-07, Vol.86 (1), p.192-201
Hauptverfasser: Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD, Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD, Hu, Chi-Tan, MD, Koo, Malcolm, PhD, Leung, Felix W., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 201
container_issue 1
container_start_page 192
container_title Gastrointestinal endoscopy
container_volume 86
creator Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD
Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD
Hu, Chi-Tan, MD
Koo, Malcolm, PhD
Leung, Felix W., MD
description Background and Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma of any size, is a quality indicator. We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) improves ADR but water immersion (WI) has no adverse effect on ADR compared with air insufflation (AI). Methods A prospective study was conducted at the Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital in southern Taiwan and the Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital in eastern Taiwan on patients randomly assigned to WE, WI, or AI with stratification by the 3 study colonoscopists. The primary outcome was ADR. Results From July 2013 to December 2015, 651 patients were recruited and randomized into 3 groups with a 1:1:1 ratio (217 patients per group). Overall, ADR met quality standards: WE 49.8% (95% CI, 43.2%-56.4%), AI 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-44.4%), and WI 40.6% (95% CI, 34.2%-47.2%). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased ADR ( P  = .016). There was no difference between WI and WE. ADRs of WI and AI were comparable. Compared with AI, WE confirmed a longer insertion time, higher cleanliness score, but similar adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) and withdrawal time with polypectomy. Subgroup analysis found WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. Multivariate generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that age ≥50 years, WE (vs AI), colonoscopy indication, no previous history of colonoscopy, and withdrawal time >8 minutes were significant predictors of increased ADR. Conclusions Confirmation of prior reports showing WE, but not WI, increased ADR further strengthened the validity of our observations. WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. The outcome differences justify assessment of the role of WE in colorectal cancer prevention. Similar APPC and withdrawal times suggest that adequate inspection was performed on colonoscope withdrawal in each of the study arms. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01894191 .)
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1851296374</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0016510716308306</els_id><sourcerecordid>1851296374</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-aae3af581a36c530ae2ea73faa54d60d263156ac84486c717f132254596d4be23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsuO1DAQtBCIHRY-gAvKkcMm-JHYHiEhoRULSCuBBJytXqczeHDsYCcLsz_Dr-JoBg4cOLndrqqWq5qQp4w2jDL5Yt_sHDa8lA3jDaXdPbJhdKtqqdT2PtnQ8lJ3jKoz8ijnPaVUc8EekjOutlpzrTfk18cU84R2drdYjYufncUwY6oShD6O7g77ysYwp-h9KefkwJfGOEFyYVdBjyGOUPU4rxoxFN6MlQsF42OI2cbpUC15xf6AVRd_2q8QdnhxurtxxJQL86IqEytwpRXyMgweVr3H5MEAPuOT03lOvly9-Xz5rr7-8Pb95evr2raqnWsAFDB0moGQthMUkCMoMQB0bS9pz6VgnQSr21ZLq5gamOC8a7ut7Nsb5OKcPD_qTil-XzDPZnTZovcQMC7ZMN0xvpVCtQXKjlBbrMsJBzMlN0I6GEbNmovZm5KLWXMxjJuSS-E8O8kvNyP2fxl_giiAl0cAlk_eOkwmW4fBYu9Scdb00f1X_tU_bOtdcBb8Nzxg3sclheKeYSYXgvm0Lsa6F0wKqgWV4jepp7cL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1851296374</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD ; Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD ; Hu, Chi-Tan, MD ; Koo, Malcolm, PhD ; Leung, Felix W., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD ; Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD ; Hu, Chi-Tan, MD ; Koo, Malcolm, PhD ; Leung, Felix W., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Background and Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma of any size, is a quality indicator. We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) improves ADR but water immersion (WI) has no adverse effect on ADR compared with air insufflation (AI). Methods A prospective study was conducted at the Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital in southern Taiwan and the Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital in eastern Taiwan on patients randomly assigned to WE, WI, or AI with stratification by the 3 study colonoscopists. The primary outcome was ADR. Results From July 2013 to December 2015, 651 patients were recruited and randomized into 3 groups with a 1:1:1 ratio (217 patients per group). Overall, ADR met quality standards: WE 49.8% (95% CI, 43.2%-56.4%), AI 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-44.4%), and WI 40.6% (95% CI, 34.2%-47.2%). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased ADR ( P  = .016). There was no difference between WI and WE. ADRs of WI and AI were comparable. Compared with AI, WE confirmed a longer insertion time, higher cleanliness score, but similar adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) and withdrawal time with polypectomy. Subgroup analysis found WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. Multivariate generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that age ≥50 years, WE (vs AI), colonoscopy indication, no previous history of colonoscopy, and withdrawal time &gt;8 minutes were significant predictors of increased ADR. Conclusions Confirmation of prior reports showing WE, but not WI, increased ADR further strengthened the validity of our observations. WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. The outcome differences justify assessment of the role of WE in colorectal cancer prevention. Similar APPC and withdrawal times suggest that adequate inspection was performed on colonoscope withdrawal in each of the study arms. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01894191 .)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27988288</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adenoma - diagnostic imaging ; Adenoma - surgery ; Age Factors ; Aged ; Air ; Colonoscopy - methods ; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Deep Sedation ; Female ; Gastroenterology and Hepatology ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Immersion ; Insufflation ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Propofol ; Prospective Studies ; Water</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2017-07, Vol.86 (1), p.192-201</ispartof><rights>American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-aae3af581a36c530ae2ea73faa54d60d263156ac84486c717f132254596d4be23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-aae3af581a36c530ae2ea73faa54d60d263156ac84486c717f132254596d4be23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510716308306$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27988288$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Chi-Tan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koo, Malcolm, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, Felix W., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>Background and Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma of any size, is a quality indicator. We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) improves ADR but water immersion (WI) has no adverse effect on ADR compared with air insufflation (AI). Methods A prospective study was conducted at the Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital in southern Taiwan and the Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital in eastern Taiwan on patients randomly assigned to WE, WI, or AI with stratification by the 3 study colonoscopists. The primary outcome was ADR. Results From July 2013 to December 2015, 651 patients were recruited and randomized into 3 groups with a 1:1:1 ratio (217 patients per group). Overall, ADR met quality standards: WE 49.8% (95% CI, 43.2%-56.4%), AI 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-44.4%), and WI 40.6% (95% CI, 34.2%-47.2%). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased ADR ( P  = .016). There was no difference between WI and WE. ADRs of WI and AI were comparable. Compared with AI, WE confirmed a longer insertion time, higher cleanliness score, but similar adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) and withdrawal time with polypectomy. Subgroup analysis found WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. Multivariate generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that age ≥50 years, WE (vs AI), colonoscopy indication, no previous history of colonoscopy, and withdrawal time &gt;8 minutes were significant predictors of increased ADR. Conclusions Confirmation of prior reports showing WE, but not WI, increased ADR further strengthened the validity of our observations. WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. The outcome differences justify assessment of the role of WE in colorectal cancer prevention. Similar APPC and withdrawal times suggest that adequate inspection was performed on colonoscope withdrawal in each of the study arms. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01894191 .)</description><subject>Adenoma - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Adenoma - surgery</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Air</subject><subject>Colonoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Deep Sedation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypnotics and Sedatives</subject><subject>Immersion</subject><subject>Insufflation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Propofol</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Water</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UsuO1DAQtBCIHRY-gAvKkcMm-JHYHiEhoRULSCuBBJytXqczeHDsYCcLsz_Dr-JoBg4cOLndrqqWq5qQp4w2jDL5Yt_sHDa8lA3jDaXdPbJhdKtqqdT2PtnQ8lJ3jKoz8ijnPaVUc8EekjOutlpzrTfk18cU84R2drdYjYufncUwY6oShD6O7g77ysYwp-h9KefkwJfGOEFyYVdBjyGOUPU4rxoxFN6MlQsF42OI2cbpUC15xf6AVRd_2q8QdnhxurtxxJQL86IqEytwpRXyMgweVr3H5MEAPuOT03lOvly9-Xz5rr7-8Pb95evr2raqnWsAFDB0moGQthMUkCMoMQB0bS9pz6VgnQSr21ZLq5gamOC8a7ut7Nsb5OKcPD_qTil-XzDPZnTZovcQMC7ZMN0xvpVCtQXKjlBbrMsJBzMlN0I6GEbNmovZm5KLWXMxjJuSS-E8O8kvNyP2fxl_giiAl0cAlk_eOkwmW4fBYu9Scdb00f1X_tU_bOtdcBb8Nzxg3sclheKeYSYXgvm0Lsa6F0wKqgWV4jepp7cL</recordid><startdate>20170701</startdate><enddate>20170701</enddate><creator>Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD</creator><creator>Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD</creator><creator>Hu, Chi-Tan, MD</creator><creator>Koo, Malcolm, PhD</creator><creator>Leung, Felix W., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170701</creationdate><title>Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation</title><author>Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD ; Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD ; Hu, Chi-Tan, MD ; Koo, Malcolm, PhD ; Leung, Felix W., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-aae3af581a36c530ae2ea73faa54d60d263156ac84486c717f132254596d4be23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adenoma - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Adenoma - surgery</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Air</topic><topic>Colonoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Deep Sedation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypnotics and Sedatives</topic><topic>Immersion</topic><topic>Insufflation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Propofol</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Water</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Chi-Tan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koo, Malcolm, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, Felix W., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hsieh, Yu-Hsi, MD</au><au>Tseng, Chih-Wei, MD</au><au>Hu, Chi-Tan, MD</au><au>Koo, Malcolm, PhD</au><au>Leung, Felix W., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>2017-07-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>86</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>192</spage><epage>201</epage><pages>192-201</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><abstract>Background and Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma of any size, is a quality indicator. We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) improves ADR but water immersion (WI) has no adverse effect on ADR compared with air insufflation (AI). Methods A prospective study was conducted at the Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital in southern Taiwan and the Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital in eastern Taiwan on patients randomly assigned to WE, WI, or AI with stratification by the 3 study colonoscopists. The primary outcome was ADR. Results From July 2013 to December 2015, 651 patients were recruited and randomized into 3 groups with a 1:1:1 ratio (217 patients per group). Overall, ADR met quality standards: WE 49.8% (95% CI, 43.2%-56.4%), AI 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-44.4%), and WI 40.6% (95% CI, 34.2%-47.2%). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased ADR ( P  = .016). There was no difference between WI and WE. ADRs of WI and AI were comparable. Compared with AI, WE confirmed a longer insertion time, higher cleanliness score, but similar adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) and withdrawal time with polypectomy. Subgroup analysis found WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. Multivariate generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that age ≥50 years, WE (vs AI), colonoscopy indication, no previous history of colonoscopy, and withdrawal time &gt;8 minutes were significant predictors of increased ADR. Conclusions Confirmation of prior reports showing WE, but not WI, increased ADR further strengthened the validity of our observations. WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. The outcome differences justify assessment of the role of WE in colorectal cancer prevention. Similar APPC and withdrawal times suggest that adequate inspection was performed on colonoscope withdrawal in each of the study arms. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01894191 .)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27988288</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.005</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-5107
ispartof Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2017-07, Vol.86 (1), p.192-201
issn 0016-5107
1097-6779
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1851296374
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adenoma - diagnostic imaging
Adenoma - surgery
Age Factors
Aged
Air
Colonoscopy - methods
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery
Deep Sedation
Female
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Humans
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Immersion
Insufflation
Male
Middle Aged
Propofol
Prospective Studies
Water
title Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T09%3A19%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospective%20multicenter%20randomized%20controlled%20trial%20comparing%20adenoma%20detection%20rate%20in%20colonoscopy%20using%20water%20exchange,%20water%20immersion,%20and%20air%20insufflation&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Hsieh,%20Yu-Hsi,%20MD&rft.date=2017-07-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=192&rft.epage=201&rft.pages=192-201&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1851296374%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1851296374&rft_id=info:pmid/27988288&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0016510716308306&rfr_iscdi=true