Minimal water exchange colonoscopy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yeh JH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6363820 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Minimal water exchange colonoscopy.
Yeh Jen-Hao JH Chien Hsi-Yuan HY
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20190111 2
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6675875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colonoscopy is commonly used in screening for colorectal cancer. A refined technique of colonoscopy involving the use of water as the sole modality to aid colonoscope insertion, water exchange, has been described in recent research papers to decrease patient discomfort and pain, and to reduce the need for sedation during colonoscopy when compared with standard air insufflation. Carbon dioxide insufflation has been described to decrease patient discomfort after colonoscopy. No randomized trial has so far compared the use of water exchange to carbon dioxide insufflation. Our hypothesis is that water exchange inflicts less discomfort to patients undergoing colonoscopy than carbon dioxide insufflation. Patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in two centers in Norway, one center in Poland and one center in The Netherlands will be enrolled and randomized to examination of either of the two methods.
| 2128017 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:IntroductionWater-assisted colonoscopy increases left colon mucus production; however, the effect of saline on mucus production is unclear. We tested the hypothesis that saline infusion may reduce mucus production in a dose-related manner.MethodsIn a randomized trial, patients were assigned to colonoscopy with CO 2 insufflation, water exchange (WE) with warm water, 25% saline, or 50% saline. The primary outcome was the Left Colon Mucus Scale (LCMS) score (5-point scale). Blood electrolytes were measured before and after saline infusion.ResultsA total of 296 patients with similar baseline demographics were included. The mean LCMS score for WE with water was significantly higher than that for WE with saline and CO 2 (1.4 ± 0.8 [WE water] vs 0.7 ± 0.6 [WE 25% saline] vs 0.5 ± 0.5 [WE 50% saline] vs 0.2 ± 0.4 [CO 2 ]; overall P < 0.0001), with no significant difference between the 25% and 50% saline groups. The left colon adenoma detection rate (ADR) was highest in the 50% saline group, followed by the 25% saline and the water groups (25.0% vs 18.7% vs 13.3%), but the difference was not significant. Logistic regression showed water infusion as the only predictor of moderate mucus production (odds ratio 33.3, 95% confidence interval 7.2-153.2). No acute electrolyte abnormalities were documented indicating a safe modification.DiscussionThe use of 25% and 50% saline significantly inhibited mucus production and numerically increased ADR in the left colon. Evaluation of the impact of mucus inhibition by saline on ADR may refine the outcomes of WE.
| S-EPMC10371327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsRecently, water exchange (WE) instead of water immersion (WI) for colonoscopy has been proposed to decrease pain and improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to assess whether WE is superior to WI based on the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Materials and methodsWe searched studies from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Only RCTs were eligible for our study. The pooled risk ratios (RRs), pooled mean difference (MD), and pooled 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model based on heterogeneity.ResultsFive RCTs consisting of 2229 colonoscopies were included in this study. WE was associated with a significantly higher ADR than WI (RR = 1.18; CI = 1.05-1.32; P = 0.004), especially in right colon (RR = 1.31; CI = 1.07-1.61; P = 0.01). Compared with WI, WE was confirmed with lower pain score, higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, but more infused water during insertion. There was no statistical difference between WE and WI in cecal intubation rate and the number of patients who had willingness to repeat the examination. Furthermore, both total procedure time and cecal intubation time in WE were significantly longer than that in WI (MD = 2.66; CI = 1.42-3.90; P < 0.0001; vs MD = 4.58; CI = 4.01-5.15; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in improving ADR, attenuating insertion pain and providing better bowel cleansing, but inferior in time and consumption of infused water consumption during insertion.
| S-EPMC6151995 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6004423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy of cap-assisted and water-exchange colonoscopy, individually or in combination for adenoma detection is well documented. Moreover, prone positioning colonoscopy may also improve adenoma detection by decreasing loop formation. However, the efficacy of triple-combination colonoscopy using the above methods for adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of combining modified cap-assisted and water-exchange colonoscopy with prone position (CWP) and conventional colonoscopy (CC) for adenoma detection. A total of 746 patients who underwent either CWP or CC, performed by 2 board-certified gastroenterologists between December 2019 and March 2020, were investigated retrospectively. Cap-assisted colonoscopy was modified using hooking and dragging maneuver. We evaluated the polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure (MAP). There was no significant difference in sex, age, the indication of colonoscopy and quality of bowel preparation between the 2 groups. PDR, ADR, and proximal colon MAP were significantly higher in the CWP group than in the CC group (PDR: 84.9% vs 59.8%, P < .01; ADR: 70.1%, vs 49.2%, P < .01; proximal colon MAP: 1.24 vs 0.55, P < .01). CWP is more effective than CC for PDR, ADR, and proximal colon MAP. Although it may facilitate adenoma detection, further studies assessing the synergistic or complementary effects of combining these methods are needed.
| S-EPMC9666107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA low adenoma detection rate (ADR) increases risks of interval cancers (ICs). Proximal colon flat polyps, e.g. serrated lesions (SLs), are difficult to find. Missed proximal colon flat lesions likely contribute to IC.AimsWe compared chromoendoscopy with water exchange (CWE), water exchange (WE) and air insufflation (AI) in detecting adenomas in screening colonoscopy.MethodsAfter split-dose preparation, 480 veterans were randomized to AI, WE and CWE.ResultsPrimary outcome of proximal ADR (55.6% vs 53.4% vs 52.2%, respectively) were similar in all groups. Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) were comparable. Detection rate of proximal colon SLs was significantly higher for CWE and WE than AI (26.3%, 23.6% and 11.3%, respectively, p = 0.002). Limitations: single operator; SLs only surrogate markers of but not IC.ConclusionsWhen an endoscopist achieves high-quality AI examinations with overall ADR twice (61.6%) the recommended standard (30%), use of WE and CWE does not produce further improvement in proximal or overall ADR. Comparable APC and APPC confirm equivalent withdrawal inspection techniques. WE alone is sufficient to significantly improve detection of proximal SLs. The impact of increased detection of proximal SLs by WE on prevention of IC deserves to be studied. This study is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT#01607255).
| S-EPMC6488805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Biophysical models of diffusion in white matter have been center-stage over the past two decades and are essentially based on what is now commonly referred to as the "Standard Model" (SM) of non-exchanging anisotropic compartments with Gaussian diffusion. In this work, we focus on diffusion MRI in gray matter, which requires rethinking basic microstructure modeling blocks. In particular, at least three contributions beyond the SM need to be considered for gray matter: water exchange across the cell membrane - between neurites and the extracellular space; non-Gaussian diffusion along neuronal and glial processes - resulting from structural disorder; and signal contribution from soma. For the first contribution, we propose Neurite Exchange Imaging (NEXI) as an extension of the SM of diffusion, which builds on the anisotropic Kärger model of two exchanging compartments. Using datasets acquired at multiple diffusion weightings (b) and diffusion times (t) in the rat brain in vivo, we investigate the suitability of NEXI to describe the diffusion signal in the gray matter, compared to the other two possible contributions. Our results for the diffusion time window 20-45 ms show minimal diffusivity time-dependence and more pronounced kurtosis decay with time, which is well fit by the exchange model. Moreover, we observe lower signal for longer diffusion times at high b. In light of these observations, we identify exchange as the mechanism that best explains these signal signatures in both low-b and high-b regime, and thereby propose NEXI as the minimal model for gray matter microstructure mapping. We finally highlight multi-b multi-t acquisition protocols as being best suited to estimate NEXI model parameters reliably. Using this approach, we estimate the inter-compartment water exchange time to be 15 - 60 ms in the rat cortex and hippocampus in vivo, which is of the same order or shorter than the diffusion time in typical diffusion MRI acquisitions. This suggests water exchange as an essential component for interpreting diffusion MRI measurements in gray matter.
| S-EPMC10363376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Water-aided method for colonoscopy can be broadly subdivided into two major categories. Water Immersion (WI), characterized by suction removal of the infused water predominantly during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy, and Water Exchange (WE), characterized by suction removal of infused water predominantly during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. Several studies showed that WE significantly reduces pain compared to WI and colonoscopy with traditional air insufflation (AI), increases the number of unsedated procedures and adenoma detection rate (ADR), in particular proximal ADR. This randomized controlled trial will be a direct comparison of Air Insufflation, Water Immersion and Water Exchange to test the hypothesis that WAC (particularly WE) would significantly decrease pain score during colonoscopy in average-risk screening patients. Several other secondary outcomes will also be analyzed.
| 2139246 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Water-aided method for colonoscopy can be broadly subdivided into two major categories. Water Immersion (WI), characterized by suction removal of the infused water predominantly during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy, and Water Exchange (WE), characterized by suction removal of infused water predominantly during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. Several studies showed that WE significantly reduces pain compared to WI and colonoscopy with traditional air insufflation (AI), increases the number of unsedated procedures and adenoma detection rate (ADR), in particular proximal ADR. This randomized controlled trial will be a direct comparison of Air Insufflation, Water Immersion and Water Exchange to test the hypothesis that WAC (particularly WE) would significantly decrease pain score during colonoscopy in diagnostic patients. Several other secondary outcomes will also be analyzed.
| 2139310 | ecrin-mdr-crc