Dataset Information

Peppermint Oil to Improve Visualization in Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Screening colonoscopy has been associated with reduced mortality from colorectal cancer by means of early detection and timely treatment. However, visualization during colonoscopy is often impaired since the colon is naturally prone to peristalsis and spasm. There is evidence to suggest benefit of topical peppermint oil in causing smooth muscle relaxation, thereby decreasing peristalsis. The aim of our study was to determine if peppermint oil helps reduce colonic spasticity so as to allow for better visualization during screening colonoscopy. Methods:We performed a randomized controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial where patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were assigned to receive either peppermint oil or placebo. Once cecum was reached, 50 mL of either solution was directly injected via the working channel of the colonoscope. Colonic peristalsis, spasticity and bowel visibility were documented. Bowel preparation quality, withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were also assessed. Continuous variables were analyzed using t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test while categorical variables were compared using the two-way Chi-square test. Results:Forty-eight patients were included, of whom 24 patients received peppermint oil and 24 received placebo. Mean Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) was excellent for both groups (8 points vs. 7.9 points; P = 0.98). Both mean total colonoscopy time (17.8 min vs. 21.9 min; P = 0.07) and mean cecal intubation time (7.2 min vs. 10.3 min; P = 0.04) were shorter with peppermint oil as compared to placebo. Complete absence of bowel spasticity was observed among 58.3% patients in the peppermint oil group as compared to 45.8% patients in the placebo group (P = 0.05). More than 75% of bowel was visualized in 83% of patients in both groups (P = 0.56). Mean ADR was higher in the peppermint group as compared to the placebo group (45.8% vs. 37.5%; P = 0.56). Conclusion:Our study suggests that topical peppermint oil reduces bowel wall spasticity, which could lead to better visualization of the bowel during screening colonoscopy. Although use of peppermint oil was associated with better ADRs, these results did not achieve statistical significance. Larger sample size and use of alternative methods of peppermint oil administration allowing for more absorption time may establish stronger results.

SUBMITTER: Shah I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6575129 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Peppermint Oil to Improve Visualization in Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Shah Ishani I Baffy Noemi J NJ Horsley-Silva Jennifer L JL Langlais Blake T BT Ruff Kevin C KC

Gastroenterology research 20190607 3

<h4>Background</h4>Screening colonoscopy has been associated with reduced mortality from colorectal cancer by means of early detection and timely treatment. However, visualization during colonoscopy is often impaired since the colon is naturally prone to peristalsis and spasm. There is evidence to suggest benefit of topical peppermint oil in causing smooth muscle relaxation, thereby decreasing peristalsis. The aim of our study was to determine if peppermint oil helps reduce colonic spasticity so ...[more]

PMID: 31236155

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy attendance is a key quality parameter in colorectal cancer population screening programmes. Within these programmes, educative interventions with bidirectional contact carried out by trained personnel have been proved to be an important tool for colonoscopy attendance improvement, and because of its huge clinical and economic impact, they have been widely implemented. However, outside of this population programmes, educative measures to improve colonoscopy attendance have been poorly studied and no navigation interventions are usually performed.AimTo investigate the clinical and economic impacts of an educational telephone intervention on colonoscopy attendance outside colorectal cancer screening programmes.MethodsThis randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients referred to colonoscopy from primary care centres from November 2017 to May 2018. The intervention group (IG) received a telephone intervention, while the control group (CG) did not. Patients assigned to the IG received an educational telephone call 7 d before the colonoscopy appointment. The intervention was carried out by two nurses with deep endoscopic knowledge who were previously trained for a telephone educational intervention for colonoscopy. The impact on patient compliance with preparedness protocols related to bowel cleansing, anti-thrombotic management, and sedation scheduling was also evaluated. A second call was conducted to assess patient satisfaction. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 738 and 746 patients were finally included in the IG and CG respectively. Six hundred thirteen (83%) patients were contacted in the IG. The non-attendance rate was lower in the IG, both in the ITT analysis (IG 8.4% vs CG 14.3%, P < 0.001) and in the PP analysis (4.4% vs 14.3%, P < 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, belonging to the control group increased the risk of non-attendance in both, the ITT analysis (OR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.27 to 2.58, P = 0.001) and the PP analysis (OR 3.56, 95%CI: 2.25 to 5.64, P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in compliance with preparedness protocols [bowel cleansing: IG 61.7% vs CG 52.6% (P = 0.001), antithrombotic management: IG 92.5% vs CG 62.8% (P = 0.001), and sedation scheduling: IG 78.8% vs CG 0% (P ? 0.001)]. We observed a net benefit of €55600/year after the intervention. The information given before the procedure was rated as excellent by 26% (CG) and 51% (IG) of patients, P ? 0.001.ConclusionEducational telephone nurse intervention improves attendance, protocol compliance and patient satisfaction in the non-screening colonoscopy setting and has a large economic impact, which supports its imple-mentation and maintenance over time.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist.ObjectiveTo investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries.Design, setting, and populationA population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014.InterventionsColonoscopy screening or no screening.Main outcomes and measuresParticipation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist.ResultsOf 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceColonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.

Project description:To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as "usual" or "difficult" by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.

Project description:AimTo study the significance of cap-fitted colonoscopy in improving cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.MethodsThis study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.ResultsThere were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.ConclusionCAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.

Project description:BackgroundNo head-to-head randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the superiority of one colorectal screening modality over another in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), optical colonoscopy (OC), and virtual colonoscopy (VC), to inform the planning of a larger evaluative trial.MethodsEligible patients (aged 50 to 70) were recruited from five primary care practices in Hamilton, ON, Canada, between March 23, 2010 and August 11, 2010, and randomized 1:1:1 in a parallel design using an automated, centralized telephone service to either FOBT, OC, or VC. To reflect conventional practice, patients received no additional reminders to complete their allocated screening test beyond those received in usual practice. The primary outcome was completion of the assigned screening procedure. Results of the index test and any follow-up investigations were ascertained at 6 months. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to group assignment. The trial was stopped early due to lack of ongoing funding.ResultsA total of 198 participants were enrolled, of whom 67 were allocated to FOBT, 66 to OC, and 65 to VC. The allocated screening procedure was completed by 43 (64%) subjects allocated to FOBT (95% confidence interval [CI], 52-75%), 53 (80%) subjects allocated to OC (95% CI, 69-88%), and 50 (77%) subjects allocated to VC (95% CI, 65-85%); because the trial stopped early, we had insufficient statistical power to detect clinically relevant differences in completion rates. During 6 months follow-up, colorectal adenomas were detected in 0 (0%) subjects allocated to FOBT, 12 (18%) subjects allocated to OC, and 2 (3%) subjects allocated to VC. One subject in the OC arm had histological evidence of high-grade dysplasia. No subjects were diagnosed with colorectal cancer.ConclusionsIn this pilot randomized controlled trial of colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting, 64-80% of subjects completed their allocated screening test. These findings may be of value to investigators planning clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00865527. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00865527.

Dataset Information

Peppermint Oil to Improve Visualization in Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Publications

Peppermint Oil to Improve Visualization in Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets