A novel intubation discomfort score to predict painful unsedated colonoscopy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Abstract
Pain during colonoscopy is a critical quality indicator and often a limiting factor for unsedated colonoscopy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with pain during colonoscopy and establish a model for predicting a painful colonoscopy.Patients aged 18 to 80 who underwent unsedated colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 2 tertiary endoscopic centers in China. The primary outcome was the rate of painful colonoscopy and then we identify high-risk factors associated with painful colonoscopy. A prediction model with an intubation discomfort score (IDS) was developed and validated.Totally 607 patients participated in this study, including 345 in the training cohort and 262 in the validation cohort. Body mass index (BMI) of <18.5?kg/m2 (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.09-4.37), constipation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.25-4.80), and anticipating moderate or severe pain (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.12-3.79) were identified as independent predictive factors for painful colonoscopy and used to develop the IDS (all P?
SUBMITTER: Wang L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7969226 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMany factors have been found to affect the difficulty of colonoscope insertion, such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), history of abdominal surgery and operator etc. However, a scoring system may be more useful to predict the difficulty during colonoscopy.MethodsThe individual and procedure-related data of 616 patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively collected from December 2013 through February 2014 in Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases. Cox regression analysis was used to identify high-risk factors associated with difficulty of colonoscopy. A predicting model with the difficult colonoscopy score (DCS) was developed.ResultsTotal cecum intubation rate was 98.9% (609/616). Advanced age, lower BMI, inexperienced operator and fair or poor sleep quality were identified as independent factors of prolonged insertion time (all p < 0.05), which were used to develop the DCS. Based on the score, patients could be divided into high-risk and low-risk groups with distinct incomplete rates within 10 min (42.0% vs. 16.5%, p < 0.001). Compared with those with DCS ≤ 1, patients with DCS > 1 had increased insertion time (10.6 ± 0.7 min vs. 6.9 ± 0.2 min, p < 0.001) and pain score (1.9 ± 1.5 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4, p = 0.002). More abdominal compression (36.9% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001) and position change (51.4% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.001) were needed in this group of patients.ConclusionPatients with DCS > 1 had longer insertion time, higher pain score and needed more abdominal compression and position changes. DCS was useful for predicting the difficulty of colonoscope intubation. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02105025 05/05/2014).
| S-EPMC4397830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Studies have linked cecal intubation rate with adenoma detection rate; however, the direct association between technical performance during colonoscopy intubation and withdrawal has never been explored. Thus, it remains unclear whether gentle and efficient intubation predicts superior mucosal inspection. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between performance during intubation and withdrawal in a simulation-based setup. Methods Twenty-four physicians with various experience in colonoscopy performed twice on the Endoscopy Training System (ETS). Intubation skills were evaluated by assessing tasks on the ETS related to intubation (scope manipulation and loop management) and use of a computerized assessment tool called the 3D-Colonoscopy Progression Score (3D-CoPS). Diagnostic accuracy was defined by the number of polyps found during the ETS task of mucosal inspection. Pearson's correlations were calculated to explore associations between intubation skill and diagnostic accuracy. Results The correlation analysis between 3D-CoPS and number of polyps found during mucosal inspection revealed a weak and insignificant correlation (0.157, P = 0.3). Likewise, an insignificant correlation was seen between ETS intubation and number of polyps found (0.149, P = 0.32). Conclusions We found no evidence to support that technical performance during intubation is correlated with mucosal inspection performance in a simulation-based setting.
| S-EPMC8759934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One of the methods used to reduce pain and discomfort during colonoscopy is insufflation of carbon dioxide instead of air. However, the actual benefit of carbon dioxide insufflation is not unequivocally proven. The aim of the study was to evaluate the advantages of carbon dioxide insufflation during screening colonoscopy. A total of 200 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy between 2010 and 2011 were included in the prospective, randomized study carried out in a surgical referral center. Screening unsedated colonoscopy with either air or carbon dioxide insufflation was performed; patients were randomly assigned to air or carbon dioxide group by means of computer-generated randomization lists. All examinations were performed in an ambulatory setting with standard videocolonoscopes. The main outcomes analyzed were (a) duration of the entire procedure, (b) cecal intubation time, and (c) pain severity immediately, 15, and 60 min after the procedure. Group I included 59 women and 41 men and group II included 51 women and 49 men. The duration of the procedure was circa 10 min in both groups. Pain score values immediately and 15 min after the procedure were similar in both groups (P=0.624 and 0.305, respectively). A lower pain score was observed only after 60 min in patients insufflated with carbon dioxide (1.28 vs. 1.54, P=0.008). No pain reduction was observed in women and in obese patients (BMI>30). Carbon dioxide insufflation during unsedated screening colonoscopy does not decrease the duration of the procedure and appears to reduce pain intensity at 60 min after examination to an extent without clinical significance. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01461564.
| S-EPMC4495875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate if deep-sedated colonoscopy affects adenoma detection in certain colorectal segment. Review of colonoscopy reports, electronic images and medical records of individuals underwent screening colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation between October 2020 and March 2021 from seven hospitals in China. A total of 4500 individuals were analyzed. There was no significant difference in ADR between deep-sedated colonoscopy and unsedated colonoscopy [45.4% vs. 46.3%, P > 0.05]. The APP of deep-sedated colonoscopy was lower than unsedated colonoscopy (1.76 ± 0.81 vs. 2.00 ± 1.30, P < 0.05). Both average number of adenomas and luminal distention score of splenic flexure and descending colon were lower in deep-sedated colonoscopy (P < 0.05), and average number of adenomas was positively correlated with an improved distension score in splenic flexure and descending colon (splenic flexure r = 0.031, P < 0.05; descending colon r = 0.312, P < 0.05). Linear regression model showed deep-sedated colonoscopy significantly affected luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon as well as average number of adenomas detected in splenic flexure (P < 0.05). Deep-sedated colonoscopy decreased adenoma detection in splenic flexure and the luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon compared with unsedated colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC9468171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify the most effective laxative for bowel preparation in unsedated colonoscopy.MethodsBetween April 2019 and April 2020, a total of 586 outpatients scheduled for unsedated colonoscopy at the First Hospital of Jilin University (Changchun, China) were randomized into one of two groups, namely, the polyethylene glycol (PEG) group or the oral sodium phosphate solution (OSP) group. The cleaning efficiency and other relevant clinical parameters were compared between the two groups.ResultsEach group consisted of 293 patients. There were no significant differences in gender, body mass index, and history of abdominal surgery between the two groups. There were more cases of laxative intolerance in the PEG group than in the OSP group (7.5% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.05). After tube insertion, we found that the cleaning efficiency of OSP was better than that of PEG (P < 0.05). After cleaning, there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness between the two groups (P > 0.05). The colonoscopic insertion time of the PEG group was significantly shorter than that of the OSP group (10.0 vs. 12.0 min, P = 0.002), and colonoscopic insertion was more difficult in the OSP group than in the PEG group (P = 0.036). The VAS score of the PEG group patients was significantly lower than that of OSP group patients (4.0 ± 1.3 vs. 5.2 ± 1.7, P ≤ 0.001). There were no significant differences in the cecal intubation rate and the detection rate of polyps and ulcers/erosion between the two groups.ConclusionThe cleaning efficiency and tolerability of OSP were preferable to those of PEG, but there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness after washing the colon and suctioning the fluid. Compared with patients of the OSP group, those of the PEG group required a shorter colonoscopic insertion time and reported a more comfortable experience. Therefore, for cases that are tolerant of PEG, PEG is a better choice for unsedated colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC7463375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesColorectal cancer on the right side of the colon has been suggested to be harder to detect by colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a second forward-view examination of the right side of the colon could increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and/or polyp detection rate (PDR).MethodsThis was a single-centre randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to the second forward-view examination (SFE) group, in which the right side of the colon was examined twice or the traditional colonoscopy (TC) group in which the colonoscopy was performed in a standard manner. The primary outcome was the ADR of right colon. The overall PDR and ADR, PDR of the right colon, per-adenoma miss rate of the right colon, and advanced lesion detection rate were also recorded and compared.ResultsA total of 392 patients were included in the study (SFE group 197 vs. TC group 195). The ADR and PDR of the right colon in the SFE group were significantly higher than those in the TC group (ADR 10.7% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.042); PDR 17.8% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.021). No significant difference was found in overall PDR/ADR, or advanced lesion detection rate between the two groups.ConclusionsThis prospective controlled study revealed that a second forward-view examination could modestly increase the ADR and PDR of the right colon during unsedated colonoscopies. This simple, safe and time-effective technique might be recommended for routine unsedated colonoscopy.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov, NCT03619122. Registered on 7/8/2018.
| S-EPMC8111781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine if different water pump flow rates influence the insertion time of water immersion method in unsedated patients. We tested the hypothesis that high flow rate (HFR) is more effective than low flow rate (LFR) in facilitating insertion. Clinical registration number: NCT01869296.MethodsConsecutive symptomatic patients without prior abdominal surgery were consented and enrolled. They were randomized to an HFR (10.4 mL/s) or LFR (1.7 mL/s) group. The patients were not informed about the flow rate of the water pump (single blinded). Patients underwent unsedated colonoscopy examination with standard colonoscope. Demographic and procedural parameters were recorded. Data were analyzed with Student's t-test or Chi-square test as appropriate.ResultsA total of 132 patients (66 in HFR and 66 in LFR group) were recruited. The HFR group showed significantly shorter cecal intubation time (12.5±6.2 min in HFR vs 16.3±7.3 min in LFR, p=0.004), shorter time to pass rectosigmoid (3.6±2.2 min in HFR vs 6.2±4.6 min in LFR, p<0.001), and lower pain score (4.2±2.8 in HFR vs 5.3±2.6 in LFR, p=0.024). The cecal intubation rate was not significantly different (87.9% in HFR vs 80.3% in LFR, p=0.34), and 29 (14 in HFR and 15 in LFR) patients with signs of colon redundancy were successfully intubated to the cecum after repeated loop reduction and position changes.ConclusionCompared to LFR, HFR of the water infusion pump significantly reduced colonoscopy insertion time and pain score in unsedated patients. Significantly shorter time to pass the rectosigmoid appeared to play a contributory role.
| S-EPMC5769563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In many countries, colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening are performed without sedation due to the cost. Changes in the structure of the endoscopes are designed to facilitate the colonoscopic examination, reduce the duration of the procedure, and improve the imaging of the intestinal lumen. The variable stiffness of the endoscope and the recently introduced responsive insertion technology (RIT) are features aimed at easing colonoscope insertion and reducing the discomfort and pain during the examination. The aim of the study is to analyze whether the new RIT system can improve the practice of colonoscopy under no anesthesia with respect to the widely available variable stiffness colonoscopes.This analysis included 647 patients who underwent complete colonoscopy in the screening program. All colonoscopies were performed without sedation. Olympus series 180 and 190 endoscopes equipped with a magnetic positioning system were used. Group I included patients who were examined using endoscopes equipped with responsive insertion technology (RIT), and group II included patients who were examined using conventional variable stiffness colonoscopies. The main objective was to evaluate the cecal intubation time, the number of loops, the requirement to apply manual pressure to different areas of the abdomen and the degree of discomfort and pain expressed on a visual analogue scale (VAS). ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01688557.Group I consisted of 329 patients, and group II included 318 patients. The mean age of the patients was 58.4 years (SD ± 4.21). Both groups were compared in terms of age, sex, and BMI. The mean cecal intubation time was 209 s in group I and 224 s in group II (p < 0.05). Increased loop formation was observed upon endoscope insertion in group II (1.7 vs. 1.35) (p < 0.05) and required more manual pressure to the abdomen (2.2 vs. 1.7) (p = 0.001). In group I, less discomfort and pain, as graded on a VAS (2.3 vs. 2.6), were noted.The implementation of RIT reduced of the cecal intubation time. The modified structure of the endoscope rendered the colonoscopic examination easier by reducing loop formation upon insertion with a subsequently reduced rate of auxiliary maneuvers.
| S-EPMC5411411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe screening colonoscopy process requires a considerable amount of time and some discomfort for patients.ObjectiveWe sought to use willingness-to-pay (WTP) to value the time required and the discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy. In addition, we aimed to explore some of the differences between and potential uses of the WTP and the human capital methods.MethodsSubjects completed a diary recording time and a questionnaire including WTP questions to value the time and discomfort associated with colonoscopy. We also valued the elapsed time reported in the diaries (but not the discomfort) using the human capital method.Results110 subjects completed the study. Mean WTP to avoid the time and discomfort was $263. Human capital values for elapsed time were greater. Linear regressions showed that WTP was influenced most by the difficulty of the preparation, which added $147 to WTP (p=0.03).ConclusionsWTP values to avoid the time and discomfort associated with the screening colonoscopy process were substantially lower than most of the human capital values for elapsed time alone. The human capital method may overestimate the value of time in situations that involve an irregular, episodic series of time intervals, such as preparation for or recovery after colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC4174545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSocial inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation are evident. Barriers to screening participation include discomfort from diagnostic modalities. We aimed to describe the discomfort experienced from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and investigate the discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort stratified by socioeconomic status.MethodsA randomised controlled trial was conducted offering half of the colorectal cancer screening invitees the choice between CCE and colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. This paper includes those who elected to undergo CCE. A positive CCE elicited referral for a therapeutic colonoscopy. Participants reported their discomfort from CCE and from any following colonoscopies in electronically distributed questionnaires. Discomfort was measured using visual analogue scales and compared between socioeconomic subgroups determined by educational level and income.ResultsThe experienced discomfort from CCE and colonoscopy differed significantly between educational levels but not income levels. The bowel preparation contributed the most to the experienced discomfort in both CCE and colonoscopy. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy increased with increasing educational and income levels. A similar trend was seen in CCE between educational levels but not income levels.ConclusionsNone of the results indicated a higher discomfort in lower socioeconomic subgroups. Regardless of the investigation modality, the bowel preparation was the main contributor to experienced discomfort. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort did not seem to be larger in lower socioeconomic subgroups, indicating that this is not a major barrier causing inequalities in screening uptake. This is the first study investigating individual discomfort discrepancy in both CCE and colonoscopy, while being able to stratify by socioeconomic status.
| S-EPMC11295845 | biostudies-literature