RCT of Air Insufflation Versus Water Infusion Colonoscopy
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
DISEASE(S): Colorectal Cancer,Colorectal Neoplasms
PROVIDER: 2063568 | ecrin-mdr-crc |
REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR
Similar Datasets
Project description:Our aim is to perform a randomized-controlled trial comparing air insufflation sedated colonoscopy (conventional method) vs. water infusion sedated colonoscopy (study method) by supervised trainees. Randomized trials demonstrating reduced need for sedation medications without compromising patients’ comfort, cecal intubation rates or polyps detection may cause a paradigm shift and positively alter the way traditional colonoscopy is performed and future endoscopists are trained.
| 2067762 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:In a prospective, randomized, controlled study, two methods (water method vs. air method) of performing colonoscopy will be compared in patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy for CRC screening. The investigators hypothesize that:
1. Study method increases overall cecal intubation with comparable assessment of current experience and patient willingness to repeat future colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy
2. Study method improves bowel preparation and increases polyp pickup rate
| 2108922 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Interventions: We use low pressure air insufflation instead of high pressure during insertion phase of colonoscopy. Air insufflation is usually needed during colonoscopy. There are 3 air pressure level of air pressures on the control panel: high, median and low. Traditionaly, high pressure (0.05 MPa) is used. In this study, we use low pressure (0.0075-0.015 MPa) during insertion phase of colonoscopy to minimize loop formation. Before the colonoscopy is started, the air pressure was switched to low level on the control panel.
Primary outcome(s): to reduce cecal intubation time by one minute[At the end of colonoscopy]
Study Design: Purpose: Diagnosis; Allocation: Randomised controlled trial; Masking: Open (masking not used);Assignment: Parallel
| 2454097 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Insufflation of the colon, usually with room air, is necessary to distend the lumen for exploration. Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation instead of room air insufflation (AI) has been shown to decrease symptoms of abdominal pain or discomfort during the procedure and particularly during the following 24 hours. CO2 is is rapidly absorbed by the intestinal mucosa and exhaled through respiration. AI colonoscopy has usually been the reference standard to compare colonoscopy using CO2 insufflation. In two recent articles AI was compared to either CO2 insufflation and Water-aided colonoscopy (WAC), which entails infusion of water to facilitate insertion to the cecum.
WAC can be categorized broadly in Water Immersion (WI) and Water Exchange (WE). In WI water is infused during the insertion phase of colonoscopy, with removal of infused water predominantly during withdrawal. Occasional use of insufflation may be allowed. WE entails complete exclusion of insufflation, removal of residual colonic air pockets and feces, and suction of infused water predominantly during insertion to minimize distention. During the withdrawal phase insufflation is used to distend the colonic lumen.
In the WAC arms of the two mentioned articles the insertion method used was WI, with infusion of water at room temperature or at 37°C. During withdrawal, air insufflation or either air or CO2 insufflation were employed.
Compared to AI, CO2 insufflation and WI (using room air insufflation or CO2 insufflation during withdrawal) were effective in both studies in decreasing sedation requirement, pain and tolerance scores, with patients’ higher willingness to repeat the procedure.
Until now no direct comparison has been made within a single study about pain score during colonoscopy using AI, CO2 insufflation, WI/CO2, WE/CO2, WI/AI and WE/AI.
In this study we test the hypothesis that, compared to AI, CO2 insufflation and WAC/CO2-AI methods will decrease pain score during colonoscopy, with reduction of sedation requirement, and that WE will achieve the best result. This comparative study has also the aim to test the respective peculiarities of each method.
| 2152551 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Colonoscopy is a sedated procedure traditionally performed using air insufflation during the insertion phase of the procedure. Recently, the use of water method (eg, water infusion or water exchange techniques) during the insertion phase of colonoscopy has been reported to increase the proportion of patients in whom complete unsedated colonoscopy could be achieved, reduce patient recovery time burdens, decrease abdominal discomfort during and after colonoscopy, enhance cecal intubation, and increase willingness to repeat an unsedated colonoscopy. However, there has been no study on the use of water method during the training of primary care doctors or nurse endoscopists in flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.
In unsedated endoscopic procedure such as FS, endoscope insertion techniques that can potentially reduce patient discomfort and increase the rate of achieving an adequate depth of scope insertion are desirable. Our current study aims to evaluate the impact of water method during insertion phase of FS in the training of primary care doctors or nurse endoscopists for colorectal cancer screening.
| 2248612 | 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 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
Project description:This study evaluates how often patients without sedation that receive screening sigmoidoscopy are able to have their full colon examined without significant discomfort by comparing a new colonoscopy technique known as the water exchange technique to the traditional air insufflation technique. It compares the differences between complete colon exam rates for water exchange when compared to the traditional air technique. Patients will be randomised and blinded to the procedure type.
Previous studies have shown that the water exchange method is associated with a significant reduction in discomfort and often allows patients to receive colonoscopy without sedation or with only minimal sedation. However, the potential for water exchange to be used in the screening setting has yet to be evaluated. As per standard practices in sigmoidoscopy screening, patients will not be sedated. However, unlike standard practices in sigmoidoscopy screening, while maintaining minimal levels of discomfort, the investigators will attempt to scope beyond the distal colon.
| 2248694 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Background/aimsThis study aimed to compare tolerance to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation in patients with anticipated difficult colonoscopy (young, thin, obese individuals, and patients with prior abdominal surgery or irradiation).MethodsPatients with body mass index (BMI) less than 18 kg/m2 or more than 30 kg/m2, or who had undergone previous abdominal or pelvic surgeries were randomized to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation during colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation with mild pain (less than 5 on visual analogue scale [VAS]), without use of sedation.ResultsThe primary end point was achieved in 32.7%, 43.8%, and 84.9% of cases with air, carbon dioxide and water insufflation (P<0.001). The mean pain scores were 5.17, 4.72, and 3.93 on the VAS for air, carbon dioxide, and water insufflation (P<0.001). The cecal intubation rate or procedure time did not differ significantly between the 3 groups.ConclusionsWater insufflation was superior to air or carbon dioxide for pain tolerance. This was seen in the subgroups with BMI <18 kg/m2 and the post-surgical group, but not in the group with BMI >30 kg/m2.
| S-EPMC5934604 | 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