170 degrees wide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates.

BACKGROUND: Small polyps are routinely missed during colonoscopy even with careful examination. AIM: To determine and compare endoscopic efficiency and polyp miss rate between a prototype 170 degrees wide-angle (WA) colonoscope and a standard (S) colonoscope. METHODS: Two consecutive same-day colonoscopies were performed in 50 patients with intact colons. The patients were randomized to undergo the first colonoscopy with either the prototype WA 170 degrees angle of view colonoscope or an S adult 140 degrees angle of view colonoscope. RESULTS: The mean time for insertion was 2.09 (1.09) min versus 2.53 (1.47) min (p= 0.002) for the WA colonoscope and the S colonoscope, respectively. Similarly, the mean time for examination during withdrawal was shorter with the WA colonoscope (4.98 (0.94) vs 5.74 (1.12) min; p < 0.0001). The mean insertion time for the second examination was shorter than the insertion time for the first examination, irrespective of the colonoscope (p= 0.006). However, the withdrawal times were not significantly different between the first and second examinations (p= 0.11). The miss rate for all polyps with the WA colonoscope (19%) was similar to the miss rate with the S colonoscope (27%; p= 0.19). The miss rates for adenomas with the WA (10/33; 30.3%) and the S scope (15/50; 30%) were similar (p= 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the WA colonoscope was associated with a reduction in insertion time to the cecum, as well as examination time during withdrawal. No evidence was found that the accuracy of the two colonoscopes differs.

Nurse-administered propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for upper endoscopy in cirrhotic patients.

OBJECTIVES: Upper GI endoscopy is often performed in patients with chronic liver disease to screen for esophageal and gastric varices. Propofol is currently under evaluation as an alternative to the combination of midazolam and meperidine for sedation during endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare nurse-administered propofol to midazolam and meperidine for sedation in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing diagnostic upper GI endoscopy. METHODS: Twenty outpatients who had known chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh class A or B) and were undergoing variceal screening were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus meperidine for sedation. Administration of sedation was performed by a registered nurse and supervised by the endoscopist. Outcome measures studied were induction and recovery times, efficacy and safety of sedation, patient satisfaction, and return to baseline function. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol and meperidine/midazolam administered was 203 mg (SD 43.7, range 150-280) and 71.3 mg (SD 17.7, range 50-100)/5.3 mg (SD 0.9, range 3.0-6.0), respectively. The mean time to achieve adequate sedation was 3.6 min (SD 1.2) for the propofol group in comparison to 7.3 min (SD 2.8) for the meperidine/midazolam group (p<0.05). Procedure times between the groups were similar: propofol, 3.9 min (SD 1.9); midazolam/meperidine, 2.7 min (SD 0.8) (p=0.11). The level of sedation achieved by the propofol group was greater (p=0.0001). Time to full recovery was faster in the propofol group: 34.9 min (SD 10.3) versus 51.6 min (SD 18.4) (p<0.05). The mean time to reach a maximal level of alertness on the Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale for the propofol group was 15 min (SD 3.6) versus 29 min (SD 10.5) (p=0.001). Although both groups recorded a high level of satisfaction, patients receiving propofol expressed greater overall mean satisfaction with the quality of their sedation at the time of discharge (p<0.05), and reported a return to baseline function sooner in the majority of cases. Propofol achieved comparable levels of efficacy and safety to meperidine/midazolam in our study group. Both were well tolerated with minimal complications. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation administered by registered nurses in the setting of adequate patient monitoring is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with liver disease who are undergoing variceal screening by upper endoscopy. Patients were more satisfied with the quality of sedation, and return to baseline function was usually sooner compared to results achieved with midazolam/meperidine. Propofol offers advantages over meperidine/midazolam in cirrhotic patients.

Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency as determined by back-to-back colonoscopies.

OBJECTIVE: Polyps are missed during conventional colonoscopy, even with meticulous technique. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a prototype wide angle colonoscope is associated with a reduced miss rate for polyps. METHODS: Two studies were performed. In study 1, a total of 50 patients underwent back-to-back, same-day colonoscopy by a single examiner with the prototype wide angle colonoscope and with a standard colonoscope, with the order of scopes randomized. In study 1, an attempt was made to keep examination time with the two colonoscopes equal. In study 2, a total of 20 patients were examined, 10 by the same colonoscopist who performed study 1 and 10 by a second colonoscopist. In study 2, examiners tried to perform the examinations as quickly as accuracy would allow. RESULTS: In study 1, the miss rate for all polyps was lower with the wide angle colonoscope (20% vs 31%; p = 0.046), although the mean examination time with the wide angle instrument was shorter (6.75 min vs 7.64 min; p = 0.0005). There was no significant difference in detection of adenomas. Polyps, including adenomas, were missed in the peripheral endoscopic field more frequently with the standard colonoscope. In study 2, wide angle colonoscopy was associated with reductions in examination time of 25% and 30% for the two examiners, respectively. Miss rates were the same for one colonoscopist but were higher for the other colonoscopist when the wide angle instrument was used. CONCLUSION: A prototype wide angle colonoscope did not eliminate polyp miss rates. Wide angle colonoscopy has the potential to reduce examination time and improve visualization of the periphery of the endoscopic field of view, but improvements in resolution are needed.

Wireless capsule endoscopy detects small bowel ulcers in patients with normal results from state of the art enteroclysis.

BACKGROUND: Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) is a new technology for small bowel imaging. AIM: To report our initial experience with sensitivity of high quality enteroclysis in patients with small bowel ulcers detected by WCE. METHODS: Medical records of all patients referred for WCE from December, 2001 to April, 2002 at our institution were reviewed. All patients had negative upper and lower endoscopies and small bowel barium studies before WCE. RESULTS: There were 40 patients (19 female, mean age 57.3 yr) during this study period. Three patients had multiple small bowel ulcers detected by WCE. One with ileal ulcers and abdominal pain had an enteroclysis at another hospital before WCE. Review of the study at our institution showed that it was of excellent quality and was normal. Two patients with chronic iron deficiency anemia had multiple small bowel ulcers and were referred after WCE for a repeat small bowel barium study by biphasic enteroclysis performed by experienced GI radiologists. The radiologists were told in advance of the WCE findings. Both studies were considered technically to be of perfect quality. Despite this, both studies were negative. All 3 patients improved after therapy for Crohn's disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicates that WCE may be more sensitive for small bowel ulcers than the best enteroclysis available.

Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. We compared nurse-administered propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus fentanyl, administered by a registered nurse and supervised only by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychologic function, and complications. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol administered was 277 mg; mean doses of midazolam and fentanyl were 7.2 mg and 117 microg, respectively. Mean time to sedation was faster with propofol (2.1 vs. 6.1 min; P<0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (P<0.0001). Patients receiving propofol reached full recovery sooner (16.5 vs. 27.5 min; P=0.0001) and were discharged sooner (36.5 vs. 46.1 min; P=0.01). After recovery, the propofol group scored better on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Six minor complications occurred in the propofol group: 4 episodes of hypotension, 1 episode of bradycardia, and 1 rash. Five complications occurred with the use of midazolam and fentanyl: one episode of oxygen desaturation requiring mask ventilation and 4 episodes of hypotension. Patients in the propofol vs. midazolam and fentanyl groups reported similar degrees of overall satisfaction using a 10-cm visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 9.4, P>0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-administered propofol resulted in several advantages for outpatient colonoscopy compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, but did not improve patient satisfaction.