The Secondary Quality Indicator to Improve Prediction of Adenoma Miss Rate Apart from Adenoma Detection Rate.

OBJECTIVES: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) cannot distinguish between endoscopists who detect one adenoma and those who detect ≥2 adenomas. Hypothetically, adenoma miss rate (AMR) may be significant for endoscopists with high ADRs who examine the rest of colon with less care after detecting first polyp. Our objective was to evaluate other quality indicators plus ADR vs. ADR alone in prediction of AMR. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of asymptomatic participants aged 50-75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by four faculty endoscopists. Each round of colonoscopy was performed by two of the endoscopists in a randomized order. During each round of colonoscopy, all detected polyps were removed. The second endoscopist was blinded to the results of the first. The total number of adenomas per positive participant (APP), the total number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and ADR were calculated for prediction of AMR. RESULTS: In all, 200 participants underwent back-to-back colonoscopies. There were no significant differences in ADRs of four endoscopists (44, 50, 54, and 46%). APPs were 1.91, 2.12, 2.19, and 2.43. APCs were 0.84, 1.06, 1.18, and 1.12. ADR-Plus were 0.40, 0.56, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively. AMRs differed significantly between the endoscopists (36, 27, 21, and 13%; P=0.01). There was no correlation between ADR and AMR (r=-0.25; P=0.75). Whereas APP exhibited a strong inverse correlation with AMRs (r=-0.99; P<0.01). APC and ADR-Plus appeared to be inversely correlated with AMR, however this was not statistically significant (r=-0.82; P=0.18 and r=-0.93; P=0.07, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-ADR endoscopists, AMRs still varied. APP may be a promising secondary indicator for distinguishing between the one-and-done polyp endoscopist and the meticulous endoscopist. The evaluation of influence of new metrics on colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention requires a larger population-based study.

A combination of clinical risk stratification and fecal immunochemical test results to prioritize colonoscopy screening in asymptomatic participants.

BACKGROUND: Stool-based colonoscopy is the preferred strategy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening System (APCS) score also is helpful in stratifying the risk for advanced neoplasia in the asymptomatic population. The combination of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result and clinical risk stratification may be more helpful in stratifying the risk. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of the combination of FIT and APCS scores in stratifying asymptomatic participants for colonoscopy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 948 asymptomatic participants eligible for screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: FIT, APCS score evaluation, screening colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in 4 different groups of participants according to FIT and APCS score evaluations. RESULTS: The prevalence of non-advanced and advanced neoplasia in the 4 groups (high risk with positive FIT result, high risk with negative FIT result, moderate risk with positive FIT result, and moderate risk with negative FIT result) was 44% versus 36.9%, 30.1% versus 11.6%, 27.1% versus 12%, and 22.6% versus 6.4%, respectively (P < .001). Participants with both high-risk scores and positive FIT results had a significantly higher detection rate of advanced neoplasia (6.15-fold, 95% confidence interval, 3.72-10.17) compared with the other 3 groups. Seven cancers were discovered; 4 were in the high-risk with positive FIT result group. LIMITATIONS: Hospital-based study. CONCLUSION: In countries with limited resources, participants with positive FIT results and high-risk scores by APCS should be given priority for colonoscopy because this group is most likely to have advanced neoplasia. However, this strategy needs to be confirmed for its cost-effectiveness in a large, population-based study. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20140228001.).

The safety of propofol infusion compared to midazolam and meperidine intravenous bolus for patients undergoing double balloon enteroscopy.

OBJECTIVE: The double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) procedure is long and requires moderate sedation. We aim to determine whether the administration of propofol infusion is safe by comparing it to intravenous midazolam/meperidine in patients undergoing DBE. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective study with 48 patients was conducted at King Chulalongkorn Hospital randomizing (block of four) patients into two groups. In group 1, 28 patients were enrolled for intravenous midazolam/meperidine, and one patient was dropped out before underwent DBE due to hemodynamic instability. Therefore, 27 (n = 27) participants were included in Group 1. In group 2, 28 patients were enrolled for propofol infusion, and seven patients were dropped out before underwent DBE, five due to hemodynamic instability (n = 5), and two refused treatment (n = 2). Therefore, 1 (n = 21) participants were included in Group 2. Vital signs and oxygen saturation were regularly monitored. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD age of patients was 56.8 +/- 9.2 years, and 41.7% of patients were male. There was no difference in demographic data between the groups. For the safety profile, 25.9% of the midazolam/meperidine group and 33.3% of the propofol group developed hypotension and/or desaturation (p = 0.45). The patients' satisfaction of group 1 and group 2 were 86.7 +/- 6.5% and 86.3 +/- 8.1%, respectively, and presented no significant difference (p = 0.89). CONCLUSION: Propofol infusion is safe and shows no difference in outcome from the midazolam and meperidine sedation for the DBE procedure.