Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is challenging to measure, given its dependency on pathology reporting. Polyp detection rate (PDR) (percentage of screening colonoscopies detecting a polyp) is a proposed alternative to overcome this issue. Overall PDR from all colonoscopies is a relatively novel concept, with no large-scale studies comparing overall PDR with screening-only PDR. The aim of the study was to compare PDR from screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications with overall PDR and evaluate any correlation between individual endoscopist PDR by indication to determine if overall PDR can be a valuable surrogate for screening PDR. Our study analyzed a prospectively collected national endoscopy database maintained by the National Institute of Health from 2009 to 2014. Out of 354,505 colonoscopies performed between 2009-2014, 298,920 (n = 110,794 average-risk screening, n = 83,556 average-risk surveillance, n = 104,770 diagnostic) met inclusion criteria. The median screening PDR was 25.45 (IQR 13.15-39.60), comparable with the median overall PDR of 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86, p = 0.21). Median surveillance PDR was higher at 33.73 (IQR 16.92-47.01), and median diagnostic PDR was lower at 19.35 (IQR 9.66-29.17), compared with median overall PDR 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86; p < 0.01). The overall PDR showed excellent concordance with screening, surveillance, and diagnostic PDR (r > 0.85, p < 0.01, 2-tailed). The overall PDR is a reliable and pragmatic surrogate for screening PDR and can be measured in real time, irrespective of colonoscopy indication.

The Yield of Colonoscopy in the Evaluation of Constipation: An Age-Based Analysis of Outcome.

Background: Chronic constipation, a prevalent gastrointestinal complaint, exhibits rising incidence and diverse clinical implications, especially among the aging population. This study aims to assess colonoscopy performance in chronic constipation across age groups, comprehensively evaluating diagnostic yield and comparing results with average-risk controls. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 50,578 colonoscopy procedures performed over 12 years, including 5478 constipated patients. An average-risk control group (n = 4100) was included. Data extracted from electronic medical records covered demographics, operational aspects, and colonoscopy findings. The primary outcome measures included the diagnosis rate of colorectal cancer (CRC), polyp detection rate (PDR), and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnoses in constipated patients versus controls, with age-based and multivariate analyses. Results: Constipated patients exhibiting lower rates of adequate bowel preparation (92.7% vs. 85.3%; p < 0.001) and a lower cecal intubation rate. No significant variances between CRC and PDR were observed between constipated and controls, except for a potential of a slightly elevated CRC risk in constipated patients older than 80 (2.50% vs. 0% in controls; p = 0.07). Multivariate analysis demonstrated, across all age groups, that constipation did not confer an increased risk for CRC or polyp detection. Younger constipated patients exhibited a higher rate of IBD diagnoses (1.7% vs. 0.1% in controls; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Constipation did not confer an increased risk for CRC or polyps, among any age groups, except for a potential signal of elevated CRC risk in patients older than 80; additionally, it was associated with higher rates of IBD in younger patients.

Excellent Bowel Preparation Quality Is Not Superior to Good Bowel Preparation Quality for Improving Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rate.

Background: Adequate bowel preparation quality is essential for high-quality colonoscopy according to the current guidelines. However, the excellent effect of bowel preparation on adenoma/polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) remained controversial. Methods: During the period from December 2020 to August 2022, a total of 1566 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy by an endoscopist. Their medical records were reviewed. According to the Boston bowel preparation scale, patients were divided into excellent, good, and poor bowel preparation quality groups. ADR/PDR, diminutive ADR/PDR, small ADR/PDR, intermediate ADR/PDR, large ADR/PDR, and number of adenomas/polyps were compared among them. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors that were significantly associated with ADR/PDR. Results: Overall, 1232 patients were included, of whom 463, 636, and 133 were assigned to the excellent, good, and poor groups, respectively. The good group had a significantly higher ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .015) and a larger number of adenomas/polyps (2.5 ± 3.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .030) than the poor group. Both ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .097) and number of adenomas/polyps (2.2 ± 2.8 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .219) were not significantly different between excellent and poor groups. The excellent (9% vs 4%, P = .045) and good (9% vs 4%, P = .040) groups had a significantly higher intermediate ADR/PDR than the poor group. Logistic regression analyses showed that either good (odds ratio [OR] = 1.786, 95% CI = 1.046-3.047, P = .034) or excellent (OR = 2.179, 95% CI = 1.241-3.826, P = .007) bowel preparation quality was independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with poor bowel preparation quality. Excellent (OR = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.848-1.704, P = .302) bowel preparation quality was not independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with good bowel preparation quality. Conclusions: The pursuit of excellence in bowel preparation does not show an association with increased ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps compared with a good level. In addition, our study further contributes to the existing evidence that poor bowel preparation compromises ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps.

Recent advances in devices and technologies that might prove revolutionary for colonoscopy procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), a quality indicator for colonoscopy, has gained prominence as it is inversely related to CRC incidence and mortality. As such, recent efforts have focused on developing novel colonoscopy devices and technologies to improve ADR. AREAS COVERED: The main objective of this paper is to provide an overview of advancements in the fields of colonoscopy mechanical attachments, artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy, and colonoscopy optical enhancements with respect to ADR. We accomplished this by performing a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception to September 2023. This review is intended to be an introduction to colonoscopy devices and technologies. EXPERT OPINION: Numerous mechanical attachments and optical enhancements have been developed that have the potential to improve ADR and AI has gone from being an inaccessible concept to a feasible means for improving ADR. While these advances are exciting and portend a change in what will be considered standard colonoscopy, they continue to require refinement. Future studies should focus on combining modalities to further improve ADR and exploring the use of these technologies in other facets of colonoscopy.

Trend of the polyp and adenoma detection rate by sex and age in asymptomatic average-risk and high-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, 2012-2019.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an imperative quality measure for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This retrospective observational study aimed to determine the trend of polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR in asymptomatic average- and high-risk participants in different age groups who underwent screening colonoscopy over the seven years from April 2012 to March 2019 in a tertiary gastroenterology referral center of Iran. Of 1676 participants, 51.8 % were men (mean age 52.3 years). The overall PDR and ADR were 22.7 %, and 13.5 %, respectively. Both Polyps and adenomas were more common in age groups 51-59 and ≥60 years in high-risk patients than in the corresponding groups of average-risk patients (p < 0.05). Also, both PDR and ADR were more frequent in men than in women among all studied age groups, but it was statistically significant only for the youngest age group (16.8 % versus 10.5 %, p < 0.05) for PDR and the oldest age group (19.7 % versus 13 %, p < 0.05) for ADR, respectively. The trend of total ADR was upward over 7 years in both average-risk (6.7 % to 13.3 %) and high-risk (9.8 % to 27 %) groups and across all age groups in both sexes. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that high-risk individuals had an elevated risk of adenoma compared with average-risk patients (OR: 1.6, p = 0.006). Substantial variation in thresholds of polyp and adenoma detection by age, sex, and risk categories emphasizes the need for a risk-adapted approach to CRC screening and prevention programs.

Image acquisition as novel colonoscopic quality indicator: a single-center retrospective study.

Purpose: In order to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, improving the quality of colonoscopy is the top priority. At present, the adenoma detection rate is the most used index to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy. So, we further verified the relevant factors influencing the quality of colonoscopy and found out the novel quality indicators by studying the relationship between the influencing factors and the adenoma detection rate. Materials/methods: The study included 3824 cases of colonoscopy from January to December 2020. We retrospectively recorded the age and sex of the subjects; the number, size, and histological features of lesions; withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy. We analyzed the associated factors affecting adenoma and polyp detection, and verified their effectiveness with both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: Logistic regression analyses showed that gender, age, withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy could serve as independent predictors of adenoma/polyp detection rate. In addition, adenoma detection rate (25.36% vs. 14.29%) and polyp detection rate (53.99% vs. 34.42%) showed a marked increase when the number of images taken during colonoscopy was ≥29 (P<0.001). Conclusions: Gender, age, withdrawal time and the number of images acquired during colonoscopy are influencing factors for the detection of colorectal adenomas and polyps. And we can gain higher adenoma/polyp detection rate when endoscopists capture more colonoscopic images.

Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

Background: The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps. Results: A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007). Conclusion: In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Polyps are detected more often in early colonoscopies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the time variation in polyp detection for colonoscopies performed in a tertiary hospital and to explore independent factors that predict polyp detection rate (PDR). METHODS: Data on all patients who underwent colonoscopy for the diagnostic purpose at our endoscopy center in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from January 2021 to December 2021 were reviewed. The start time of included colonoscopies for eligible patients was recorded. PDR and polyps detected per colonoscopy (PPC) were calculated. The endoscopists' schedules were classified into full-day and half-day shifts according to their participation in the morning and afternoon colonoscopies. RESULTS: Data on a total of 12116 colonoscopies were analyzed, with a PDR of 38.03% for all the patients and 46.38% for patients ≥50 years. PDR and PPC significantly decreased as the day progressed (both p < .001). For patients ≥50 years, PDR declined below 40% at 13:00-13:59 and 16:00-16:59. The PDR in the morning was higher than that in the afternoon for both half-day (p = .019) and full-day procedures (p < .001). In multivariate analysis, start time, patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality significantly predicted PDR (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The polyp detection declined as the day progressed. A continuous work schedule resulted in a subpar PDR. Colonoscopies performed in the morning had a higher PDR than that in the afternoon. Patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality were identified as the independent predictors of PDR.

Comparison of Linked Color Imaging and White Light Imaging Colonoscopy for Detection of Colorectal Adenoma Requiring Endoscopic Treatment: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Linked color imaging (LCI) improves detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions during colonoscopy. However, polyps <5 mm in diameter often do not require resection, and the benefits of LCI are unclear for detection of colorectal polyps ≥5 mm that are indicated for endoscopic resection in clinical practice. This randomized controlled trial compared rates of detection of adenoma polyps, stratified by size, for LCI and white light imaging (WLI). METHODS: We compared ADR (5 mm-) and PDR (5 mm-), which were defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma or polyp with a diameter of 5 mm or larger in the LCI and WLI groups. Moreover, we estimated ADR and PDR for diameters between 5 and 10 mm (ADR (5-9 mm), PDR (5-9 mm) ) and for diameters larger than 10 mm (ADR (10 mm-), PDR (10 mm-) ). RESULTS: Data from 594 patients (LCI, n=305; WLI, n=289) were analyzed. ADR (5 mm-) and PDR (5 mm-) were significantly higher in the LCI group than in the WLI group (ADR (5 mm-): P=0.016, PDR (5 mm-): P=0.020). In the assessment of adenoma and polyp size, ADR (5-9 mm) and PDR (5-9 mm) were significantly higher in the LCI group than in the WLI group, although no significant differences were seen in ADR (10 mm-) and PDR (10 mm-) between these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Polyps ≥5 mm, which are indicated for endoscopic treatment, were more easily visualized with LCI mode than with WLI mode. The improvement in detection rate was obvious for polyps <10 mm, which are easier to miss.

Colonoscopy performance monitoring: do we need to adjust for case mix?

INTRODUCTION: Overall caecum intubation rate(oCIR) and overall polyp detection rate(oPDR) have been proposed as performance indicators, but varying complexity in case mix among endoscopists may potentially affect validity. The study aims to explore the effect of adjusting for case mix on individual endoscopist performance by calculating case mix-adjusted performance estimates (cmCIR and cmPDR) and comparing them to overall performance estimates (oCIR and oPDR). The study also provides an R program for case mix analysis. METHODS: Logistic regression associated endoscopist, colonoscopy indication, patient age and patient gender with the binary outcomes of cecum intubation and polyp detection. Case mix-adjusted performance indicators were calculated for each endoscopist based on logistic regression and bootstraps. Endoscopists were ranked from best to worst by overall and case mix-adjusted performance estimates, and differences were evaluated using percentage points(pp) and rank changes. RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 7376 colonoscopies performed by 47 endoscopists. The maximum rank change for an endoscopist comparing oCIR and cmCIR was eight positions, interquartile range (IQR 1-3). The maximum change in CIR was 1.95 percentage point (pp) (IQR 0.27-0.86). The maximum rank change in the oPDR versus cmPDR analysis was 17 positions (IQR 1.5-8.5). The maximum change in PDR was 11.21 pp (IQR 2.05-6.70). Three endoscopists improved their performance from significantly inferior to within the 95% confidence interval (CI) range of performance targets using case mix-adjusted estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of endoscopists were unaffected by adjustment for case mix, but a few unfortunate endoscopists had an unfavourable case mix that could invite incorrect suspicion of inferior performance.

Effect of computer-aided colonoscopy on adenoma miss rates and polyp detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Multiple computer-aided techniques utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) have been created to improve the detection of polyps during colonoscopy and thereby reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. While adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates (PDR) are important colonoscopy quality indicators, adenoma miss rates (AMR) may better quantify missed lesions, which can ultimately lead to interval colorectal cancer. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of computer-aided colonoscopy (CAC) with respect to AMR, ADR, and PDR in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive, systematic literature search was performed across multiple databases in September of 2022 to identify randomized, controlled trials that compared CAC with traditional colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were AMR, ADR, and PDR. RESULTS: Fourteen studies totaling 10 928 patients were included in the final analysis. There was a 65% reduction in the adenoma miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.49, P < 0.001, I2  = 50%). There was a 78% reduction in the sessile serrated lesion miss rate with CAC (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65, P < 0.01, I2  = 0%). There was a 52% increase in ADR in the CAC group compared with the control group (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.39-1.67, P = 0.04, I2  = 47%). There was 93% increase in the number of adenomas > 10 mm detected per colonoscopy with CAC (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.18-3.16, P < 0.01, I2  = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate the promise of CAC in improving AMR, ADR, PDR across a spectrum of size and morphological lesion characteristics.

Epidemiology of overall and early-onset serrated polyps versus conventional adenomas in a colonoscopy screening cohort.

Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to one-third of colorectal cancers (CRCs), with histological subtypes: hyperplastic polyps (HPs), sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs). The incidence of early-onset CRC before the age of 50 is increasing, with limited understanding of SPs in younger cohorts. Using a large colonoscopy-based cohort, we characterized epidemiologic profiles of SP subtypes, compared to conventional adenomas, with secondary analysis on early-onset polyps. Ninety-four thousand four hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent screening colonoscopies between 2010 and 2018. Demographic, endoscopic and histopathologic characteristics of each polyp subtype were described. High-risk polyps included SSLs ≥10 mm/with dysplasia and conventional adenomas ≥10 mm/with tubulovillous/villous histology/high-grade dysplasia. We examined polyp prevalence with age and compared early- (age < 50) and late-onset polyps (age ≥ 50). Eighteen thousand one hundred and twenty-five patients had SPs (4357 SSLs, 15 415 HPs, 120 TSAs) and 26 699 had conventional adenomas. High-risk SSLs were enriched in the ascending colon (44.1% vs 2.6-35.8% for other locations; P < .003). Early- and late-onset SPs had similar subsite distribution. Early-onset conventional adenomas were more enriched in the distal colon/rectum (51.8% vs 43.4%, P < .001). Multiple conventional adenomas were more represented in late-onset groups (40.8% vs 33.8%, P < .001), with no difference in SSLs. The prevalence of conventional adenomas/high-risk conventional adenomas increased continuously with age, whereas the prevalence of SSLs/high-risk SSLs was stable from age 40 years onwards. A higher proportion of women were diagnosed with early-onset than late-onset SSLs (62.9% vs 57.6%, P = .03). Conventional adenomas, SSLs, early- and late-onset polyps have distinct epidemiology. The findings have implications for improved colonoscopy screening and surveillance and understanding the etiologic heterogeneity of CRC.

Bowel cleansing efficacy of 1 L NER1006versus macrogol and 3 L polyethylene glycol using split-dose administration.

Background and Aim: Colonoscopies are an important diagnostic technique in the detection of colorectal cancer and colonic disease. Adequate examination is dependent on the degree of mucosal visibility, with poor cleansing impeding the detection of neoplasms. These patients require shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals, longer hospital stays, and increased healthcare costs-rendering a screening colonoscopy cost-ineffective. In Australia and the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (GCHHS), macrogol and 3 L of polyethylene glycol are the preferred regimen given its safety profile and efficacy. Yet, little is known locally about the use of the new low-volume bowel preparation NER1006 (Plenvu) given its recent registration with the Therapeutic Goods of Australia (TGA). The primary outcome assessed the bowel cleansing efficacy of NER1006 compared with 7 days of macrogol and 3 L of polyethylene glycol using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), while also assessing the influence of notable patient characteristics such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and the patients Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Secondary outcomes assessed the polyp detection rate and procedural factors including cecal intubation, scope withdrawal time, and rebooking rates. Methods: Data from all patients who underwent an outpatient colonoscopy procedure at GCHHS between 1 July 2020 and 30 September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were aged 50-74 years of age and were referred for a screening colonoscopy due to a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) result from the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Results: Of the 238 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 108 patients received NER1006 and 130 patients received macrogol and 3 L polyethylene glycol. NER1006 achieved superior overall (P < 0.001) and right-sided colon cleansing (P = 0.016). There was an even distribution of males and females (P = 0.118), the mean age of both cohorts was <65 years of age. The macrogol and 3 L polyethylene glycol group had a statistically higher BMI (P < 0.001) and CCI (P < 0.001). Cecal intubation success was achieved in both cohorts (≥95%) and scope withdrawal time was ≥6 min, polyp detection was non-superior (P = 0.824), but superior in NER1006 when BBPS ≥6 (P = 0.002). Rebooking rates were significantly lower in the NER1006 group (P = 0.013). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that NER1006 was superior in terms of overall and right-sided bowel cleansing as a primary endpoint. Patient factors demonstrated to be independent predictors of inadequate bowel preparation. Future studies should aim to explore the safety and tolerability of NER1006 while also assessing the bowel cleansing effectiveness in patients with a high BMI and comorbidity index.

Increased quality of bowel preparation via smartphone WeChat application: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: High-quality bowel preparation is an essential precondition for colonoscopy. Few studies have evaluated the smartphone WeChat application as a means of improving the quality of bowel preparation. Aim: To assess the effect of patient education by using smartphone WeChat application aids on the quality of bowel preparation. Material and methods: A multicenter prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled study was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups. A total of 478 patents in groups A were accepted for smartphone WeChat application, 477 in groups B were accepted for conventional education plus smartphone WeChat application while group C (473 patients) was a control group. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate, insertion and withdrawal time, anxiety score, self-rated sleep quality, and willingness to undergo another colonoscopy. Results: Total BBPS score was significantly higher in groups B and C than in the control group (7.5 ±1.2, 7.5 ±1.3 vs. 6.5 ±1.2, p < 0.001). PDR in group A (40.2%, 192/478) and group B (41.7%, 199/477) was higher than that in the control group (p = 0.003) and mean number of polyps per patient was higher too (p = 0.015). Moreover, a shorter cecal insertion time was recorded in group A and group B than in the control group (8.8 ±3.9, 8.9 ±3.8 vs. 10.5 ±4.2 min, p < 0.001). Intervention groups showed lower anxiety scores and better quality sleep and were more likely to be willing to repeat colonoscopy. Conclusions: Patient instruction via smartphone WeChat application efficiently improved bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Anesthesia Assistance in Colonoscopy: Impact on Quality Indicators.

Background: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) are both indicators for colonoscopy quality. Improving ADR or PDR is critical for reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Although several studies have focused on identifying the factors that may influence ADR or PDR, the evidence remains limited and inconclusive. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the effect of anesthesia assistance (AA) on ADR or PDR in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening and identify risk factors affecting ADR or PDR. Methods: We reviewed electronic medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy screening between May 2019 and August 2020. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received AA: patients in Group A underwent colonoscopy screening with AA, whereas patients in Group O underwent colonoscopy screening without AA. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to account for differences in baseline characteristics. After, ADR and PDR were compared between the two groups. Binary logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors that affected ADR or PDR. Results: Of 9432 patients who underwent colonoscopy examination during the study period, 7170 were included in the final analyses (Group A = 5756 and Group O = 1414). After PSM, 736 patients remained in each group for analyses. There was no significant difference between groups A and O (P > 0.05) in ADR or PDR. Binary logistic regression indicated that the endoscopic device version (Olympus HQ290), equipment image-based technique and number of images were independent risk factors that affected ADR, and the age (50-59 years and 60-69 years), gender (male), high-risk status, endoscopist seniority (senior endoscopist), equipment image-based technique and number of images were all independent risk factors that affected PDR. Conclusions: We discovered that AA does not affect ADR or PDR. Despite improved patient satisfaction, using AA is unnecessary for improving colonoscopy quality. Endoscopists should consider all these factors as much as possible when performing colonoscopy screening.

Melanosis coli: A factor not associated with histological progression of colorectal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: In this study we aimed to investigate the association of melanosis coli (MC) and the colorectal polyp detection rate (PDR). METHODS: In all, 1104 MC patients and 62 181 non-MC participants were enrolled. And 2208 controls were matched by participants' age and gender, and quality of bowel preparation using the propensity score matching (PSM) method. Additionally, 490 polyps in MC and 980 in controls matched by age and gender, and size and location of polyps were analyzed. The association of PDR and pathological features of polyps with MC were also analyzed. RESULTS: MC patients showed a higher PDR (44.3% vs 39.3%, P = 0.006) and detection rate of low-grade adenoma (45.4% vs 36.7%, P = 0.002) but fewer large polyps (≥10 mm) (18.8% vs 26.9%, P = 0.001), fewer polyps in the left colon (33.5% vs 40.0%, P = 0.018), and a lower detection rate of advanced adenoma/adenocarcinoma (17.4% vs 24.3%, P = 0.003) than the matched controls. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, MC was independently associated with an increased PDR (odds ratio 1.184, 95% confidence interval 1.045-1.343, P = 0.008). Analysis targeting polyps showed that there were significant differences in age, gender, location, and pathology (P < 0.001) between polyps with and without MC. However, after adjusting for participants' age and gender, size and location of polyps, there was no difference between the two groups in pathology (P = 0.635). CONCLUSION: MC is independently associated with increased colorectal PDR, but not with histological progression of polyps.

Effect of enhanced personal protective equipment on colonoscopy performance and pain linked to procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background and study aim: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of standard personal protective equipment (SPPE) reduces transmission risks during endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to assess the effect of enhanced personal protective equipment (EPPE) on colonoscopy performance and pain linked to the procedure compared with SPPE. Patients and methods: During two similar periods with three-month duration (in 2019 and in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic), electronic medical records and colonoscopy reports were investigated for sequential patients undergoing colonoscopy. SPPE was used in 2019 and EPPE in 2020. The patients' clinical data and information related to the procedure were collected and analyzed. Primary outcomes were the duration to intubate the cecum, total procedure duration and patient pain score at the end of the procedure. Secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results: A total of 426 patients with colonoscopy performed were analyzed. The demographic features and indications for colonoscopy were similar for patients in both groups. The EPPE group had higher values for the parameters assessed as primary endpoints of cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time and pain at the end of the procedure compared to the SPPE group and the differences were statistically significant. Conclusion: Our findings show that though the use of EPPE negatively affected colonoscopy performance and patient pain at the end of the procedure, it had no effect on the colonoscopy quality indices such as ADR, PDR and CIR.

Impact of sedation type on adenoma detection rate by colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas decreases the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. The available data concerning the relationship between the sedation type and adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) is inconclusive. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conscious vs. deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR/PDR in diagnostic and screening colonoscopies. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients aged 50-75 years old presenting for a first screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were included. Baseline demographic characteristics were collected, as well as PDR and ADR. Endoscopic withdrawal time and quality of bowel preparation rated in a binary fashion were also collected. Two multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the independent predictors of endoscopic detection of polyps and adenomas. RESULTS: 574 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 59.26 ± 7.21 with 52.4% females and an average BMI of 28.08 ± 4.89. 374 patients (65.2%) underwent screening colonoscopies, and deep sedation was performed in 200 patients (34.8%). Only 4.7% had bad bowel preparation. PDR was 70% and ADR was 52%. On bivariate analysis, no significant difference was shown in PDR and ADR between conscious and deep sedation groups (0.70, 0.71; p = 0.712 and 0.50, 0.54; p = 0.394, respectively). On multivariate analysis for PDR, age and withdrawal time were independent predictors. For ADR, age, female sex, and withdrawal time were independent predictors. Sedation type and the indication did not reach statistical significance in both models. CONCLUSION: The use of deep sedation didn't influence the ADR/PDR quality metrics in our mixed cohort of screening and diagnostic colonoscopies.

Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group.

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample there were 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

Effect of oral simethicone on the quality of colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effect of oral simethicone (SIM), an antifoaming agent, on the quality of colonoscopy in terms of bowel preparation quality, adenoma or polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). METHODS: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of SIM during bowel preparation for colonoscopy published up to 17 March 2021 were identified from the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Bowel preparation quality, ADR/PDR/CIR, cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time (WT), patients' tolerability, acceptability and volume of foam and bubbles were compared between the SIM and non-SIM groups. RESULTS: Thirty-eight RCTs with 10 505 patients were included. Oral SIM significantly increased the rate of total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score ≥6 (risk ratio [RR]  1.13, P < 0.0001), acceptability (RR  1.15, P = 0.01) and the rate of no or minimal foam and bubbles (RR  1.28, P < 0.00001) and decreased abdominal distension (RR  0.64, P < 0.0001). However, it had no significant impact on overall ADR, overall PDR, CIR, CIT or WT. The rate of total BBPS score ≥6 remained significantly higher in the SIM group when a single-dose laxative regimen or a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg was employed; and ADR, PDR and CIR were significantly increased in the SIM group among colonoscopy clinicians who achieved an ADR <31%, PDR <45% and CIR <96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Oral SIM can improve bowel preparation quality, especially in patients receiving a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg or a single-dose laxative regimen. SIM may be preferred by junior colonoscopy physicians/trainees with a lower ADR/PDR or CIR.