SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Colonoscopy”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources

PubMed1990

Avoidance of sedation during total colonoscopy.

A prospective study of the necessity of sedation, or analgesia, or both in total colonoscopy was performed. The procedures were performed in the office on 212 consecutive, nonselected patients. Intravenous sedation was not started initially, and all procedures were begun without medication. If the patient developed significant discomfort or sharp pain, intravenous diazepam (Valium, Roche, Nutley, NJ) or midazolam (Versed, Roche, Nutley, NJ) was given. Total colonoscopy was successful in 201 (95 percent) patients. Of these procedures, 173 (82 percent) patients required no analgesia or sedation. In the remaining 39 (18 percent) patients, only small doses of Valium or Versed were necessary. There were 2 (1 percent) complications, but they were directly related to polypectomy (stalk bleeding, serosal burn) and not to the colonoscopy. Patient acceptance was high because most of the patients were able to leave the office immediately after the procedure and many (at least 82 percent) were able to return to work or resume normal activities that same day. Intravenous sedation is routinely used during total colonoscopy by most practitioners and is considered the standard of care in most communities. However, the need for sedation during total colonoscopy has never been proven and is probably not necessary in most cases. Furthermore, when sedation is necessary, most patients are probably over-anesthetized. This is significant, as it may make total colonoscopy more accessible, less expensive, and safer.

Ambulatory Care↗

PubMed1996

A study at 10 medical centers of the safety and efficacy of 48 flexible sigmoidoscopies and 8 colonoscopies during pregnancy with follow-up of fetal outcome and with comparison to control groups.

To analyze the risks versus benefits of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy to the pregnant female and fetus, we conducted a multiyear, retrospective study at 10 hospitals of 46 patients undergoing 48 sigmoidoscopies and 8 patients undergoing 8 colonoscopies during pregnancy. Sigmoidoscopy controls included two study control groups and the average American pregnancy outcomes. Sigmoidoscopy indications included hematochezia in 28, diarrhea in 10, abdominal pain in 4, and other in 3. Thirteen patients were in the first trimester of pregnancy, 18 were in the second trimester, and 15 were in the third trimester. Twenty-seven patients had a lesion diagnosed by sigmoidoscopy, including reactivated or newly diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease, bleeding internal hemorrhoids, and other colitidies. Twenty-two of 29 patients with rectal bleeding had a significant lesion identified by sigmoidoscopy. Sigmoidoscopy was significantly more frequently diagnostic for hematochezia than for other indications (p < 0.03, chi2). No endoscopic complications occurred to the pregnant patients. Excluding 4 voluntary abortions and 1 unknown pregnancy outcome, 38 (93%) of 41 pregnant females delivered healthy babies (study control rate = 93%; NS, Fisher's exact test). Mean live-born infant Apgar scores were 8.2+/-1.5 (SD) at 1 min and 9.0+/-0.2 at 5 min (control mean Apgar scores: 8.1+/-1.7 at 1 min and 8.8+/-1.0 at 5 min; NS, Student's t test). Three high-risk pregnancies ended with fetal demise at 8, 9, or 12 weeks after sigmoidoscopy, from causes unrelated to sigmoidoscopy. No fetal cardiac abnormalities were detected by fetal cardiac monitoring during two sigmoidoscopies. Eight pregnant females underwent colonoscopy, without complications. Pregnancy outcomes included six healthy babies delivered at full term, one voluntary abortion, and one fetal demise in a high-risk pregnancy 4 months after colonoscopy from causes unrelated to colonoscopy. This study suggests that sigmoidoscopy does not induce labor or result in congenital malformations, that sigmoidoscopy is not contraindicated during pregnancy, and that sigmoidoscopy may be beneficial in pregnant patients with significant lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Colonoscopy during pregnancy should be considered for life-threatening lower gastrointestinal bleeding or when the only alternative is surgery.

Colonoscopy↗

PubMed1992

Accuracy of colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

The findings at colonoscopy were compared with the pathologic findings of the surgical specimen in 235 patients who underwent a colon resection for a primary colorectal neoplasm from January 1980 to December 1987 at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Seven patients (3 percent) were found to have synchronous primary colon carcinomas, and 100 patients (43 percent) were found to have synchronous adenomatous polyps identified by colonoscopy and/or pathology. In patients with polyps 10 mm or greater in diameter, the findings on colonoscopy agreed with the pathology report 96 percent of the time. When polyps of all sizes were included, with many less than 5 mm in diameter, colonoscopy agreed with the pathology in 89 percent of patients. When only the area of the colon resected was used to determine the ability of colonoscopy to locate polyps, 58 percent of polyps of all sizes were located. The majority of the missed polyps were adjacent to a carcinoma. One cecal carcinoma was not seen by colonoscopy because of technical inabilities to reach the cecum. A second carcinoma (20 mm x 17 mm) was not seen at the splenic flexure.

Colectomy↗

PubMed1998

Effectiveness of polyethylene glycol antegrade gut lavage bowel preparation for colonoscopy--timing is the key!

PURPOSE: Polyethylene glycol gut lavage is an effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The quality of the preparation is not uniform however, and most studies report a rate of suboptimal cleansing of 10 percent or more. One of the possible reasons for a poor preparation is the length of time between the lavage and the examination. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of timing of polyethylene glycol gut lavage on the quality of the preparation achieved. METHODS: Patients referred for elective outpatient colonoscopy with afternoon appointments were randomized to take polyethylene glycol gut lavage either the same morning as their examination (Group 1) or the afternoon of the day before (Group 2). The colonoscopist was unaware of the preparation timing until after the examination was over. During the examination the endoscopist scored the quality of bowel preparation in the cecum, ascending colon, and transverse and left colon. Patient demographics and clinical data were recorded. RESULTS: There were 157 patients in Group 1 (colonoscopy complete in 152 patients) and 160 in Group 2 (colonoscopy complete in 159 patients). The groups were similar in age and gender, indication for colonoscopy, and previous colonic surgery. Patients who drank gut lavage on the morning of their colonoscopy had a greatly better preparation in all areas of the colon than the patients who took their preparation the night before. In the cecum, 97 Group 1 patients had an excellent preparation (vs. 14 Group 2 patients), 45 had a good preparation (vs. 103 Group 2 patients), and 10 had a fair preparation (vs. 33 Group 2 patients). In the ascending colon, numbers of patients with excellent, good, fair, and poor results were 103, 45, 5, and 0 for Group 1 and 12, 107, 32, and 7 for Group 2. Results in the transverse and left colons were 102, 50, 5, 0 and 93, 55, 7, 2 for Group 1 and 15, 116, 27, 5 and 18, 114, 24, 3 for Group 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: The timing of administration of polyethylene glycol-based gut lavage is a major determinant of the quality of the bowel preparation achieved.

Colonoscopy↗

PubMed1989

Office colonoscopy--a safe procedure in selected patients.

Colonoscopy is a common procedure, usually performed in a hospital setting. Hospital backup is desirable for high-risk patients, but the cost to benefit ratio may be unnecessarily high for low-risk patients. The demand for colonoscopic examinations is escalating, and cost containment has become an important issue. One way to reduce the cost is to eliminate the hospital component by performing the examination in the office. Over the past two and a half years, colonoscopy was performed on selected patients in the authors' office. Five hundred fifty-four office colonoscopies were performed to date, including biopsy or polypectomy in 348. Basic principles of safe intravenous sedation and colonoscopy were followed strictly. The cecum was reached in 92 percent of cases, and no significant complications were encountered. Office colonoscopy is a safe alternative to hospital colonoscopy. It confers significant cost savings to the patient and allows more efficient use of the physician's time.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Bedside colonoscopy for critically ill patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical impact of bedside colonoscopy for critically ill patients with acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 3-year retrospective analysis (chart review). Medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a 1,312-bed tertiary-care center in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-five people undergoing bedside colonoscopy for lower GI bleeding that developed while in the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Colonoscopy was successful in diagnosing the source of bleeding in 37 patients. Among them, colitis (15 patients, including ischemic, pseudomembranous, or radiation-induced) and acute hemorrhagic rectal ulcer (nine patients) were the most frequent confirmed causes. In seven patients, fresh blood was noticed above the colonoscopically accessible area and considered to originate from the small bowel. No adverse event was associated with colonoscopy. Spontaneous cessation of bleeding was noted in 29 (29/55, 53%) patients, whereas 16 (16/55, 29%) achieved endoscopic hemostasis. Ten (10/55, 18%) patients failed primary hemostasis or localization. Overall in-hospital mortality was 53% (29/55); however, hemorrhage-related death occurred in only two patients. CONCLUSIONS: ICU patients with acute lower GI bleeding have distinctive causes. Bedside colonoscopy is effective for diagnosis in two-thirds of patients, but only a minority of them needs endoscopic hemostasis.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2005

Cost-benefit analysis of screening colonoscopy in 40- to 50-year-old first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: As shown previously, 40- to 50-year-old first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have significantly more colorectal adenomas than controls of the same age. Screening colonoscopy of these persons at risk between 40 and 50 years might be cost beneficial. METHODS: We prepared a detailed cost-benefit analysis of screening colonoscopy and possible repeat endoscopies according to current expenditures for endoscopic procedures in Germany. Since screening colonoscopy is generally offered and reimbursed from 55 years on in Germany, we analysed the period between 45 and 55 years, taking an annual interest rate of 5% into account. Costs were analysed based on the results of a former study [11] depending on various participation rates in a general screening programme. FINDINGS: Based on the available 1994 figure of about 20,000 euros for diagnosis and treatment of one cancer case, screening colonoscopy is cost beneficial when participation is high. Under a more realistic assumption of currently about 40,000 euros per cancer case, screening colonoscopy is cost beneficial in any case. INTERPRETATION: Our data support that systematic screening colonoscopy in first-degree relatives of patients with CRC by the age of 45 years most likely demonstrates an economic benefit.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Learning curves and impact of psychomotor training on performance in simulated colonoscopy: a randomized trial using a virtual reality endoscopy trainer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the learning curve for the GI Mentor II endoscope trainer and to determine whether psychomotor training can contribute to an improvement in the performance of virtual colonoscopy. METHODS: To analyze the learning curve, 28 subjects were divided into three groups on the basis of their experience with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy: experienced surgeons (group 1, performed > 200 endoscopic procedures, (n = 8)) residents (group 2, performed < 50 endoscopic procedures, (n = 10)); and medical students (group 3, never performed GI endoscopy, (n = 10)). The participants were tested on the GI Mentor II virtual reality simulator 10 consecutive times. Assessment of the learning curve was based on the following three parameters: time used, number of punctured balloons, and number of wall collisions. In the second part of the study, 20 subjects who had never performed GI endoscopy were included. After performing a virtual colonoscopy, they were randomized to a group that received psychomotor training and a control group. Finally, all subjects performed a virtual colonoscopy. Assessment of endoscopic skills during the colonoscopy was based on nine parameters dealing with psychomotor skills. RESULTS: The learning curve for time expended reached a plateau after the second repetition for group 1 (Friedman's test, p < 0.05), after the fifth repetition for group 2 (p < 0.05), and after the seventh repetition for group 3 (p < 0.05). Experienced surgeons did not improve their scores for regarding number of balloons punctured or number of wall collisions (p > 0.05), indicating the absence of a learning curve for these parameters. Group 2 improved their scores up to the fourth and fifth repetitions, respectively (p < 0.05), and group 3 up to the fifth and seventh repetitions, respectively (p < 0.05). Experienced surgeons achieved the best performance, followed by group 2 and then group 3. The surgeons who had received psychomotor training performed the second virtual colonoscopy significantly faster than the control group (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001) and made significantly greater improvement in all other parameters as well. CONCLUSIONS: There were different learning curves for surgeons depending on their endoscopic background. The familiarization rate on the simulator was proportional to the endoscopic experience of the surgeons. Psychomotor training had a significant effect on the performance of a simulated colonoscopy.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2005

Injuries sustained by colorectal surgeons performing colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive tasks in the workplace are one cause of injury. This study aimed to identify injuries specific to physicians routinely performing colonoscopy, and to identify prevention strategies. METHODS: A survey was sent to all 2,173 worldwide members of the American Society for Colon and Rectal Surgery to investigate injuries or disabilities that resulted from performing colonoscopy and the methods used to prevent and alleviate symptoms related to the procedure. RESULTS: The response rate was 28%. Of the respondents, 96% performed colonoscopy. At least one injury or pain believed to result from performing colonoscopy was reported by 39% of the respondents. The most frequently reported injuries were to hands and fingers (n = 257), neck (n = 65), and back (n = 52). The methods adopted to alleviate injury included changing the height of the stretcher or video monitor, changing from a standing to a sitting position, minimizing torque on the colonoscope, having an assistant perform the torque maneuver, and resting or taking time off from colonoscopy. Two respondents also created devices to make the instrument more ergonomic. CONCLUSION: The number of colorectal surgeons encountering injury from colonoscopy highlights the need for preventive strategies. The study results suggest that it may be necessary to improve the design of colonoscopes to make them more ergonomic. Appropriate positioning of the endoscopist, patient, and monitors may diminish some of the injuries encountered.

Colonoscopy↗

PubMed2000

Colonoscopy in octogenarians and older patients.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy in the elderly has been considered by many to be risky because of mechanical bowel preparation and dehydration, electrolyte disturbances, conscious sedation, and hypoxic complications. We hypothesized that colonoscopy in octogenarians and older patients is a safe procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 803 patients who underwent colonoscopy from January 1997 to October 1997 was performed. The patients were grouped by age: group A (17-49 years) had 166 patients (20%); group B (50-79 years) had 534 patients (67%); and group C (80 years and older) had 103 patients (13%). Results were considered significant at p value less than 0.05 unless otherwise noted. RESULTS: Blood in the stool (84%) and history of colonic vascular disease (5.8%) were the most common indication in group C (84%). Colonoscopy was used in group A (18%) more often than in the other groups to rule out inflammatory bowel disease. History of colon polyps was a more common indication in group B (20%) than in the other groups. Group A had a significantly higher incidence of normal examinations (84%) and diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (14%). Group B had a higher incidence of polyps than the other groups. Group C had the highest incidence of vascular disease (15%). Diverticular disease and carcinoma were more common in groups B (37%) and C (52%). The amount of sedation in the groups did not significantly differ. Completion of the colonoscopy to the cecum or anastomotic sites did not differ among the groups (p > 0.05), nor did complication rates among groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy is safe in octogenarians and older patients. Age does not, by itself, confer an increased risk to the procedure.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Prospective evaluation of factors predicting difficulty and pain during sedation-free colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy can be painful for patients and difficult for colonoscopists; however, it is hard to predict how painful or difficult the examination will be. This study was designed to identify factors that predict pain and difficulty during sedation-free colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 848 consecutive sedation-free colonoscopies were evaluated in a prospective manner. Factors were recorded, including patient pain, intubation time, demographic data, history of abdominal surgery, bowel preparation status, diverticular disease, bowel habits, anxiety level, and number of previous colonoscopies. These factors were analyzed to determine their association with pain and difficulty. RESULTS: Almost all colonoscopies (845/848; 99.6 percent) were successful. Univariate analyses showed that lower body mass index, younger age, female gender, anxiety level, first time, intubation time, preparation status, previous hysterectomy, and previous gynecologic surgery were predictors of patient pain, and lower body mass index, female gender, anxiety level, preparation status, previous hysterectomy, previous gynecologic surgery, and constipation were predictors of difficulty of intubation. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that lower body mass index, younger age, intubation time, preparation status, previous hysterectomy, and antispasmodic agent use were predictors of patient pain, and lower body mass index, female gender, constipation, preparation status, and previous hysterectomy were predictors of difficulty of intubation. CONCLUSIONS: By use of intubation time and patient pain, several patient characteristics were identified that may predict technical difficulty and pain associated with the procedure. These findings have implications for the practice and teaching of colonoscopy.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Comparison of glucagon and scopolamine butylbromide as premedication for colonoscopy in unsedated patients.

PURPOSE: Premedication with glucagon or hyoscyamine is reported to be effective in reducing colonic spasm. However, these drugs can be associated with unfavorable events. This prospective study was designed to compare the effects of premedication with glucagon with those of scopolamine butylbromide on cardiopulmonary parameters, intubation time, and patient discomfort in unsedated patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred consecutive adult patients (65 males) undergoing colonoscopy without sedation were randomized to receive 1 mg of glucagon (n = 50) or 20 mg of scopolamine butylbromide (n = 50), intramuscularly. Physiologic changes, including systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation, were monitored before colonoscope insertion and at three-minute intervals during colonoscopy. The percentages of completed procedure and time to cecal intubation were recorded. Patients were asked to rate pain by using a five-point pain score (0 = no pain; 4 = severe pain). RESULTS: The percentages of completed procedure (96 vs. 98 percent), time to cecal intubation (16.3 vs. 14.5 minutes), and pain score (1.7 vs. 1.5) did not differ significantly between two groups. An increase in heart rate of more than ten beats per minute from baseline during colonoscopy occurred significantly more often in scopolamine group (44 percent of 50 patients) than in the glucagon group (12 percent of 50 patients; P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between the two study groups with regard to changes in systolic blood pressure and decrease in oxygen saturation during colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with 1 mg of glucagon facilitates favorable examination with respect to physiologic changes compared with 20 mg of scopolamine. These features favor glucagon as the preferred premedication for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

Colonoscopy completion and complication rates in a community gastroenterology practice.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, colonoscopy completion and complication rates are rarely reported outside academic institutions. Increased transparency of quality measures and outcomes is being driven by professional societies, government agencies, and private enterprise. OBJECTIVE: To collect and report the completion and complication rates of colonoscopy in a community gastroenterology practice. DESIGN: Single-center study, prospective for completion, retrospective for complications. SETTING: Community gastroenterology group practice, conducted from August 2002 through December 2004. PATIENTS: A total of 12,407 consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy; mean age, 59.7 years; 5925 men. INTERVENTIONS: Polypectomy and cautery were completed as indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Completion of colonoscopy to cecum or ileocolonic anastomosis. Complications of hemorrhage and perforation. RESULTS: A colonoscopy was completed in 98.4% of patients. Polypectomy was accomplished in 5074 (40.9%). Polyps occurred more often in men (46.4% vs 35.8%, P < .001). Causes for failure included difficult anatomy (55.9%), inadequate preparation (20.8%), obstructing malignancy (8.6%), discomfort (8.1%), and severe inflammation (6.1%). Failure from difficult anatomy was more likely in women (1.19% vs 0.56%, P < .001). Hemorrhage requiring hospitalization occurred after 25 cases (0.20%). Twenty-three episodes of bleeding occurred after polypectomy (0.46%) and 2 after treatment of arteriovenous malformations. Two perforations occurred (0.016%). One patient developed a posterior circulation stroke. No deaths occurred. LIMITATIONS: Completion not independently verifiable. Complications were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy completion and complication rates in this community gastroenterology practice compared favorably with U.S. academic centers. Endoscopic quality in community practices can meet published outcomes.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Outcome of aggressive surveillance colonoscopy in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

PURPOSE: Emergent repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) is associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. One of the significant complications of this surgery is bowel ischemia. Reports detail mortality as high as 80% when this condition is realized. The objective of this project was to determine both the incidence and the effect of mandatory postoperative colonoscopy on outcome of colon ischemia after rAAA. METHODS: From July 1995 to September 2002 all patients with an rAAA who underwent emergent aortic reconstruction were included in this review. All colonoscopies were performed within 48 hours, ischemia was graded consistently, and treatment was initiated per protocol based on grade of ischemia. Patients with grades I and II ischemia were followed up with medical management and repeat colonoscopy. All patients with grade III ischemia underwent bowel resection. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were collected to assess possible independent risk factors for and predictors of bowel ischemia. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients underwent emergent aortic reconstruction because of rAAA in the study period. Their mean age was 73 years, and 64 patients (72%) were men. Operative mortality was 42%. Eighteen percent of patients died within 24 hours, and 24% died between 1 and 30 days after surgery. Colonoscopy was performed in 62 of 72 patients who survived more than 24 hours. Bowel ischemia was documented in 26 of the 72 patients (36%). Of these, 16 patients had grade I or grade II ischemia at both initial and repeat endoscopy. Nine patients underwent exploratory laparotomy with bowel resection because of grade III ischemia; two procedures were performed because of worsening ischemia discovered at repeat colonoscopy. In patients with colonoscopic findings of bowel ischemia the mortality rate was 50% (13 of 26 patients). In those with grade III necrosis who underwent resection the mortality rate was 55%. Elevated lactate levels, immature white blood cells, and increased fluid sequestration were all variables associated with the occurrence of colon ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel ischemia is a frequent postoperative complication (42%) of repaired rAAA. Performing mandatory surveillance colonoscopy in these patients may be associated with a decrease in overall mortality and improved survival in patients with transmural bowel necrosis with no comorbid condition.

Aged↗

PubMed1988

Diagnosis and treatment of severe hematochezia. The role of urgent colonoscopy after purge.

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate (a) the diagnosis and treatment of 80 consecutive patients with severe, ongoing hematochezia from unknown source and (b) the effectiveness and safety of urgent colonoscopy after oral purge. Fifty-two men and 28 women (mean age, 64.5 yr) received a mean of 6.5 U of blood and had negative anoscopy, rigid sigmoidoscopy, and nasogastric tube aspiration before our evaluation. Because of ongoing severe hematochezia in the intensive care unit, urgent diagnosis and treatment was recommended by the attending physicians and surgeons. Emergency panendoscopy was performed before purge. Urgent colonoscopy was performed in the intensive care unit after patients received oral purge and their gut was cleared of blood, clots, and stool. The final diagnosis in these patients was 74% colonic lesions (30% angiomata, 17% diverticulosis, 11% polyps or cancer, 9% focal ulcers, 7% other), 11% upper gastrointestinal lesions, and 9% presumed small bowel lesions. No lesion site was identified in 6%. Clinically significant fluid retention (medically controlled) occurred in 4% of patients after purge. Sixty-four percent of patients had intervention for control of bleeding: 39% had therapeutic endoscopy, 24% surgery, and 1% therapeutic angiography. For 22 patients who also had emergency visceral angiography, the diagnostic yield was 14% and the complication rate was 9%. Our conclusions for patients with severe ongoing hematochezia from an unknown site were as follows. (a) Oral purge was effective and safe for cleansing the colon of stool, clots, and blood. Sulfate purge appeared to be safer than saline purge. (b) Before urgent colonoscopy and purge, emergency panendoscopy was indicated to exclude an upper gastrointestinal bleeding source. (c) Urgent colonoscopy after purge was effective, safe, and often diagnostic. (d) Compared with urgent colonoscopy, urgent visceral angiography was often nondiagnostic. However, the examinations may be complementary. (e) Hemostasis via colonoscopy has a definitive role in the treatment of some focal colonic lesions such as bleeding angiomata.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The miss rate of colonoscopy for neoplasms is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the miss rate of colonoscopy by same day back-to-back colonoscopy. METHODS: Two consecutive same day colonoscopies were performed in 183 patients. The patients were randomized to undergo the second colonoscopy by the same or a different endoscopist and in the same or different position. RESULTS: The overall miss rate for adenomas was 24%, 27% for adenomas < or = 5 mm, 13% for adenomas 6-9 mm, and 6% for adenomas > or = 1 cm. Patients with two or more adenomas at the first examination were more likely than patients with no or one adenoma detected at the first examination to have one or more adenomas at the second examination (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-6.46). Right colon adenomas were missed more often (27%) than left colon adenomas (21%), but the difference was not significant. There was evidence of variation in sensitivity between endoscopists, but significant miss rates for small adenomas were found among essentially all endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Using current colonoscopic technology, there are significant miss rates for adenomas < 1 cm even with meticulous colonoscopy. Miss rates are low for adenomas > or = 1 cm. The results suggest the need for improvements in colonoscopic technology.

Adenoma↗

PubMed2004

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide in patients undergoing colonoscopy with patient-controlled sedation.

BACKGROUND: A prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial was conducted to investigate the effect of the antispasmodic hyoscine N-butyl bromide (Buscopan) during colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 120 patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 40 mg of hyoscine N-butyl bromide (n=60) or normal saline solution (n=60) intravenously as premedication. Colonoscopy was performed under patient-controlled sedation. Outcome measures included cecal intubation and total procedure time, demanded and administered doses of patient-controlled sedation, spasm score, pain score, endoscopist satisfaction score, patient willingness to repeat colonoscopy, and vital signs (blood pressure, pulse rate) during colonoscopy. RESULTS: Mean cecal intubation time in the hyoscine N-butyl bromide group was significantly longer than the control group (12.20 vs. 9.74 minutes; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance). The use of hyoscine N-butyl bromide was associated with a significantly lower endoscopist mean satisfaction score (6.47 vs. 7.30; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance), higher demanded and administered mean doses of patient-controlled sedation (respectively, 34.80 and 7.25 vs. 24.20 and 5.87; p=0.045; p=0.04, respectively; but correction for multiple testing of data removed these findings of significance), fewer patients willing to repeat colonoscopy (60% vs. 83.9%; p=0.005), and more hemodynamic instability (p<0.001) when compared with the control group. No significant difference was found in the total procedure time, spasm score, or pain score. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide impedes colonoscope insertion and causes greater patient discomfort, as well as hemodynamic instability.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Colonoscopy in patients 80 years of age and older is safe, with high success rate and diagnostic yield.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the standard investigation for colonic disease, but clinicians often are reluctant to refer elderly patients for colonoscopy because of a perception of higher risk and a high rate of incomplete examinations. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 924 consecutive colonoscopies performed over a 31-month period. Comparisons were made between two groups: patients 80 years of age or older (Group O) and patients less than 80 years of age (Group Y). Data were collected on sedation, crude and adjusted total colonoscopy rates, ileoscopy rate, anus to cecum time, total procedure time, diagnostic yield, and complications. Appropriate exclusions were made to calculate procedure success rates and time. RESULTS: Patients in Group O (n=110) received significantly less sedative medication compared with Group Y (n=814) (median dosage for midazolam, 1 mg vs. 2.5 mg; median dosage for meperidine, 12.5 vs. 25 mg; p < 0.0001). The adjusted total colonoscopy rate was 97% and 99.2% for Group O and Group Y (not significant), respectively. Ileoscopy rate was significantly lower in Group O (71.1% vs. 86.1%; p=0.0004). Median anus to cecum time was significantly longer in Group O (9.75 vs. 8.5 minutes; p=0.0182) in a single test of hypothesis; however, Bonferroni correction for multiple testing of data removes this significance. Median total procedure time also was longer in Group O (22 vs. 18.5 minutes; p=0.0001). Diagnostic yield was high, and the complication rate was low for both groups. Colorectal cancer was detected in 20% patients in Group O and 7.4% in Group Y (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy in patients 80 or more years of age is safe, effective, and has a high diagnostic yield. Procedure times are slightly longer, and the ileoscopy rate is lower in this age group.

Adolescent↗