SEARCH · PubMed Health
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.
To determine whether colonoscopy and polypectomy could be performed safely without admission to the hospital, 594 consecutive procedures were analyzed for complications. Two hundred three patients have had colonoscopy and 132 polypectomies without admission to the hospital and without death. The complication rate was no different in this group than in equivalent patients who were hospitalized for the same procedure.
Forty patients examined with the use of carbon dioxide insufflation during fiberoptic colonoscopy showed no significant residual gas on plain radiographs taken 30 minutes after the procedure. By contrast, 19 of 20 patients examined with air insufflation showed excessive distension of large and/or small intestine. The rapid absorption of carbon dioxide may be a safety factor in a few patients and adds to the comfort of the procedure in many others by virtually eliminating overdistension afterwards. It also makes it technically possible to perform a barium enema immediately after colonoscopy.
A prospective evaluation of 176 hospitalized patients with nonactive lower intestinal bleeding demonstrated that a barium enema is not a necessary prerequisite for a sensitive and safe total colonoscopic examination. Colonoscopy was better in detecting colonic polyps and colon cancers than barium enema. It was concluded that colonoscopy without prior barium enema provides a sensitive diagnostic approach to hospitalized patients with nonactive lower intestinal bleeding. This approach does not interfere with the early use of angiography and may shorten hospitalization.
In order to evaluate the absorptive capacity of the colonic mucosa, colonoscopy was used to investigate in six healthy volunteers the colonic absorption of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac (Voltaren). Oral and colonic administration of 100 mg of diclofenac resulted in comparable peak plasma concentrations and areas under the plasma concentration time curves. The apparent relative availability of diclofenac from the colon compared to the oral form, which was assumed to be 100%, ranged from 54% to 109% with a mean of 78%. There was no difference in absorption between application of the drug in the cecum and in the splenic flexure. This new indication for colonoscopy proved to be simple, well tolerated, and well suited for phase I studies with new drugs or formulations.
Midazolam is a new parenteral benzodiazepine premedication for endoscopy. Consecutive patients were randomized to receive either intravenous midazolam or diazepam as premedication for outpatient total colonoscopy by one endoscopist. Fifty-five patients received diazepam (0.15 mg/kg) and 50 received midazolam (0.07 mg/kg). Both patient and endoscopist were blind to the study drug used. The two groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and indication for colonoscopy. Patients were rated by the endoscopist for degree of cooperation, sedation, and pain during examination. There was significantly more oversedation in the midazolam group than in the diazepam group (p less than 0.05). Immediate procedure recall was less in midazolam patients (p less than 0.005), but on repeat interview the next day there was no difference between the two groups concerning recall of the endoscopy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of arm pain. We conclude that in a clinical setting, midazolam does not appear to offer any significant advantage over diazepam, except for cost. Midazolam carries an increased risk of oversedation when it is administered on a milligram per kilogram basis and should instead be titrated individually.
We prospectively evaluated multiple physiologic parameters in 104 consecutive unselected patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Changes observed during colonoscopy were then correlated with the type of anesthesia and level of sedation, position of the endoscope and presence of looping, existence of comorbid medical conditions, concomitant medication usage, and the occurrence of endoscopy induced pain. Clinically important changes in O2 saturation (54%) and in blood pressure (44%) were most frequently noted. Less frequent were changes in pulse (15%) or respiratory rate (4%). These clinically significant changes were associated with induction of anesthesia or endoscope looping and pain in 58 to 62% of the patients. In the remainder of patients, no obvious factor was associated with the observed alterations in physiologic parameters. There was no correlation with presence of comorbid medical conditions, use of concurrent medication, dose of anesthesia, level of sedation, and/or colon segment reached by the endoscope. Although there was no apparent morbidity associated with the induced changes in physiologic parameters, these data suggest that certain patients may be at increased risk of procedure-related morbidity and support the need for physiologic monitoring in high-risk patients.
A randomized study was carried out to determine whether the administration of oxygen (3 liter/min) via nasal prongs significantly affects arterial oxygenation during colonoscopy in patients sedated with intravenous midazolam (2.6 +/- 0.2 mg, means +/- SE) and meperidine (48 +/- 3 mg). Patients who received supplemental oxygen were less likely to become hypoxic (pulse oximeter reading, SpO2 less than 90%) than those who breathed room air (10 of 28 vs. 22 of 28, p less than 0.005). Similarly, the total time during which SpO2 was below 90% was significantly less in patients receiving nasal oxygen (0.7 +/- 0.3 min) than in patients breathing room air (9.7 +/- 1.9 min, p less than 0.001). Minimum oxygen saturations were significantly higher in patients receiving oxygen (90.6 +/- 0.8%) than in patients breathing air (86.5 +/- 0.8%, p less than 0.001). In patients breathing air, there was a significant negative correlation between the dose of meperidine and the minimum observed oxygen saturation; conversely, midazolam dose did not correlate with indices of hypoxemia. The authors conclude that administration of oxygen via nasal prongs can reduce the risk of hypoxemia during colonoscopy. However, since hypoxemia may occur even when nasal oxygen is given, continuous monitoring of arterial oxygenation is recommended.
A new sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (SF-ELS) for colonoscopy was formulated to taste better and have less net water and electrolyte secretion and absorption than a standard polyethylene glycolelectrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS). At two centers, 157 patients were prospectively randomized to receive SF-ELS or PEG-ELS to assess adequacy of preparation, patient tolerance, weight changes, and various hematologic and biochemical parameters. Physician assessment of colon cleansing showed no difference between those patients receiving SF-ELS (N = 74) or PEG-ELS (N = 78). Eighty-two percent of all preps were found to be "clinically acceptable." Subjects receiving SF-ELS had significantly less fullness and cramps, while PEG-ELS subjects reported less nausea. There was no difference between groups for vomiting, overall discomfort, or willingness to repeat the preparation received. Eighty percent of all patients would repeat the randomized cleansing methods. There were no clinically significant changes in weight or assessed laboratory parameters, with the exception of potassium where PEG-ELS patients had an mean decrease of 0.22 mEq/liter vs. 0.01 mEq/liter for SF-ELS (p less than or equal to 0.01). Patient taste questionnaires in those patients expressing a preference showed a preference for SF-ELS (76.6%) over PEG-ELS (23.4%) (p less than or equal to 0.001). Thirty-two (22.5%) of total respondents indicated no preference. We conclude that SF-ELS when compared with PEG-ELS is similarly a safe and effective method of colon cleansing for colonoscopy that is well tolerated. Patients prefer the taste of the new solution.
Fifty-six patients have been examined in a prospective randomized study on the effects of air and carbon dioxide on post-procedural discomfort following colonoscopy. A significant reduction in post-procedural pain was observed at 6 hours (p = < 0.0005) and was still present the next day (p = 0.01). This was associated with a difference in the grading of flatus at 6 and 24 hours (p = < 0.0001 and < 0.05, respectively). An abdominal radiograph 1 hour after the procedure showed minimal gas in the CO2 patients, while the patients who had air showed distention of large and small bowel (p = < 0.0001 and < 0.01, respectively). Seventeen of 29 patients who had air suffered post-procedural pain, compared with 2 of 27 of the CO2 patients. Fifty-seven percent of the patients who were given air had colonic diameters over 6 cm on a 1-hour post-colonoscopy radiograph and 18% over 10-cm diameter. Provision by equipment manufacturers of simple and safe devices for routine delivery of CO2 for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is long overdue.
We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy of the currently recommended low doses of midazolam for conscious sedation compared with diazepam for colonoscopy. Each agent was administered in a fixed ratio dose in combination with meperidine, and titrated incrementally to allow for adequate sedation prior to initiating and during the procedure. The currently recommended starting dose of midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) proved to be very appropriate for pre-medication. In contrast, the currently recommended starting dose of diazepam (0.10 mg/kg) proved excessive in 21% of patients (especially in those aged > 65). The low initial and incremental doses of midazolam compared favorably with diazepam in all efficacy parameters studied and exceeded diazepam in post-procedure amnesia scores (p = 0.01). Moreover, the sedative effects of midazolam at these lower doses were not lost despite long duration procedures (> 40 min). We conclude that midazolam, given in small incremental doses, in combination with meperidine, produces effective conscious sedation for colonoscopy and exceeds diazepam in its amnestic effect.
We performed a prospective randomized trial in a predominantly outpatient colonoscopy population to see how preparation with oral sodium phosphate solution compares with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage in terms of the quality of colon cleansing, ease of preparation, and gastrointestinal intolerance. Before colonoscopy, a nurse administered a questionnaire to the patient to assess how well the preparation was tolerated (scale from 1 to 5:1 = easy, to 5 = unable to finish) and about the presence of four symptoms: abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. The quality of colon cleansing was graded by the attending gastroenterologist, who was unaware of how the patient was prepared or tolerated the preparation (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, 4 = poor). The overall quality of bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol lavage was slightly better than with sodium phosphate (mean score, 1.93 vs 2.07); however, the difference was not statistically different. No statistical difference was seen in the frequency of patients with poor preparations (14.2% for sodium phosphate, 9.6% for polyethylene glycol lavage). Patients found preparation with sodium phosphate to be somewhat easier than polyethylene glycol lavage (mean score, 2.07 vs 2.41; p = 0.05). No difference was seen in the incidence of abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting. Dizziness was more common with sodium phosphate but was mild and not believed to be clinically important. We conclude that the quality of colon cleansing is similar with polyethylene glycol lavage and oral sodium phosphate solution, with satisfactory preparation seen in 85% to 90% of patients. Patients found preparation with sodium phosphate to be slightly easier to tolerate.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
A randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine if a videotaped presentation by a physician conveys information more effectively than an in-person discussion by the same physician using the identical script. Two hundred one patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: video plus discussion, video alone, and discussion alone. A validated, 13-item knowledge test and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were administered to all patients. Mean number of correct test answers for video plus discussion was 11.04; for video alone, 10.70; and for discussion alone, 9.61. ANOVA with planned orthogonal comparisons showed that the patients in the two video groups had significantly better scores (p < 0.001) than those in the discussion-only group. No difference was noted between the two video groups (p = 0.32). Anxiety did not increase with increased understanding of the risks and benefits of colonoscopy. This approach may work as well for other invasive medical procedures and could save physician time while laying a foundation for a more personalized discussion.
In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of patients undergoing colonoscopy, sedation with an inhaled mixture of nitrous oxide/oxygen was compared with conventional intravenous sedation (pethidine 50 mg, midazolam 2.5 mg). In the patients studied, no significant differences were noted in number of pain episodes, need for additional intravenous sedation, or patient pain scores between the group receiving the nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture (n = 30) and those managed with conventional benzodiazepine/opiate injection (n = 29). Both methods were significantly more effective than placebo (n = 30). Six patients in the benzodiazepine/opiate group had oxygen desaturation, whereas none did in the nitrous oxide/oxygen group. Duration of stay after the procedure was significantly shorter in the gas inhalation group than in those receiving conventional intravenous sedation. Except for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation is a safe and acceptable alternative method of sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is important because of the direct correlation of size with colon cancer. Major studies of colorectal neoplasms have measured polyp size differently. It is also well documented that endoscopists underestimate polyp size frequently. The goal of this prospective study was to determine which one of the five methods of estimating polyp size during colonoscopy is most accurate. METHODS: One hundred colon polyps were measured by means of visual estimation, open biopsy forceps methods, linear probe, a ruler immediately after excision, and after fixation in formalin. The size of the polyps measured outside the body immediately after excision was considered the "gold standard" against which all measurements were compared. RESULTS: Forty-seven polyps were 5 mm or less in diameter, 33 polyps were 5.01 mm to 10 mm, and 20 polyps were more than 10 mm in size. For all polyps the mean difference versus the actual size of the polyps was 3.4% for linear probe, 6.4% for visual estimation, and 12.3% for the forceps. CONCLUSION: Measurement of polyp size by linear probe agreed best with the actual polyp size, followed closely by visual estimation. The open biopsy forceps method was the least accurate.
BACKGROUND: Two doses of sodium phosphate are recommended for colonic cleansing before colonoscopy. Patients need information about the onset and duration of activity of the preparation. This study was designed to develop practical prescribing information to patients to reduce anxiety concerning bowel accidents. METHODS: Two hundred patients were requested to take a liquid diet the day before colonoscopy, to take 45 mL sodium phosphate with water or juice the evening before and the morning of the procedure, and to complete a questionnaire. RESULTS: Bowel activity began 1.7 hours (range 0.5 to 13) after the first dose and continued for 4.6 (1 to 14) hours. For the second dose the time to onset was 0.7 hours (0.25 to 4), and bowel activity continued for 2.9 hours (0.5 to 6.5). Bowel activity was completed 4 hours after ingestion of the second dose in 83% of patients and within 5 hours in 87%. Three of 200 patients reported the need for bowel evacuation during transit. CONCLUSIONS: The activity from the second dose of sodium phosphate starts and ends sooner than that from the first dose. When advising patients on when to take the second dose of sodium phosphate, 4 hours for most and 5 hours for those with long commutes, should provide adequate time for almost all patients to avoid bowel activity during travel.
Fourteen patients had surveillance colonoscopy 2 to 48 years after ureterosigmoidostomy urinary diversion. Five patients (37 per cent) had benign polyps distal to the implant sites that were removed but no colon carcinomas were found. We discuss the rationale for surveillance colonoscopy at regular intervals. This procedure may allow greater usage of ureterosigmoidostomy as a means of urinary diversion.
Splenic rupture is a rare but potentially deadly complication of colonoscopy. We present the case of a 70-year-old male who presented with abdominal pain, initially stable, almost 2 days after colonoscopy. The patient's clinical status deteriorated shortly after abdominal CT scan identified splenic rupture.
OBJECTIVES: To compare three bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy in terms of the quality of preparation, the side effects and patient acceptance. METHODS: A total of 299 patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized to three bowel preparation regimens: polyethylene glycol solution (n = 106), or a single dose (n = 92) or two doses (n = 101) of sodium phosphate solution. The colonoscopists who recorded the quality of bowel preparation were blind to the preparation regimens. The discomforts associated with bowel preparation and patient acceptance of the preparation were also recorded. RESULTS: Two doses of sodium phosphate solution achieved significantly better bowel preparation than polyethylene solution or a single dose of sodium phosphate solution (p < 0.05). Although two doses of sodium phosphate solution was associated with more dizziness and anal irritation, patients preferred preparation with sodium phosphate solution than with polyethylene glycol solution. Of the 69 patients in the sodium phosphate solution groups who had prior experience of bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol solution, 55 patients (80%) stated that they preferred sodium phosphate solution. CONCLUSION: Two doses of sodium phosphate solution achieved better bowel preparation than polyethylene glycol solution and was more acceptable to patients. A single dose of sodium phosphate did not achieve similar bowel preparation to two doses of the solution.