Background and study aims  Single-center studies, which were retrospective and/or involved unblinded colonoscopists, have suggested that water exchange, but not water immersion, compared with air insufflation significantly increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR), particularly in the proximal and right colon. Head-to-head comparison of the three techniques with ADR as primary outcome and blinded colonoscopists has not been reported to date. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded colonoscopists, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the three insertion techniques on ADR.Patients and methods A total of 1224 patients aged 50 - 70 years (672 males) and undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to water exchange, water immersion, or air insufflation. Split-dose bowel preparation was adopted to optimize colon cleansing. After the cecum had been reached, a second colonoscopist who was blinded to the insertion technique performed the withdrawal. The primary outcome was overall ADR according to the three insertion techniques (water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation). Secondary outcomes were other pertinent overall and right colon procedure-related measures.Results Baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Compared with air insufflation, water exchange achieved a significantly higher overall ADR (49.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 44.3 % - 54.2 % vs. 40.4 % 95 %CI 35.6 % - 45.3 %;P = 0.03); water exchange showed comparable overall ADR vs. water immersion (43.4 %, 95 %CI 38.5 % - 48.3 %;P = 0.28). In the right colon, water exchange achieved a higher ADR than air insufflation (24.0 %, 95 %CI 20.0 % - 28.5 % vs. 16.9 %, 95 %CI 13.4 % - 20.9 %;P = 0.04) and a higher advanced ADR (6.1 %, 95 %CI 4.0 % - 9.0 % vs. 2.5 %, 95 %CI 1.2 % - 4.6 %;P = 0.03). Compared with air insufflation, the mean number of adenomas per procedure was significantly higher with water exchange (P = 0.04). Water exchange achieved the highest cleanliness scores (overall and in the right colon). These variables were comparable between water immersion and air insufflation.Conclusions The design with blinded observers strengthens the validity of the observation that water exchange, but not water immersion, can achieve significantly higher adenoma detection than air insufflation. Based on this evidence, the use of water exchange should be encouraged.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02041507).

Department of Medical Research Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation Chiayi Taiwan

Department of Surgical Sciences University of Cagliari Cagliari Italy

Digestive Diseases Center Vitkovice Hospital Ostrava Czech Republic

Digestive Endoscopy Unit St Barbara Hospital Iglesias Italy

Division of Digestive Endoscopy and Gastroenterology Valduce Hospital Como Italy

Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System North Hills California United States

000      

00000naa a2200000 a 4500

001      

bmc18010754

003      

CZ-PrNML

005      

20180417142818.0

007      

ta

008      

180404s2017 gw f 000 0|eng||

009      

AR

024    7_

$a 10.1055/s-0043-101229 $2 doi

035    __

$a (PubMed)28282689

040    __

$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2

041    0_

$a eng

044    __

$a gw

100    1_

$a Cadoni, Sergio $u Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias, Italy.

245    10

$a Water exchange for screening colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial / $c S. Cadoni, P. Falt, E. Rondonotti, F. Radaelli, P. Fojtik, P. Gallittu, M. Liggi, A. Amato, S. Paggi, V. Smajstrla, O. Urban, M. Erriu, M. Koo, FW. Leung,

520    9_

$a Background and study aims  Single-center studies, which were retrospective and/or involved unblinded colonoscopists, have suggested that water exchange, but not water immersion, compared with air insufflation significantly increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR), particularly in the proximal and right colon. Head-to-head comparison of the three techniques with ADR as primary outcome and blinded colonoscopists has not been reported to date. In a randomized controlled trial with blinded colonoscopists, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the three insertion techniques on ADR.Patients and methods A total of 1224 patients aged 50 - 70 years (672 males) and undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to water exchange, water immersion, or air insufflation. Split-dose bowel preparation was adopted to optimize colon cleansing. After the cecum had been reached, a second colonoscopist who was blinded to the insertion technique performed the withdrawal. The primary outcome was overall ADR according to the three insertion techniques (water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation). Secondary outcomes were other pertinent overall and right colon procedure-related measures.Results Baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Compared with air insufflation, water exchange achieved a significantly higher overall ADR (49.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 44.3 % - 54.2 % vs. 40.4 % 95 %CI 35.6 % - 45.3 %;P = 0.03); water exchange showed comparable overall ADR vs. water immersion (43.4 %, 95 %CI 38.5 % - 48.3 %;P = 0.28). In the right colon, water exchange achieved a higher ADR than air insufflation (24.0 %, 95 %CI 20.0 % - 28.5 % vs. 16.9 %, 95 %CI 13.4 % - 20.9 %;P = 0.04) and a higher advanced ADR (6.1 %, 95 %CI 4.0 % - 9.0 % vs. 2.5 %, 95 %CI 1.2 % - 4.6 %;P = 0.03). Compared with air insufflation, the mean number of adenomas per procedure was significantly higher with water exchange (P = 0.04). Water exchange achieved the highest cleanliness scores (overall and in the right colon). These variables were comparable between water immersion and air insufflation.Conclusions The design with blinded observers strengthens the validity of the observation that water exchange, but not water immersion, can achieve significantly higher adenoma detection than air insufflation. Based on this evidence, the use of water exchange should be encouraged.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02041507).

650    _2

$a adenom $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D000236

650    _2

$a senioři $7 D000368

650    _2

$a vzduch $7 D000388

650    _2

$a purgativa $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D002400

650    _2

$a colon ascendens $7 D044682

650    _2

$a colon transversum $7 D044684

650    _2

$a nádory tračníku $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D003110

650    _2

$a kolonoskopie $x metody $7 D003113

650    _2

$a dvojitá slepá metoda $7 D004311

650    _2

$a časná detekce nádoru $x metody $7 D055088

650    _2

$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260

650    _2

$a lidé $7 D006801

650    _2

$a insuflace $7 D007327

650    _2

$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297

650    _2

$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875

650    _2

$a léčebná irigace $x metody $7 D007507

650    _2

$a voda $7 D014867

655    _2

$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160

655    _2

$a časopisecké články $7 D016428

655    _2

$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448

655    _2

$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449

700    1_

$a Falt, Přemysl $u Digestive Diseases Center, Vitkovice Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic.

700    1_

$a Rondonotti, Emanuele $u Division of Digestive Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy.

700    1_

$a Radaelli, Franco $u Division of Digestive Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy.

700    1_

$a Fojtik, Petr $u Digestive Diseases Center, Vitkovice Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic.

700    1_

$a Gallittu, Paolo $u Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias, Italy.

700    1_

$a Liggi, Mauro $u Digestive Endoscopy Unit, St. Barbara Hospital, Iglesias, Italy.

700    1_

$a Amato, Arnaldo $u Division of Digestive Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy.

700    1_

$a Paggi, Silvia $u Division of Digestive Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy.

700    1_

$a Smajstrla, Vit $u Digestive Diseases Center, Vitkovice Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic.

700    1_

$a Urban, Ondřej $u Digestive Diseases Center, Vitkovice Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic.

700    1_

$a Erriu, Matteo $u Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

700    1_

$a Koo, Malcolm $u Department of Medical Research, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Chiayi, Taiwan.

700    1_

$a Leung, Felix W $u Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hills, California, United States.

773    0_

$w MED00009605 $t Endoscopy $x 1438-8812 $g Roč. 49, č. 5 (2017), s. 456-467

856    41

$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282689 $y Pubmed

910    __

$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0

990    __

$a 20180404 $b ABA008

991    __

$a 20180417142916 $b ABA008

999    __

$a ok $b bmc $g 1288239 $s 1007566

BAS    __

$a 3

BAS    __

$a PreBMC

BMC    __

$a 2017 $b 49 $c 5 $d 456-467 $e 20170310 $i 1438-8812 $m Endoscopy $n Endoscopy $x MED00009605

LZP    __

$a Pubmed-20180404