Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Lorenzo Fuccio, Leonardo Frazzoni, Cesare Hassan, Marina La Marca, Valentina Paci, Veronica Smania, Nicola De Bortoli, Franco Bazzoli, Alessandro Repici, Douglas Rex, Sergio Cadoni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aims: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). Conclusions: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Colonoscopy
Adenoma
Water
Immersion
Colon
Network Meta-Analysis
Odds Ratio
Randomized Controlled Trials
Insufflation
Early Detection of Cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate : a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. / Fuccio, Lorenzo; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Hassan, Cesare; La Marca, Marina; Paci, Valentina; Smania, Veronica; De Bortoli, Nicola; Bazzoli, Franco; Repici, Alessandro; Rex, Douglas; Cadoni, Sergio.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fuccio, Lorenzo ; Frazzoni, Leonardo ; Hassan, Cesare ; La Marca, Marina ; Paci, Valentina ; Smania, Veronica ; De Bortoli, Nicola ; Bazzoli, Franco ; Repici, Alessandro ; Rex, Douglas ; Cadoni, Sergio. / Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate : a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2018.
@article{6d85ee04b26d49dfa7e573ca517ef620,
title = "Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies",
abstract = "Background and Aims: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95{\%} credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95{\%} CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). Conclusions: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.",
author = "Lorenzo Fuccio and Leonardo Frazzoni and Cesare Hassan and {La Marca}, Marina and Valentina Paci and Veronica Smania and {De Bortoli}, Nicola and Franco Bazzoli and Alessandro Repici and Douglas Rex and Sergio Cadoni",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2018.06.028",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate

T2 - a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

AU - Fuccio, Lorenzo

AU - Frazzoni, Leonardo

AU - Hassan, Cesare

AU - La Marca, Marina

AU - Paci, Valentina

AU - Smania, Veronica

AU - De Bortoli, Nicola

AU - Bazzoli, Franco

AU - Repici, Alessandro

AU - Rex, Douglas

AU - Cadoni, Sergio

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background and Aims: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). Conclusions: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.

AB - Background and Aims: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). Conclusions: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051399476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051399476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2018.06.028

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2018.06.028

M3 - Article

C2 - 29981753

AN - SCOPUS:85051399476

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

ER -