Chien-Huan Chen

Impact of Retroflexion Vs. Second Forward View Examination of the Right Colon on Adenoma Detection: A Comparison Study

OBJECTIVES:Although screening colonoscopy is effective in preventing distal colon cancers, effectiveness in preventing right-sided colon cancers is less clear. Previous studies have reported that retroflexion in the right colon improves adenoma detection. We aimed to determine whether a second withdrawal from the right colon in retroflexion vs. forward view alone leads to the detection of additional adenomas.METHODS:Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial at two centers. After cecal intubation, the colonoscope was withdrawn to the hepatic flexure, all visualized polyps removed, and endoscopist confidence recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Patients were randomized to a second exam of the proximal colon in forward (FV) or retroflexion view (RV), and adenoma detection rates (ADRs) compared. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal from the proximal colon.RESULTS:A total of 850 patients (mean age 59.1±8.3 years, 59% female) were randomly assigned to FV (N=400) or RV (N=450). Retroflexion was successful in 93.5%. The ADR (46% FV and 47% RV) and numbers of adenomas per patient (0.9±1.4 FV and 1.1±2.1 RV) were similar (P=0.75 for both). At least one additional adenoma was detected on second withdrawal in similar proportions (10.5% FV and 7.5% RV, P=0.13). Predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal included older age (odds ratio (OR)=1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01–1.08), adenomas seen on initial withdrawal (OR=2.8, 95% CI=1.7–4.7), and low endoscopist confidence in quality of first examination of the right colon (OR=4.8, 95% CI=1.9–12.1). There were no adverse events.CONCLUSIONS:Retroflexion in the right colon can be safely achieved in the majority of patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Reexamination of the right colon in either retroflexed or forward view yielded similar, incremental ADRs. A second exam of the right colon should be strongly considered in patients who have adenomas discovered in the right colon, particularly when endoscopist confidence in the quality of initial examination is low.

Video capsule endoscopy in left ventricular assist device recipients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM To assess whether video capsule endoscopy (VCE) affects the outcomes of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) recipients with gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS This is a retrospective study of LVAD recipients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) who underwent VCE at a tertiary medical center between 2005 and 2013. All patients were admitted and monitored with telemetry and all VCE and subsequent endoscopic procedures were performed as inpatients. A VCE study was considered positive only when P2 lesions were found and was regarded as negative if P1 or P0 were identified. All patients were followed until heart transplant, death, or the end of the study. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 30 patients with LVAD underwent VCE. Completion rate of VCE was 93.3% and there was no capsule retention. No interference of VCE recording or the function of LVAD was found. VCE was positive in 40% of patients (n = 12). The most common finding was active small intestinal bleeding (50%) and small intestinal angiodysplasia (33.3%). There was no difference in the rate of recurrent bleeding between patients with positive and negative VCE study (50.0% vs 55.6%, P = 1.00) during an average of 11.6 ± 9.6 mo follow up. Among patients with positive VCE, the recurrent bleeding rate did not differ whether subsequent endoscopy was performed (50% vs 50%, P = 1.00). CONCLUSION VCE can be safely performed in LVAD recipients with a diagnostic yield of 40%. VCE does not affect recurrent bleeding in LVAD patients regardless of findings.