Citations

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) and mucosal exposure devices like Endocuff have independently improved the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. This meta-analysis evaluated the combined effect of Endocuff and AI versus AI alone on colorectal neoplasia detection rates. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of Endocuff+AI versus AI alone on colorectal neoplasia detection. Primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Three RCTs with 2404 subjects were included (n = 1198 Endocuff+AI vs. n = 1206 AI alone). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff+AI group than in the AI alone group (54% vs. 48%, respectively) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.21, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%). There was a trend toward higher AADR (12.3% vs. 10%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96–1.59, P = 0.10, I2 = 17%) and SSLDR (17.6% vs. 15.5%, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96–1.40, P = 0.13, I2 = 0%) in the Endocuff+AI group compared with the AI alone group, but it did not reach statistical significance. Both cecal intubation time (MD -0.61 minutes; 95% CI -1.54–0.33; P = 0.20; I2 = 87%) and withdrawal time (MD -0.42 minutes; 95% CI -1.01–0.17; P = 0.17, I2 = 60%) were similar between the two groups. Endocuff combined with AI was superior to AI alone in improving the adenoma detection rate without increasing intubation or withdrawal times.

Abstract Background Studies evaluating the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are limited. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized the U.S. Collaborative Network to assess the risk of PPB after colorectal EMR in patients with CKD compared to controls. Using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM), the primary outcome measured was PPB within 30 days after colorectal EMR. The PPB risk was further stratified by CKD severity: non-advanced CKD and advanced CKD. Results After PSM, each cohort included 7,460 patients. Overall, CKD was associated with increased risk of PPB following colorectal EMR (5.5% vs. 4%, odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–1.61, p < 0.001). The PPB risk was significantly higher in patients with advanced CKD (8.1% vs, 4.6%, OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.43–2.34, p < 0.001), while those with non-advanced CKD showed modest increase in risk of PPB (4.7% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.001–1.46, p = 0.049). Conclusion Patients with CKD had higher risk of PPB than patients without CKD, but absolute risk remained low. The PPB risk was notably increased in patients with advanced CKD. Optimizing patients with CKD, especially advanced CKD, before colorectal EMR and monitoring for post-procedure bleeding remains important.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on colonoscopy bowel preparation is unclear. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing bowel preparation quality between GLP-1RA users and the control group. Using a random-effects model, we calculated pooled odds ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) rate was the primary outcome, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale mean score was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: Five studies with 10,833 patients (n = 5,434 GLP-1RAs vs n = 5,399 control) were included. The IBP rate was higher in the GLP-1RAs group compared with the control group (odds ratios 2.10, 95% CI 1.41–3.13, P = 0.0003). Furthermore, the mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was lower in the GLP1-RAs group compared with the control group (mean differences −0.34; 95% CI −0.51, −0.17; P = 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that using GLP-1RA increases the risk of IBP.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in patients with cirrhosis are limited. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the US Collaborative Network to assess post-polypectomy bleeding risk after colorectal EMR in patients with cirrhosis compared with controls. Using one-to-one propensity score matching, the primary outcome measured was bleeding within 30 days post-EMR. The bleeding risk was further stratified by cirrhosis severity (compensated and decompensated). RESULTS: After propensity score matching, each cohort included 2,381 patients. Patients with cirrhosis had a higher risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.82, P = 0.02). However, endoscopic reinterventions for hemostasis were similar between cirrhosis and control cohorts (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71–2.05, P = 0.50). The post-polypectomy bleeding risk was significantly higher in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12–2.42, P = 0.01), while those with compensated cirrhosis showed no increased risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85–1.54, P = 0.37). DISCUSSION: The post-polypectomy bleeding risk was higher in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, while the bleeding risk was not increased in those with compensated disease. Optimizing patients with cirrhosis, especially with decompensated disease, before colorectal EMR and monitoring for post-procedure bleeding remain important. A conservative, supportive approach to managing bleeding in patients with cirrhosis may be as effective as in those without cirrhosis.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) before colonoscopy remains a common problem. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk factors associated with IBP. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that assessed risk factors for IBP after adjustment and reported the data as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and pooled adjusted odds ratios for risk factors reported in ≥ 3 studies were constructed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four studies with 358,257 participants were included. We analyzed 48 unique risk factors. Sociodemographic predictors of IBP were Medicaid insurance, obesity, current tobacco use, age ≥ 65 years, Black race, low education level, male sex, and unmarried status. Comorbidity-related predictors of IBP were any psychiatric disease, cirrhosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3, poor functional status, constipation, diabetes, previous abdominopelvic surgery, and hematochezia. Medication-related predictors of IBP were tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressants, opioids, nontricyclic antidepressants, and calcium channel blockers. Preparation/procedure-related predictors of IBP were brown liquid rectal effluent, any incomplete bowel preparation (BP) intake, lack of split-dose BP, increased BP-to-defecation interval, any nonadherence to dietary instructions, increased BP-to-colonoscopy interval, any BP intolerance, previous IBP, and inpatient status. Although afternoon colonoscopy was a predictor of IBP, subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed no significant association. DISCUSSION: Our meta-analysis focused on adjusted risk factors to provide precise estimates of the most important risk factors for IBP. Our findings could help develop a validated prediction model to identify high-risk patients for IBP, improve colonoscopy outcomes, reduce the need for repeat colonoscopies, and reduce associated healthcare costs.