13 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
This is a study to compare two different, but normally, used methods of colonoscopy in patients that require a routine or repeat colonoscopy. There will be three arms in this study: WE water control, water plus Cap-1, and water plus Cap-2. The patient will prepare himself/herself for the colonoscopy as per normal instructions and he/she will be given the information for the study at that time so that he/she can make a decision to participate in the study. The control method will use water instead of air inserted into the colon. The study method will use a new accessory, a cap that will fit onto the end of the colonoscope plus water during the procedure. This study will also confirm if using the cap method with water is a better way of detecting polyps in the colon and possibly cancer.
Water-aided method for colonoscopy can be broadly subdivided into two major categories. Water Immersion (WI), characterized by suction removal of the infused water predominantly during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy, and Water Exchange (WE), characterized by suction removal of infused water predominantly during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. Several studies showed that WE significantly reduces pain compared to WI and colonoscopy with traditional air insufflation (AI), increases the number of unsedated procedures and adenoma detection rate (ADR), in particular proximal ADR. This randomized controlled trial will be a direct comparison of Air Insufflation, Water Immersion and Water Exchange to test the hypothesis that WAC (particularly WE) would significantly decrease pain score during colonoscopy in diagnostic patients. Several other secondary outcomes will also be analyzed.
Water-aided method for colonoscopy can be broadly subdivided into two major categories. Water Immersion (WI), characterized by suction removal of the infused water predominantly during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy, and Water Exchange (WE), characterized by suction removal of infused water predominantly during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. Several studies showed that WE significantly reduces pain compared to WI and colonoscopy with traditional air insufflation (AI), increases the number of unsedated procedures and adenoma detection rate (ADR), in particular proximal ADR. This randomized controlled trial will be a direct comparison of Air Insufflation, Water Immersion and Water Exchange to test the hypothesis that WAC (particularly WE) would significantly decrease pain score during colonoscopy in average-risk screening patients. Several other secondary outcomes will also be analyzed.
This is a study to compare two different, but normally, used methods of colonoscopy in patients undergoing colonoscopy without sedation. There will be two arms in this study: WE (water exchange) control, and WE (water exchange) plus cap (placed at tip of the colonoscope). The patient will prepare himself/herself for the colonoscopy as per normal instructions and he/she will be given the information for the study at that time so that he/she can make a decision to participate in the study. The control method will use water instead of air during insertion of the colonoscope. The study method will use a cap that will fit onto the end of the colonoscope plus water during insertion of the colonoscope. This study will assess if the study method is less painful than the control method.
The goal of this study is to compare two FDA approved distal colonoscope attachment devices, in order to identify which device can increase adenoma detection rate the most without increasing procedure time or risk.
Insufflation of the colon, usually with room air, is necessary to distend the lumen for exploration. Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation instead of room air insufflation (AI) has been shown to decrease symptoms of abdominal pain or discomfort during the procedure and particularly during the following 24 hours. CO2 is is rapidly absorbed by the intestinal mucosa and exhaled through respiration. AI colonoscopy has usually been the reference standard to compare colonoscopy using CO2 insufflation. In two recent articles AI was compared to either CO2 insufflation and Water-aided colonoscopy (WAC), which entails infusion of water to facilitate insertion to the cecum. WAC can be categorized broadly in Water Immersion (WI) and Water Exchange (WE). In WI water is infused during the insertion phase of colonoscopy, with removal of infused water predominantly during withdrawal. Occasional use of insufflation may be allowed. WE entails complete exclusion of insufflation, removal of residual colonic air pockets and feces, and suction of infused water predominantly during insertion to minimize distention. During the withdrawal phase insufflation is used to distend the colonic lumen. In the WAC arms of the two mentioned articles the insertion method used was WI, with infusion of water at room temperature or at 37°C. During withdrawal, air insufflation or either air or CO2 insufflation were employed. Compared to AI, CO2 insufflation and WI (using room air insufflation or CO2 insufflation during withdrawal) were effective in both studies in decreasing sedation requirement, pain and tolerance scores, with patients' higher willingness to repeat the procedure. Until now no direct comparison has been made within a single study about pain score during colonoscopy using AI, CO2 insufflation, WI/CO2, WE/CO2, WI/AI and WE/AI. In this study we test the hypothesis that, compared to AI, CO2 insufflation and WAC/CO2-AI methods will decrease pain score during colonoscopy, with reduction of sedation requirement, and that WE will achieve the best result. This comparative study has also the aim to test the respective peculiarities of each method.
Room air insufflated during colonoscopy cannot be completely suctioned, is not easily absorbed and remains in the bowel for quite some time, resulting in prolonged bowel distension with the discomfort of bloating. Sufferers often experience a sensation of fullness and abdominal pressure, relieved only after expulsion of the residual gas, often accompanied by colic pain. This can be a lengthy process, and some patients continue to report pain as long as 24 hours after the procedure. Abdominal discomfort after colonoscopy is an adverse event commonly reported by patients, and definitely associated with the procedure. Published reports show that the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation significantly decreases bloating and pain up to 24 hours post-procedure. Preliminary results of the investigators' previous study about on-demand sedation colonoscopy in diagnostic patients showed that, compared with CO2 insufflation, the water exchange group (WE, infusion of water to distend the lumen during insertion; suction of infused water, residual air pockets an feces predominantly during insertion) achieved significantly lower real-time insertion pain scores. Moreover (insertion-withdrawal method) WE-CO2 had the lowest bloating scores just after the procedure and at discharge, comparable with those achieved by CO2-CO2. Compared with WE-CO2, the use of WE-air insufflation (AI) showed significantly higher bloating scores just after the procedure and at discharge; compared with CO2-CO2 differences were significant only at discharge. The investigators decided to conduct a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing WE-CO2, WE-AI and CO2-CO2. The investigators will test the hypothesis that patients examined by the combination of WE-CO2 will have significantly lower bloating scores at specific time points after colonoscopy than those examined using WE-AI or CO2-CO2. The investigators will also assess the impact of these three methods on patients comfort and activities in the post-procedure period.
Interval (missed) cancers and lower than expected mortality reduction of proximal colon cancers in the United States and elsewhere after screening colonoscopy drew attention to quality indicators. Missed adenomas which are more likely to be in the proximal colon may be contributing factors. An independent predictor of the risk of interval cancers is adenoma detection rate. In pilot observations, the investigators showed that water exchange enhanced adenoma detection in the right colon (cecum to hepatic flexure). This prospective, randomized controlled trial will compare water exchange with water immersion and traditional air insufflation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. The investigators test the hypothesis that compared with air insufflation and water immersion, water exchange produces a significantly higher adenoma detection rate in the right colon
Water exchange (WE) method has been shown to reduce medication requirement and pain experience during the colonoscopy. Cap-assisted colonoscopy aided by air may also reduced the insertion pain. Therefore, the immediate aim of this study is to assess the generalizability of the impact of WE plus cap (WECAC), as a potentially less painful insertion technique than WE. The control group will use water infusion in lieu of air insufflation during insertion of the colonoscope. The study group will added a cap onto the end of colonoscope during the WE method procedure. This study will also demonstrate if the WECAC method have a shorter insertion time and higher proximal colon adenoma detection rate (ADR) than WE alone in Veterans.
The degree of protection afforded by colonoscopy against proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) appears to be related to the quality of the procedure, and the incomplete removal of lesions has been shown to increase the subsequent risk of developing a colon cancer. Some studies suggest that small polyps with advanced histology are more common in the right than in the left colon (right colon proximal to splenic flexure, left colon distal to the splenic flexure). The average size of polyps in the right colon with advanced pathology or containing adenocarcinoma was ≤9 mm, whereas in the left colon their average size was \>9 mm, P\<0.001. Inadequate prevention of right-sided CRC incidence and mortality may be due to right-sided polyps with advanced histology or that harbor malignancy. These presumptive precursors of cancer are smaller and possibly more easily obscured by residual feces, and more likely to be missed at colonoscopy. Water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) can be subdivided broadly into two major categories: water immersion (WI), characterized by suction removal of the infused water predominantly during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy, and water exchange (WE), characterized by suction removal of infused water predominantly during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. In some reports WE appeared to be superior to both WI and air insufflation colonoscopy (AI) in terms of pain reduction and adenoma detection, particularly for \<10 mm adenomas in the proximal colon. In this multicenter, double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) we test the hypothesis that that WE, compared to AI and WI, will enhance overall Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) in CRC screening patients. Confirmation of the primary hypothesis will provide evidence that WE enhances the quality of screening colonoscopy. We also hypothesize that WE may be more effective in detecting proximal colon adenomas than WI and AI, particularly \<10 mm adenomas, thus increasing proximal colon ADR and proximal colon ADR \<10 mm. Confirmation of secondary hypotheses will provide justification for further testing that WE may provide a strategy to improve prevention of colorectal cancer by increasing detection of adenomas in screening colonoscopy. Unlike previous reports of single colonoscopist studies, the insertion and withdrawal phases of colonoscopy will be done by different investigators. The second investigator will be blinded to the method used to insert the instrument, thus eliminating possible bias about procedure related issues. Several secondary outcomes will also be analysed.
Interval (missed) cancers and lower than expected mortality reduction of proximal colon cancers in the United States and elsewhere after screening colonoscopy drew attention to quality indicators. Missed adenomas which are more likely to be in the proximal colon may be contributing factors. An independent predictor of the risk of interval cancers is adenoma detection rate. In pilot observations, the investigators showed that water exchange enhanced adenoma detection in the right colon (cecum to hepatic flexure). This prospective, randomized controlled trial will compare water exchange with water immersion and traditional air insufflation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. The investigators test the hypothesis that compared with air insufflation and water immersion, water exchange produces a significantly higher adenoma detection rate in the right colon.
The purpose of this study is to determine if screening colonoscopy performed on adults with the water exchange method, as opposed to the air method, will have a higher adenoma detection rate.
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator of colonoscopy performed for colorectal cancer screening. Population studies have shown that traditional air colonoscopy fails to eliminate post screening colonoscopy cancers or cancer mortality in the proximal colon. The investigators aim to establish the superior effectiveness of combining chromoendoscopy with the water exchange method in detecting more proximal diminutive adenomas during screening colonoscopy in sedated Veterans. An improved adenoma detection rate associated with optical colonoscopy will minimize the risk of missed lesions. The improvement may translate into a remedy for the limitations of screening colonoscopy in the proximal colon, e.g. a higher adenoma detection rate may minimize the burden of post screening colonoscopy interval colorectal cancers among the veteran population.