Endoscopy

Physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas vary based on several factors, including patient age, health, adenoma risk, and physician specialty, according to a national survey.

In general, physicians were more likely to recommend surveillance for patients at a younger age, with better health, and with prior high-risk adenomas. Additionally, a large proportion of physicians reported uncertainty about whether the benefits of continued surveillance outweighed the risk of harm in older adults.

“There are no existing surveillance colonoscopy guidelines that integrate patient age, health, and adenoma risk, and physicians report significant decisional uncertainty,” Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Developing the evidence base to evaluate the risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate available data and weigh risks and benefits are needed to address current gaps in care for older adults with prior adenomas,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Surveying physicians

National guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma removal at more frequent intervals than screening colonoscopy because of a higher risk of colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas. The high quality of screening colonoscopies coupled with an aging population means that many older adults have a history of adenomas and continue to undergo surveillance colonoscopies, the authors wrote.

The benefit-harm balance becomes uncertain as potential harms from the procedure increase with age. However, there is no clear guidance on when to stop surveillance in older adults following adenoma detection, they wrote.

Dr. Schoenborn and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 1,800 primary care physicians and 600 gastroenterologists between April and November 2021. The primary care group included internal medicine, family medicine, general practice, and geriatric medicine physicians.

The research team asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in a series of 12 vignettes that varied by patient age (75 or 85), patient health (good, medium, or poor), and prior adenoma risk (low or high).

Good health was described as well-controlled hypertension and living independently, whereas moderate health was described as moderate heart failure and has difficulty walking, and poor health was described as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygenand requires help with self-care.

For prior adenomas, high risk involved five tubular adenomas, one of which was 15 mm, and low risk involved two tubular adenomas, both of which were less than 10 mm. The survey also noted that the recommended surveillance intervals were 3 years in the high-risk scenario and 7 years in the low-risk scenario.

Researchers mailed 2,400 surveys and received 1,040 responses. They included 874 in the analysis because the physician respondents provided care to patients ages 65 and older and spent time seeing patients in clinic. Decisions about surveillance colonoscopies for adenomas in the absence of symptoms almost always occur in the outpatient setting, rather than acute or urgent care, the authors wrote.
 

Large variations found

Overall, physicians were less likely to recommend surveillance colonoscopies if the patient was older, had poor health, and had lower-risk adenomas. Patient age and health had larger effects on decision-making than adenoma risk, with health status having the largest effect.

About 20.6% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was 85, compared with 49.8% if the patient was 75. In addition, 7.1% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was in poor health, compared with 28.8% for those in moderate health, and 67.7% for patients in good health.

If the prior adenoma was low risk, 29.7% of physicians recommended surveillance, compared with 41.6% if the prior adenoma was high risk.

In general, family medicine and general practice physicians were most likely to recommend surveillance, at 40%, and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance, at 30.9%. Patient age and health had larger effects among gastroenterologists than among primary care physicians, and adenoma risk had similar effects between the two groups.

“The importance of patient age and health status found in our study mirrors study results on physician decision-making regarding screening colonoscopies in older adults and makes intuitive sense,” the authors wrote. “Whether the priorities reflected in our findings are supported by evidence is not clear, and our results highlight important knowledge gaps in the field that warrant future research.”
 

Physician uncertainty

Additional guidance would be helpful, the authors wrote. In the survey, about 52.3% of primary care physicians and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty about the benefit–harm balance of surveillance in older adults.

“Current guidelines on surveillance colonoscopies are solely based on prior adenoma characteristics,” the authors wrote. “Guidelines need to incorporate guidance that considers patient age and health status, as well as adenoma risk, and explicitly considers when surveillance should stop in older adults.”

In addition, most physicians in the survey – 85.9% of primary care physicians and 77% of gastroenterologists – said they would find a decision support tool helpful. At the same time, 32.8% of primary care physicians and 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist’s role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

“Developing patient-facing materials, communication tools for clinicians, and tools to support shared decision-making about surveillance colonoscopies that engage both physicians and patients are all important next steps,” the authors wrote. “To our knowledge, there is no existing patient decision aid about surveillance colonoscopies; developing such a tool may be valuable.”

The study was supported by Dr. Schoenborn’s career development award from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas vary based on several factors, including patient age, health, adenoma risk, and physician specialty, according to a national survey.

In general, physicians were more likely to recommend surveillance for patients at a younger age, with better health, and with prior high-risk adenomas. Additionally, a large proportion of physicians reported uncertainty about whether the benefits of continued surveillance outweighed the risk of harm in older adults.

“There are no existing surveillance colonoscopy guidelines that integrate patient age, health, and adenoma risk, and physicians report significant decisional uncertainty,” Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Developing the evidence base to evaluate the risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate available data and weigh risks and benefits are needed to address current gaps in care for older adults with prior adenomas,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Surveying physicians

National guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma removal at more frequent intervals than screening colonoscopy because of a higher risk of colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas. The high quality of screening colonoscopies coupled with an aging population means that many older adults have a history of adenomas and continue to undergo surveillance colonoscopies, the authors wrote.

The benefit-harm balance becomes uncertain as potential harms from the procedure increase with age. However, there is no clear guidance on when to stop surveillance in older adults following adenoma detection, they wrote.

Dr. Schoenborn and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 1,800 primary care physicians and 600 gastroenterologists between April and November 2021. The primary care group included internal medicine, family medicine, general practice, and geriatric medicine physicians.

The research team asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in a series of 12 vignettes that varied by patient age (75 or 85), patient health (good, medium, or poor), and prior adenoma risk (low or high).

Good health was described as well-controlled hypertension and living independently, whereas moderate health was described as moderate heart failure and has difficulty walking, and poor health was described as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygenand requires help with self-care.

For prior adenomas, high risk involved five tubular adenomas, one of which was 15 mm, and low risk involved two tubular adenomas, both of which were less than 10 mm. The survey also noted that the recommended surveillance intervals were 3 years in the high-risk scenario and 7 years in the low-risk scenario.

Researchers mailed 2,400 surveys and received 1,040 responses. They included 874 in the analysis because the physician respondents provided care to patients ages 65 and older and spent time seeing patients in clinic. Decisions about surveillance colonoscopies for adenomas in the absence of symptoms almost always occur in the outpatient setting, rather than acute or urgent care, the authors wrote.
 

Large variations found

Overall, physicians were less likely to recommend surveillance colonoscopies if the patient was older, had poor health, and had lower-risk adenomas. Patient age and health had larger effects on decision-making than adenoma risk, with health status having the largest effect.

About 20.6% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was 85, compared with 49.8% if the patient was 75. In addition, 7.1% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was in poor health, compared with 28.8% for those in moderate health, and 67.7% for patients in good health.

If the prior adenoma was low risk, 29.7% of physicians recommended surveillance, compared with 41.6% if the prior adenoma was high risk.

In general, family medicine and general practice physicians were most likely to recommend surveillance, at 40%, and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance, at 30.9%. Patient age and health had larger effects among gastroenterologists than among primary care physicians, and adenoma risk had similar effects between the two groups.

“The importance of patient age and health status found in our study mirrors study results on physician decision-making regarding screening colonoscopies in older adults and makes intuitive sense,” the authors wrote. “Whether the priorities reflected in our findings are supported by evidence is not clear, and our results highlight important knowledge gaps in the field that warrant future research.”
 

Physician uncertainty

Additional guidance would be helpful, the authors wrote. In the survey, about 52.3% of primary care physicians and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty about the benefit–harm balance of surveillance in older adults.

“Current guidelines on surveillance colonoscopies are solely based on prior adenoma characteristics,” the authors wrote. “Guidelines need to incorporate guidance that considers patient age and health status, as well as adenoma risk, and explicitly considers when surveillance should stop in older adults.”

In addition, most physicians in the survey – 85.9% of primary care physicians and 77% of gastroenterologists – said they would find a decision support tool helpful. At the same time, 32.8% of primary care physicians and 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist’s role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

“Developing patient-facing materials, communication tools for clinicians, and tools to support shared decision-making about surveillance colonoscopies that engage both physicians and patients are all important next steps,” the authors wrote. “To our knowledge, there is no existing patient decision aid about surveillance colonoscopies; developing such a tool may be valuable.”

The study was supported by Dr. Schoenborn’s career development award from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas vary based on several factors, including patient age, health, adenoma risk, and physician specialty, according to a national survey.

In general, physicians were more likely to recommend surveillance for patients at a younger age, with better health, and with prior high-risk adenomas. Additionally, a large proportion of physicians reported uncertainty about whether the benefits of continued surveillance outweighed the risk of harm in older adults.

“There are no existing surveillance colonoscopy guidelines that integrate patient age, health, and adenoma risk, and physicians report significant decisional uncertainty,” Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

“Developing the evidence base to evaluate the risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate available data and weigh risks and benefits are needed to address current gaps in care for older adults with prior adenomas,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Surveying physicians

National guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy after adenoma removal at more frequent intervals than screening colonoscopy because of a higher risk of colorectal cancer among patients with adenomas. The high quality of screening colonoscopies coupled with an aging population means that many older adults have a history of adenomas and continue to undergo surveillance colonoscopies, the authors wrote.

The benefit-harm balance becomes uncertain as potential harms from the procedure increase with age. However, there is no clear guidance on when to stop surveillance in older adults following adenoma detection, they wrote.

Dr. Schoenborn and colleagues conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 1,800 primary care physicians and 600 gastroenterologists between April and November 2021. The primary care group included internal medicine, family medicine, general practice, and geriatric medicine physicians.

The research team asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in a series of 12 vignettes that varied by patient age (75 or 85), patient health (good, medium, or poor), and prior adenoma risk (low or high).

Good health was described as well-controlled hypertension and living independently, whereas moderate health was described as moderate heart failure and has difficulty walking, and poor health was described as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on oxygenand requires help with self-care.

For prior adenomas, high risk involved five tubular adenomas, one of which was 15 mm, and low risk involved two tubular adenomas, both of which were less than 10 mm. The survey also noted that the recommended surveillance intervals were 3 years in the high-risk scenario and 7 years in the low-risk scenario.

Researchers mailed 2,400 surveys and received 1,040 responses. They included 874 in the analysis because the physician respondents provided care to patients ages 65 and older and spent time seeing patients in clinic. Decisions about surveillance colonoscopies for adenomas in the absence of symptoms almost always occur in the outpatient setting, rather than acute or urgent care, the authors wrote.
 

Large variations found

Overall, physicians were less likely to recommend surveillance colonoscopies if the patient was older, had poor health, and had lower-risk adenomas. Patient age and health had larger effects on decision-making than adenoma risk, with health status having the largest effect.

About 20.6% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was 85, compared with 49.8% if the patient was 75. In addition, 7.1% of physicians recommended surveillance if the patient was in poor health, compared with 28.8% for those in moderate health, and 67.7% for patients in good health.

If the prior adenoma was low risk, 29.7% of physicians recommended surveillance, compared with 41.6% if the prior adenoma was high risk.

In general, family medicine and general practice physicians were most likely to recommend surveillance, at 40%, and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance, at 30.9%. Patient age and health had larger effects among gastroenterologists than among primary care physicians, and adenoma risk had similar effects between the two groups.

“The importance of patient age and health status found in our study mirrors study results on physician decision-making regarding screening colonoscopies in older adults and makes intuitive sense,” the authors wrote. “Whether the priorities reflected in our findings are supported by evidence is not clear, and our results highlight important knowledge gaps in the field that warrant future research.”
 

Physician uncertainty

Additional guidance would be helpful, the authors wrote. In the survey, about 52.3% of primary care physicians and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty about the benefit–harm balance of surveillance in older adults.

“Current guidelines on surveillance colonoscopies are solely based on prior adenoma characteristics,” the authors wrote. “Guidelines need to incorporate guidance that considers patient age and health status, as well as adenoma risk, and explicitly considers when surveillance should stop in older adults.”

In addition, most physicians in the survey – 85.9% of primary care physicians and 77% of gastroenterologists – said they would find a decision support tool helpful. At the same time, 32.8% of primary care physicians and 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist’s role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies.

“Developing patient-facing materials, communication tools for clinicians, and tools to support shared decision-making about surveillance colonoscopies that engage both physicians and patients are all important next steps,” the authors wrote. “To our knowledge, there is no existing patient decision aid about surveillance colonoscopies; developing such a tool may be valuable.”

The study was supported by Dr. Schoenborn’s career development award from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research confirms that colonoscopies conducted later in an endoscopist’s shift are associated with a decline in adenoma detection and demonstrates that artificial intelligence (AI) can help eliminate the problem.

AI systems “may be a potential tool for minimizing time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality and further maintaining high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies in high-workload centers,” Honggang Yu, MD, with the department of gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan (China) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fatigue a factor?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a critical quality measure of screening colonoscopy. Time of day is a well-known factor related to suboptimal ADR – with morning colonoscopies associated with improved ADR and afternoon colonoscopies with reduced ADR, Dr. Yu and colleagues write.

“However, an objective approach to solve this problem is still lacking,” Dr. Yu said. AI systems have been shown to improve the ADR, but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown.

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of two prospective randomized controlled trials, in which a total of 1,780 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to either conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy. The ADR for early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were then compared.

Colonoscopy procedures were divided into two groups according to the end time of the procedure. The early group included procedures started in the early session per half day (8:00 a.m.–10:59 a.m. or 1:00 p.m.–2:59 p.m.). The late group included procedures started in the later session per half day (11:00 a.m.–12:59 p.m. or 3:00 p.m.–4:59 p.m.).

A total of 1,041 procedures were performed in the early sessions (357 conventional and 684 AI assisted). A total of 739 procedures were performed in the late sessions (263 conventional and 476 AI assisted).

In the unassisted colonoscopy group, later sessions per half day were associated with a decline in ADR (early vs. late, 13.73% vs. 5.7%; P = .005; odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-4.47).

With AI assistance, however, no such association was found in the ADR (early vs. late, 22.95% vs. 22.06%; P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). AI provided the highest assistance capability in the last hour per half day.

The decline in ADR in late sessions (vs. early sessions) was evident in different colonoscopy settings. The investigators say accrual of endoscopist fatigue may be an independent factor of time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality.

More exploration required

“We’re excited about the great potential of using the power of AI to assist endoscopists in quality control or disease diagnosis in colonoscopy practice, but it’s too early to see AI as the standard,” Dr. Yu told this news organization.

“Despite recent achievements in the design and validation of AI systems, much more exploration is required in the clinical application of AI,” Dr. Yu said.

Dr. Yu further explained that, in addition to regulatory approval, the results of AI output must be trusted by the endoscopist, which remains a challenge for current AI systems that lack interpretability.

“Therefore, at the current stage of AI development, AI models can only serve as an extra reminder to assist endoscopists in colonoscopy,” Dr. Yu said.

This study was supported by the Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province. The authors have indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/1/23.

New research confirms that colonoscopies conducted later in an endoscopist’s shift are associated with a decline in adenoma detection and demonstrates that artificial intelligence (AI) can help eliminate the problem.

AI systems “may be a potential tool for minimizing time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality and further maintaining high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies in high-workload centers,” Honggang Yu, MD, with the department of gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan (China) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fatigue a factor?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a critical quality measure of screening colonoscopy. Time of day is a well-known factor related to suboptimal ADR – with morning colonoscopies associated with improved ADR and afternoon colonoscopies with reduced ADR, Dr. Yu and colleagues write.

“However, an objective approach to solve this problem is still lacking,” Dr. Yu said. AI systems have been shown to improve the ADR, but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown.

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of two prospective randomized controlled trials, in which a total of 1,780 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to either conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy. The ADR for early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were then compared.

Colonoscopy procedures were divided into two groups according to the end time of the procedure. The early group included procedures started in the early session per half day (8:00 a.m.–10:59 a.m. or 1:00 p.m.–2:59 p.m.). The late group included procedures started in the later session per half day (11:00 a.m.–12:59 p.m. or 3:00 p.m.–4:59 p.m.).

A total of 1,041 procedures were performed in the early sessions (357 conventional and 684 AI assisted). A total of 739 procedures were performed in the late sessions (263 conventional and 476 AI assisted).

In the unassisted colonoscopy group, later sessions per half day were associated with a decline in ADR (early vs. late, 13.73% vs. 5.7%; P = .005; odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-4.47).

With AI assistance, however, no such association was found in the ADR (early vs. late, 22.95% vs. 22.06%; P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). AI provided the highest assistance capability in the last hour per half day.

The decline in ADR in late sessions (vs. early sessions) was evident in different colonoscopy settings. The investigators say accrual of endoscopist fatigue may be an independent factor of time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality.

More exploration required

“We’re excited about the great potential of using the power of AI to assist endoscopists in quality control or disease diagnosis in colonoscopy practice, but it’s too early to see AI as the standard,” Dr. Yu told this news organization.

“Despite recent achievements in the design and validation of AI systems, much more exploration is required in the clinical application of AI,” Dr. Yu said.

Dr. Yu further explained that, in addition to regulatory approval, the results of AI output must be trusted by the endoscopist, which remains a challenge for current AI systems that lack interpretability.

“Therefore, at the current stage of AI development, AI models can only serve as an extra reminder to assist endoscopists in colonoscopy,” Dr. Yu said.

This study was supported by the Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province. The authors have indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/1/23.

New research confirms that colonoscopies conducted later in an endoscopist’s shift are associated with a decline in adenoma detection and demonstrates that artificial intelligence (AI) can help eliminate the problem.

AI systems “may be a potential tool for minimizing time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality and further maintaining high quality and homogeneity of colonoscopies in high-workload centers,” Honggang Yu, MD, with the department of gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan (China) University, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Fatigue a factor?

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a critical quality measure of screening colonoscopy. Time of day is a well-known factor related to suboptimal ADR – with morning colonoscopies associated with improved ADR and afternoon colonoscopies with reduced ADR, Dr. Yu and colleagues write.

“However, an objective approach to solve this problem is still lacking,” Dr. Yu said. AI systems have been shown to improve the ADR, but the performance of AI during different times of the day remains unknown.

This cohort study is a secondary analysis of two prospective randomized controlled trials, in which a total of 1,780 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to either conventional colonoscopy or AI-assisted colonoscopy. The ADR for early and late colonoscopy sessions per half day were then compared.

Colonoscopy procedures were divided into two groups according to the end time of the procedure. The early group included procedures started in the early session per half day (8:00 a.m.–10:59 a.m. or 1:00 p.m.–2:59 p.m.). The late group included procedures started in the later session per half day (11:00 a.m.–12:59 p.m. or 3:00 p.m.–4:59 p.m.).

A total of 1,041 procedures were performed in the early sessions (357 conventional and 684 AI assisted). A total of 739 procedures were performed in the late sessions (263 conventional and 476 AI assisted).

In the unassisted colonoscopy group, later sessions per half day were associated with a decline in ADR (early vs. late, 13.73% vs. 5.7%; P = .005; odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-4.47).

With AI assistance, however, no such association was found in the ADR (early vs. late, 22.95% vs. 22.06%; P = .78; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). AI provided the highest assistance capability in the last hour per half day.

The decline in ADR in late sessions (vs. early sessions) was evident in different colonoscopy settings. The investigators say accrual of endoscopist fatigue may be an independent factor of time-related degradation of colonoscopy quality.

More exploration required

“We’re excited about the great potential of using the power of AI to assist endoscopists in quality control or disease diagnosis in colonoscopy practice, but it’s too early to see AI as the standard,” Dr. Yu told this news organization.

“Despite recent achievements in the design and validation of AI systems, much more exploration is required in the clinical application of AI,” Dr. Yu said.

Dr. Yu further explained that, in addition to regulatory approval, the results of AI output must be trusted by the endoscopist, which remains a challenge for current AI systems that lack interpretability.

“Therefore, at the current stage of AI development, AI models can only serve as an extra reminder to assist endoscopists in colonoscopy,” Dr. Yu said.

This study was supported by the Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province. The authors have indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 2/1/23.

In a head-to-head comparison, two commercially available computer-aided diagnosis systems appeared clinically equivalent for the optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps, according to a research letter published in Gastroenterology.

For the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps, the comparable performances of both CAD EYE (Fujifilm Co.) and GI Genius (Medtronic) met cutoff guidelines to implement the cost-saving leave-in-situ and resect-and-discard strategies, wrote Cesare Hassan, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology at Humanitas University and member of the endoscopy unit at Humanitas Clinical Research Hospital in Milan, and colleagues.

“Screening colonoscopy is effective in reducing colorectal cancer risk but also represents a substantial financial burden,” the authors wrote. “Novel strategies based on artificial intelligence may enable targeted removal only of polyps deemed to be neoplastic, thus reducing patient burden for unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps and reducing costs for histopathology.”

Several computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems are commercially available for optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps, the authors wrote. However, each artificial intelligence (AI) system has been trained and validated with different polyp datasets, which may contribute to variability and affect the clinical outcome of optical diagnosis-based strategies.

Dr. Hassan and colleagues conducted a prospective comparison trial at a single center to look at the real-life performances of two CADx systems on optical diagnosis of polyps smaller than 5 mm.

At colonoscopy, the same polyp was visualized by the same endoscopist on two different monitors simultaneously with the respective output from each of the two CADx systems. Pre- and post-CADx human diagnoses were also collected.

Between January 2022 and March 2022, 176 consecutive patients age 40 and older underwent colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polypectomy surveillance, or gastrointestinal symptoms. About 60.8% of participants were men, and the average age was 60.

Among 543 polyps detected and removed, 169 (31.3%) were adenomas, and 373 (68.7%) were nonadenomas. Of those, 325 (59.9%) were rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less in diameter and eligible for analyses in the study. This included 44 adenomas (13.5%) and 281 nonadenomas (86.5%).

The two CADx systems were grouped as CADx-A for CAD EYE and CADx-B for GI Genius. CADx-A provided prediction output for all 325 rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less, whereas CADx-B wasn’t able to provide output for six of the nonadenomas, which were excluded from the analysis.

The negative predictive value (NPV) for rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less was 97% for CADx-A and 97.7% for CADx-B, the authors wrote. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends a threshold for optical diagnosis of at least 90%.

In addition, the sensitivity for adenomas was 81.8% for CADx-A and 86.4% for CADx-B. The accuracy of CADx-A was slightly higher, at 93.2%, as compared with 91.5% for CADx-B.

Based on AI prediction alone, 269 of 319 polyps (84.3%) with CADx-A and 260 of 319 polyps (81.5%) with CADx-B would have been classified as nonneoplastic and avoided removal. This corresponded to a specificity of 94.9% for CADx-A and 92.4% for CADx-B, which wasn’t significantly different, the authors wrote. Concordance in histology prediction between the two systems was 94.7%.

Based on the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) guidelines, the agreement with histopathology in surveillance interval assignment was 84.7% for CADx-A and 89.2% for CADx-B. Based on the 2020 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines, the agreement was 98.3% for both systems.

For rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less, the NPV of unassisted optical diagnosis was 97.8% for a high-confidence diagnosis, but it wasn’t significantly different from the NPV of CADx-A (96.9%) or CADx-B (97.6%). The NPV of a CADx-assisted optical diagnosis at high confidence was 97.7%, without statistically significant differences as compared with unassisted interpretation.

Based on the 2020 USMSTF and ESGE guidelines, the agreement between unassisted interpretation and histopathology in surveillance interval assignment was 92.6% and 98.9%, respectively. There was total agreement between unassisted interpretation and CADx-assisted interpretation in surveillance interval assignment based on both guidelines.

As in previous findings, unassisted endoscopic diagnosis was on par with CADx-assisted, both in technical accuracy and clinical outcomes. The study authors attributed the lack of additional benefit from CADx to a high performance of unassisted-endoscopist diagnosis, with the 97.8% NPV for rectosigmoid polyps and 90% or greater concordance in postpolypectomy surveillance intervals with histology. In addition, a human endoscopist was the only one to achieve 90% or greater agreement in postpolypectomy surveillance intervals under the U.S. guidelines, mainly due to a very high specificity.

“This confirms the complexity of the human-machine interaction that should not be marginalized in the stand-alone performance of the machine,” the authors wrote.

However, the high accuracy of unassisted endoscopists in the academic center in Italy is unlikely to mirror the real performance in community settings, they added. Future studies should focus on nontertiary centers to show the additional benefit, if any, that CADx provides for leave-in-situ colorectal polyps.

“A high degree of concordance in clinical outcomes was shown when directly comparing in vivo two different systems of CADx,” the authors concluded. “This reassured our confidence in the standardization of performance that may be achieved with the incorporation of AI in clinical practice, irrespective of the availability of multiple systems.”

The study authors declared no funding source for this study. Several authors reported consulting relationships with numerous companies, including Fuji and Medtronic, which make the CAD EYE and GI Genius systems, respectively.

In a head-to-head comparison, two commercially available computer-aided diagnosis systems appeared clinically equivalent for the optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps, according to a research letter published in Gastroenterology.

For the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps, the comparable performances of both CAD EYE (Fujifilm Co.) and GI Genius (Medtronic) met cutoff guidelines to implement the cost-saving leave-in-situ and resect-and-discard strategies, wrote Cesare Hassan, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology at Humanitas University and member of the endoscopy unit at Humanitas Clinical Research Hospital in Milan, and colleagues.

“Screening colonoscopy is effective in reducing colorectal cancer risk but also represents a substantial financial burden,” the authors wrote. “Novel strategies based on artificial intelligence may enable targeted removal only of polyps deemed to be neoplastic, thus reducing patient burden for unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps and reducing costs for histopathology.”

Several computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems are commercially available for optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps, the authors wrote. However, each artificial intelligence (AI) system has been trained and validated with different polyp datasets, which may contribute to variability and affect the clinical outcome of optical diagnosis-based strategies.

Dr. Hassan and colleagues conducted a prospective comparison trial at a single center to look at the real-life performances of two CADx systems on optical diagnosis of polyps smaller than 5 mm.

At colonoscopy, the same polyp was visualized by the same endoscopist on two different monitors simultaneously with the respective output from each of the two CADx systems. Pre- and post-CADx human diagnoses were also collected.

Between January 2022 and March 2022, 176 consecutive patients age 40 and older underwent colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polypectomy surveillance, or gastrointestinal symptoms. About 60.8% of participants were men, and the average age was 60.

Among 543 polyps detected and removed, 169 (31.3%) were adenomas, and 373 (68.7%) were nonadenomas. Of those, 325 (59.9%) were rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less in diameter and eligible for analyses in the study. This included 44 adenomas (13.5%) and 281 nonadenomas (86.5%).

The two CADx systems were grouped as CADx-A for CAD EYE and CADx-B for GI Genius. CADx-A provided prediction output for all 325 rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less, whereas CADx-B wasn’t able to provide output for six of the nonadenomas, which were excluded from the analysis.

The negative predictive value (NPV) for rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less was 97% for CADx-A and 97.7% for CADx-B, the authors wrote. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends a threshold for optical diagnosis of at least 90%.

In addition, the sensitivity for adenomas was 81.8% for CADx-A and 86.4% for CADx-B. The accuracy of CADx-A was slightly higher, at 93.2%, as compared with 91.5% for CADx-B.

Based on AI prediction alone, 269 of 319 polyps (84.3%) with CADx-A and 260 of 319 polyps (81.5%) with CADx-B would have been classified as nonneoplastic and avoided removal. This corresponded to a specificity of 94.9% for CADx-A and 92.4% for CADx-B, which wasn’t significantly different, the authors wrote. Concordance in histology prediction between the two systems was 94.7%.

Based on the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) guidelines, the agreement with histopathology in surveillance interval assignment was 84.7% for CADx-A and 89.2% for CADx-B. Based on the 2020 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines, the agreement was 98.3% for both systems.

For rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less, the NPV of unassisted optical diagnosis was 97.8% for a high-confidence diagnosis, but it wasn’t significantly different from the NPV of CADx-A (96.9%) or CADx-B (97.6%). The NPV of a CADx-assisted optical diagnosis at high confidence was 97.7%, without statistically significant differences as compared with unassisted interpretation.

Based on the 2020 USMSTF and ESGE guidelines, the agreement between unassisted interpretation and histopathology in surveillance interval assignment was 92.6% and 98.9%, respectively. There was total agreement between unassisted interpretation and CADx-assisted interpretation in surveillance interval assignment based on both guidelines.

As in previous findings, unassisted endoscopic diagnosis was on par with CADx-assisted, both in technical accuracy and clinical outcomes. The study authors attributed the lack of additional benefit from CADx to a high performance of unassisted-endoscopist diagnosis, with the 97.8% NPV for rectosigmoid polyps and 90% or greater concordance in postpolypectomy surveillance intervals with histology. In addition, a human endoscopist was the only one to achieve 90% or greater agreement in postpolypectomy surveillance intervals under the U.S. guidelines, mainly due to a very high specificity.

“This confirms the complexity of the human-machine interaction that should not be marginalized in the stand-alone performance of the machine,” the authors wrote.

However, the high accuracy of unassisted endoscopists in the academic center in Italy is unlikely to mirror the real performance in community settings, they added. Future studies should focus on nontertiary centers to show the additional benefit, if any, that CADx provides for leave-in-situ colorectal polyps.

“A high degree of concordance in clinical outcomes was shown when directly comparing in vivo two different systems of CADx,” the authors concluded. “This reassured our confidence in the standardization of performance that may be achieved with the incorporation of AI in clinical practice, irrespective of the availability of multiple systems.”

The study authors declared no funding source for this study. Several authors reported consulting relationships with numerous companies, including Fuji and Medtronic, which make the CAD EYE and GI Genius systems, respectively.

In a head-to-head comparison, two commercially available computer-aided diagnosis systems appeared clinically equivalent for the optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps, according to a research letter published in Gastroenterology.

For the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps, the comparable performances of both CAD EYE (Fujifilm Co.) and GI Genius (Medtronic) met cutoff guidelines to implement the cost-saving leave-in-situ and resect-and-discard strategies, wrote Cesare Hassan, MD, PhD, associate professor of gastroenterology at Humanitas University and member of the endoscopy unit at Humanitas Clinical Research Hospital in Milan, and colleagues.

“Screening colonoscopy is effective in reducing colorectal cancer risk but also represents a substantial financial burden,” the authors wrote. “Novel strategies based on artificial intelligence may enable targeted removal only of polyps deemed to be neoplastic, thus reducing patient burden for unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps and reducing costs for histopathology.”

Several computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems are commercially available for optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps, the authors wrote. However, each artificial intelligence (AI) system has been trained and validated with different polyp datasets, which may contribute to variability and affect the clinical outcome of optical diagnosis-based strategies.

Dr. Hassan and colleagues conducted a prospective comparison trial at a single center to look at the real-life performances of two CADx systems on optical diagnosis of polyps smaller than 5 mm.

At colonoscopy, the same polyp was visualized by the same endoscopist on two different monitors simultaneously with the respective output from each of the two CADx systems. Pre- and post-CADx human diagnoses were also collected.

Between January 2022 and March 2022, 176 consecutive patients age 40 and older underwent colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polypectomy surveillance, or gastrointestinal symptoms. About 60.8% of participants were men, and the average age was 60.

Among 543 polyps detected and removed, 169 (31.3%) were adenomas, and 373 (68.7%) were nonadenomas. Of those, 325 (59.9%) were rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less in diameter and eligible for analyses in the study. This included 44 adenomas (13.5%) and 281 nonadenomas (86.5%).

The two CADx systems were grouped as CADx-A for CAD EYE and CADx-B for GI Genius. CADx-A provided prediction output for all 325 rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less, whereas CADx-B wasn’t able to provide output for six of the nonadenomas, which were excluded from the analysis.

The negative predictive value (NPV) for rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less was 97% for CADx-A and 97.7% for CADx-B, the authors wrote. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends a threshold for optical diagnosis of at least 90%.

In addition, the sensitivity for adenomas was 81.8% for CADx-A and 86.4% for CADx-B. The accuracy of CADx-A was slightly higher, at 93.2%, as compared with 91.5% for CADx-B.

Based on AI prediction alone, 269 of 319 polyps (84.3%) with CADx-A and 260 of 319 polyps (81.5%) with CADx-B would have been classified as nonneoplastic and avoided removal. This corresponded to a specificity of 94.9% for CADx-A and 92.4% for CADx-B, which wasn’t significantly different, the authors wrote. Concordance in histology prediction between the two systems was 94.7%.

Based on the 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) guidelines, the agreement with histopathology in surveillance interval assignment was 84.7% for CADx-A and 89.2% for CADx-B. Based on the 2020 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines, the agreement was 98.3% for both systems.

For rectosigmoid polyps of 5 mm or less, the NPV of unassisted optical diagnosis was 97.8% for a high-confidence diagnosis, but it wasn’t significantly different from the NPV of CADx-A (96.9%) or CADx-B (97.6%). The NPV of a CADx-assisted optical diagnosis at high confidence was 97.7%, without statistically significant differences as compared with unassisted interpretation.

Based on the 2020 USMSTF and ESGE guidelines, the agreement between unassisted interpretation and histopathology in surveillance interval assignment was 92.6% and 98.9%, respectively. There was total agreement between unassisted interpretation and CADx-assisted interpretation in surveillance interval assignment based on both guidelines.

As in previous findings, unassisted endoscopic diagnosis was on par with CADx-assisted, both in technical accuracy and clinical outcomes. The study authors attributed the lack of additional benefit from CADx to a high performance of unassisted-endoscopist diagnosis, with the 97.8% NPV for rectosigmoid polyps and 90% or greater concordance in postpolypectomy surveillance intervals with histology. In addition, a human endoscopist was the only one to achieve 90% or greater agreement in postpolypectomy surveillance intervals under the U.S. guidelines, mainly due to a very high specificity.

“This confirms the complexity of the human-machine interaction that should not be marginalized in the stand-alone performance of the machine,” the authors wrote.

However, the high accuracy of unassisted endoscopists in the academic center in Italy is unlikely to mirror the real performance in community settings, they added. Future studies should focus on nontertiary centers to show the additional benefit, if any, that CADx provides for leave-in-situ colorectal polyps.

“A high degree of concordance in clinical outcomes was shown when directly comparing in vivo two different systems of CADx,” the authors concluded. “This reassured our confidence in the standardization of performance that may be achieved with the incorporation of AI in clinical practice, irrespective of the availability of multiple systems.”

The study authors declared no funding source for this study. Several authors reported consulting relationships with numerous companies, including Fuji and Medtronic, which make the CAD EYE and GI Genius systems, respectively.

Measurement of the proximal adenoma detection rate may be an important new quality metric for screening colonoscopy, propose researchers in a study that found proportionately more adenomas detected in the right colon with increasing patient age.

As patients age, in fact, the rate of increase of proximal adenomas is far greater than for distal adenomas in both men and women and in all races, wrote Lawrence Kosinski, MD, founder and chief medical officer of Sonar MD in Chicago, and colleagues.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR), the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by a physician that detect at least one histologically confirmed colorectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma, has become an accepted quality metric because of the association of high ADR with lower rates of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (CRC).  ADR varies widely among endoscopists, however, which could be related to differences in adenoma detection in different parts of the colon.

“An endoscopist could perform a high-quality examination of the distal colon and find one adenoma but at the same time miss important pathology in the proximal colon,” the authors wrote. “These differences could be clinically important if CRC occurs after colonoscopy.” The study was published in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy .

Dr. Kosinski and colleagues analyzed retrospective claims data from all colonoscopies performed between 2016-2018 submitted to the Health Care Service Corporation, which is the exclusive Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee for Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Montana. All 50 states were represented in the patient population, though Illinois and Texas accounted for 66% of the cases.

The research team limited the study group to include patients who underwent a screening colonoscopy, representing 30.9% of the total population. They further refined the data to include only screening colonoscopies performed by the 710 endoscopists with at least 100 screenings during the study period, representing 34.5% of the total patients. They also excluded 10,685 cases with family history because the high-risk patients could alter the results.

Using ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified the polyp detection locations and then calculated the ADR for the entire colon (T-ADR) and both the proximal (P-ADR) and distal (D-ADR) colon to determine differences in the ratio of P-ADR versus D-ADR by age, sex, and race. They were unable to determine whether the polyps were adenomas or sessile serrated lesions, so the ADR calculations include both.

The 182,296 screening colonoscopies included 93,164 women (51%) and 89,132 men (49%). About 79% of patients were aged 50-64 years, and 5.8% were under age 50. The dataset preceded the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to initiate screening at age 45.

Overall, T-ADR was consistent with accepted norms in both men (25.99%) and women (19.72%). Compared with women, men had a 4.5% higher prevalence of proximal adenomas and a 2.5% higher prevalence of distal adenomas at any age. The small cohort of Native Americans (296 patients) had a numerically higher T-ADR, P-ADR, and D-ADR than other groups.

By age, T-ADR increased significantly with advancing age, from 0.13 in patients under age 40 to 0.39 in ages 70 and older. The increase was driven by a sharp rise in P-ADR, particularly after age 60. There was a relatively small increase in D-ADR after ages 45-49.

Notably, the P-ADR/D-ADR ratio increased from 1.2 in patients under age 40 to 2.65 in ages 75 and older in both men and women.

Since the experience of the endoscopist affects ADR, the research team also calculated the ADR data by the number of total colonoscopies by endoscopist per decile. T-ADR, P-ADR, and D-ADR were associated directly in a linear relationship with the number of total colonoscopies performed. The slope of the P-ADR trendline was 2.3 times higher than the slope of the D-ADR trendline, indicating a higher volume of procedures directly related to higher polyp detection – specifically the P-ADR.

“Our data demonstrate that it is feasible to measure P-ADR in clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “We propose that P-ADR be considered a quality metric for colonoscopy.”

In addition, because of considerable variation in ADR based on age and sex, calculated ADR should be normalized by the age and sex of the specific patient profile of each endoscopist so relevant benchmarks can be established based on practice demographics, they wrote. For example, an endoscopist with a practice that includes predominantly younger women would have a different benchmark than a colleague with an older male population.

“With appropriate use of gender and age adjustments to ADR, endoscopists in need of further education and mentoring can be identified,” they wrote.

The authors declared no funding for the study. One author reported advisory roles for several medical companies, and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Measurement of the proximal adenoma detection rate may be an important new quality metric for screening colonoscopy, propose researchers in a study that found proportionately more adenomas detected in the right colon with increasing patient age.

As patients age, in fact, the rate of increase of proximal adenomas is far greater than for distal adenomas in both men and women and in all races, wrote Lawrence Kosinski, MD, founder and chief medical officer of Sonar MD in Chicago, and colleagues.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR), the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by a physician that detect at least one histologically confirmed colorectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma, has become an accepted quality metric because of the association of high ADR with lower rates of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (CRC).  ADR varies widely among endoscopists, however, which could be related to differences in adenoma detection in different parts of the colon.

“An endoscopist could perform a high-quality examination of the distal colon and find one adenoma but at the same time miss important pathology in the proximal colon,” the authors wrote. “These differences could be clinically important if CRC occurs after colonoscopy.” The study was published in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy .

Dr. Kosinski and colleagues analyzed retrospective claims data from all colonoscopies performed between 2016-2018 submitted to the Health Care Service Corporation, which is the exclusive Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee for Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Montana. All 50 states were represented in the patient population, though Illinois and Texas accounted for 66% of the cases.

The research team limited the study group to include patients who underwent a screening colonoscopy, representing 30.9% of the total population. They further refined the data to include only screening colonoscopies performed by the 710 endoscopists with at least 100 screenings during the study period, representing 34.5% of the total patients. They also excluded 10,685 cases with family history because the high-risk patients could alter the results.

Using ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified the polyp detection locations and then calculated the ADR for the entire colon (T-ADR) and both the proximal (P-ADR) and distal (D-ADR) colon to determine differences in the ratio of P-ADR versus D-ADR by age, sex, and race. They were unable to determine whether the polyps were adenomas or sessile serrated lesions, so the ADR calculations include both.

The 182,296 screening colonoscopies included 93,164 women (51%) and 89,132 men (49%). About 79% of patients were aged 50-64 years, and 5.8% were under age 50. The dataset preceded the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to initiate screening at age 45.

Overall, T-ADR was consistent with accepted norms in both men (25.99%) and women (19.72%). Compared with women, men had a 4.5% higher prevalence of proximal adenomas and a 2.5% higher prevalence of distal adenomas at any age. The small cohort of Native Americans (296 patients) had a numerically higher T-ADR, P-ADR, and D-ADR than other groups.

By age, T-ADR increased significantly with advancing age, from 0.13 in patients under age 40 to 0.39 in ages 70 and older. The increase was driven by a sharp rise in P-ADR, particularly after age 60. There was a relatively small increase in D-ADR after ages 45-49.

Notably, the P-ADR/D-ADR ratio increased from 1.2 in patients under age 40 to 2.65 in ages 75 and older in both men and women.

Since the experience of the endoscopist affects ADR, the research team also calculated the ADR data by the number of total colonoscopies by endoscopist per decile. T-ADR, P-ADR, and D-ADR were associated directly in a linear relationship with the number of total colonoscopies performed. The slope of the P-ADR trendline was 2.3 times higher than the slope of the D-ADR trendline, indicating a higher volume of procedures directly related to higher polyp detection – specifically the P-ADR.

“Our data demonstrate that it is feasible to measure P-ADR in clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “We propose that P-ADR be considered a quality metric for colonoscopy.”

In addition, because of considerable variation in ADR based on age and sex, calculated ADR should be normalized by the age and sex of the specific patient profile of each endoscopist so relevant benchmarks can be established based on practice demographics, they wrote. For example, an endoscopist with a practice that includes predominantly younger women would have a different benchmark than a colleague with an older male population.

“With appropriate use of gender and age adjustments to ADR, endoscopists in need of further education and mentoring can be identified,” they wrote.

The authors declared no funding for the study. One author reported advisory roles for several medical companies, and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Measurement of the proximal adenoma detection rate may be an important new quality metric for screening colonoscopy, propose researchers in a study that found proportionately more adenomas detected in the right colon with increasing patient age.

As patients age, in fact, the rate of increase of proximal adenomas is far greater than for distal adenomas in both men and women and in all races, wrote Lawrence Kosinski, MD, founder and chief medical officer of Sonar MD in Chicago, and colleagues.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR), the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by a physician that detect at least one histologically confirmed colorectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma, has become an accepted quality metric because of the association of high ADR with lower rates of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (CRC).  ADR varies widely among endoscopists, however, which could be related to differences in adenoma detection in different parts of the colon.

“An endoscopist could perform a high-quality examination of the distal colon and find one adenoma but at the same time miss important pathology in the proximal colon,” the authors wrote. “These differences could be clinically important if CRC occurs after colonoscopy.” The study was published in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy .

Dr. Kosinski and colleagues analyzed retrospective claims data from all colonoscopies performed between 2016-2018 submitted to the Health Care Service Corporation, which is the exclusive Blue Cross Blue Shield licensee for Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Montana. All 50 states were represented in the patient population, though Illinois and Texas accounted for 66% of the cases.

The research team limited the study group to include patients who underwent a screening colonoscopy, representing 30.9% of the total population. They further refined the data to include only screening colonoscopies performed by the 710 endoscopists with at least 100 screenings during the study period, representing 34.5% of the total patients. They also excluded 10,685 cases with family history because the high-risk patients could alter the results.

Using ICD-10 codes, the researchers identified the polyp detection locations and then calculated the ADR for the entire colon (T-ADR) and both the proximal (P-ADR) and distal (D-ADR) colon to determine differences in the ratio of P-ADR versus D-ADR by age, sex, and race. They were unable to determine whether the polyps were adenomas or sessile serrated lesions, so the ADR calculations include both.

The 182,296 screening colonoscopies included 93,164 women (51%) and 89,132 men (49%). About 79% of patients were aged 50-64 years, and 5.8% were under age 50. The dataset preceded the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to initiate screening at age 45.

Overall, T-ADR was consistent with accepted norms in both men (25.99%) and women (19.72%). Compared with women, men had a 4.5% higher prevalence of proximal adenomas and a 2.5% higher prevalence of distal adenomas at any age. The small cohort of Native Americans (296 patients) had a numerically higher T-ADR, P-ADR, and D-ADR than other groups.

By age, T-ADR increased significantly with advancing age, from 0.13 in patients under age 40 to 0.39 in ages 70 and older. The increase was driven by a sharp rise in P-ADR, particularly after age 60. There was a relatively small increase in D-ADR after ages 45-49.

Notably, the P-ADR/D-ADR ratio increased from 1.2 in patients under age 40 to 2.65 in ages 75 and older in both men and women.

Since the experience of the endoscopist affects ADR, the research team also calculated the ADR data by the number of total colonoscopies by endoscopist per decile. T-ADR, P-ADR, and D-ADR were associated directly in a linear relationship with the number of total colonoscopies performed. The slope of the P-ADR trendline was 2.3 times higher than the slope of the D-ADR trendline, indicating a higher volume of procedures directly related to higher polyp detection – specifically the P-ADR.

“Our data demonstrate that it is feasible to measure P-ADR in clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “We propose that P-ADR be considered a quality metric for colonoscopy.”

In addition, because of considerable variation in ADR based on age and sex, calculated ADR should be normalized by the age and sex of the specific patient profile of each endoscopist so relevant benchmarks can be established based on practice demographics, they wrote. For example, an endoscopist with a practice that includes predominantly younger women would have a different benchmark than a colleague with an older male population.

“With appropriate use of gender and age adjustments to ADR, endoscopists in need of further education and mentoring can be identified,” they wrote.

The authors declared no funding for the study. One author reported advisory roles for several medical companies, and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Colonoscopies with artificial intelligence demonstrate significantly better adenoma detection rates (ADRs) than most other endoscopic interventions, according to a new report.

AI-based tools appear to outperform other methods intended to increase ADRs, including distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices, researchers found in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

“ADR is a very important quality metric. The higher the ADR, the less likely the chance of interval cancer,” first author Muhammad Aziz, MD, co-chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio), told this news organization. Interval cancer refers to colorectal cancer that is diagnosed within 5 years of a patient’s undergoing a negative colonoscopy.

“Numerous interventions have been attempted and researched to see the impact on ADR,” he said. “The new kid on the block – AI-assisted colonoscopy – is a game-changer. I knew that AI was impactful in improving ADR, but I didn’t know it would be the best.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing detection rates

Current guidelines set an ADR benchmark of 25% overall, with 30% for men and 20% for women undergoing screening colonoscopy. Every 1% increase in ADR results in a 3% reduction in colorectal cancer, Dr. Aziz and his co-authors write.

Several methods can improve ADR over standard colonoscopy. Computer-aided detection and AI methods, which have emerged in recent years, alert the endoscopist of potential lesions in real time with visual signals.

No direct comparative studies had been conducted, so to make an indirect comparison, Dr. Aziz and colleagues undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 94 randomized controlled trials that included 61,172 patients and 20 different study interventions.

The research team assessed the impact of AI in comparison with other endoscopic methods, using relative risk for proportional outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes. About 63% of the colonoscopies were for screening and surveillance, and 37% were diagnostic. The effectiveness was ranked by P-score (the probability of being the best treatment).

Overall, AI had the highest P-score (0.96), signifying the best modality of all interventions for improving ADR, the study authors write. A sensitivity analysis using the fixed effects model did not significantly alter the effect measure.

The network meta-analysis showed significantly higher ADR for AI, compared with autofluorescence imaging (relative risk, 1.33), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR, 1.22), Endocap (RR, 1.32), Endocuff (RR, 1.19), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.26), EndoRings (RR, 1.30), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR,1.26), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.40), high-definition (HD) colonoscopy (RR, 1.41), linked color imaging (1.21), narrow-band imaging (RR, 1.33), water exchange (RR, 1.22), and water immersion (RR, 1.47).

Among 34 studies of colonoscopies for screening or surveillance only, the ADR was significantly improved for linked color imaging (RR, 1.18), I-Scan with contrast and surface enhancement (RR, 1.25), Endocuff (RR, 1.20), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.13), and water exchange (RR, 1.24), compared with HD colonoscopy. Only one AI study was included in this analysis, because the others had significantly more patients who underwent colonoscopy for diagnostic indications. In this case, AI did not improve ADR, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.44).

In addition, a significantly improved polyp detection rate (PDR) was noted for AI, compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR, 1.28), Endocap (RR, 1.18), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.21), EndoRings (RR, 1.30), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR, 1.21), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.39), HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.34), linked color imaging (RR, 1.19), and narrow-band imaging (RR, 1.21). Again, AI had the highest P-score (RR, 0.93).

Among 17 studies of colonoscopy for screening and surveillance, only one AI study was included for PDR. A significantly higher PDR was noted for AI, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.33). None of the other interventions improved PDR over HD colonoscopy.
 

No AI advantage for serrated polyps

Twenty-three studies evaluated detection for serrated polyps, including three AI studies. AI did not improve the serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR), compared with other interventions. However, several modalities did improve SPDR: G-EYE, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 3.93), linked color imaging, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.88), and HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.71), and Endocuff Vision, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.36). G-EYE had the highest P-score (0.93).

AI significantly improved adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (mean difference, 0.38), HD colonoscopy (MD, 0.18), and narrow-band imaging (MD, 0.13), the authors note. However, the number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy was significantly lower for AI, compared with Endocap (-0.13). Endocap had the highest P-score (0.92).

“The strengths of this study include the wide range of endoscopic add-ons included, the number of trials included, and the granularity of some of the reporting data,” Jeremy Glissen Brown, MD, a gastroenterologist and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, told this news organization.

Dr. Glissen Brown, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches AI tools for polyp detection. He and colleagues have found that AI decreases adenoma miss rates and increases the number of first-pass adenomas detected per colonoscopy.

“The limitations include significant heterogeneity among many of the comparisons, as well as a high risk of bias, as it is technically difficult to achieve blinding of provider participants in the device-based RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that this analysis was based on,” he said.
 

Additional considerations

Dr. Aziz and colleagues note the need for additional studies of AI-based detection, particularly for screening and surveillance. For widespread adoption into clinical practice, new systems must have higher specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and efficiency, they write.

“AI technology needs further optimization, as there is still the aspect of having a lot of false positives – lesions detected but not necessarily adenomas that can turn into cancer,” Dr. Aziz said. “This decreases the efficiency of the colonoscopy and increases the anesthesia and sedation time. In addition, different AI systems have different diagnostic yield, as it all depends on the images that were fed to the system or algorithm.”

Dr. Glissen Brown also pointed to the low number of AI-based studies involving serrated polyp lesion detection. Future research could investigate whether computer-aided detection systems (CADe) decrease miss rates and increase detection rates for sessile serrated lesions, he said.

For practical clinical purposes, Dr. Glissen Brown highlighted the potential complementary nature of the various colonoscopy tools. When used together, for instance, AI and Endocuff may increase ADRs even further and decrease the number of missed polyps through different mechanisms, he said.

“It is also important in device research to interrogate the cost versus benefit of any intervention or combination of interventions,” he said. “I think with CADe this is still something that we are figuring out. We will need to find novel ways of making these technologies affordable, especially as the debate of which clinically meaningful outcomes we examine when it comes to AI continues to evolve.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Two authors have received grant support from or have consulted for several pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Glissen Brown has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopies with artificial intelligence demonstrate significantly better adenoma detection rates (ADRs) than most other endoscopic interventions, according to a new report.

AI-based tools appear to outperform other methods intended to increase ADRs, including distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices, researchers found in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

“ADR is a very important quality metric. The higher the ADR, the less likely the chance of interval cancer,” first author Muhammad Aziz, MD, co-chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio), told this news organization. Interval cancer refers to colorectal cancer that is diagnosed within 5 years of a patient’s undergoing a negative colonoscopy.

“Numerous interventions have been attempted and researched to see the impact on ADR,” he said. “The new kid on the block – AI-assisted colonoscopy – is a game-changer. I knew that AI was impactful in improving ADR, but I didn’t know it would be the best.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing detection rates

Current guidelines set an ADR benchmark of 25% overall, with 30% for men and 20% for women undergoing screening colonoscopy. Every 1% increase in ADR results in a 3% reduction in colorectal cancer, Dr. Aziz and his co-authors write.

Several methods can improve ADR over standard colonoscopy. Computer-aided detection and AI methods, which have emerged in recent years, alert the endoscopist of potential lesions in real time with visual signals.

No direct comparative studies had been conducted, so to make an indirect comparison, Dr. Aziz and colleagues undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 94 randomized controlled trials that included 61,172 patients and 20 different study interventions.

The research team assessed the impact of AI in comparison with other endoscopic methods, using relative risk for proportional outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes. About 63% of the colonoscopies were for screening and surveillance, and 37% were diagnostic. The effectiveness was ranked by P-score (the probability of being the best treatment).

Overall, AI had the highest P-score (0.96), signifying the best modality of all interventions for improving ADR, the study authors write. A sensitivity analysis using the fixed effects model did not significantly alter the effect measure.

The network meta-analysis showed significantly higher ADR for AI, compared with autofluorescence imaging (relative risk, 1.33), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR, 1.22), Endocap (RR, 1.32), Endocuff (RR, 1.19), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.26), EndoRings (RR, 1.30), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR,1.26), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.40), high-definition (HD) colonoscopy (RR, 1.41), linked color imaging (1.21), narrow-band imaging (RR, 1.33), water exchange (RR, 1.22), and water immersion (RR, 1.47).

Among 34 studies of colonoscopies for screening or surveillance only, the ADR was significantly improved for linked color imaging (RR, 1.18), I-Scan with contrast and surface enhancement (RR, 1.25), Endocuff (RR, 1.20), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.13), and water exchange (RR, 1.24), compared with HD colonoscopy. Only one AI study was included in this analysis, because the others had significantly more patients who underwent colonoscopy for diagnostic indications. In this case, AI did not improve ADR, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.44).

In addition, a significantly improved polyp detection rate (PDR) was noted for AI, compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR, 1.28), Endocap (RR, 1.18), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.21), EndoRings (RR, 1.30), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR, 1.21), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.39), HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.34), linked color imaging (RR, 1.19), and narrow-band imaging (RR, 1.21). Again, AI had the highest P-score (RR, 0.93).

Among 17 studies of colonoscopy for screening and surveillance, only one AI study was included for PDR. A significantly higher PDR was noted for AI, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.33). None of the other interventions improved PDR over HD colonoscopy.
 

No AI advantage for serrated polyps

Twenty-three studies evaluated detection for serrated polyps, including three AI studies. AI did not improve the serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR), compared with other interventions. However, several modalities did improve SPDR: G-EYE, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 3.93), linked color imaging, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.88), and HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.71), and Endocuff Vision, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.36). G-EYE had the highest P-score (0.93).

AI significantly improved adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (mean difference, 0.38), HD colonoscopy (MD, 0.18), and narrow-band imaging (MD, 0.13), the authors note. However, the number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy was significantly lower for AI, compared with Endocap (-0.13). Endocap had the highest P-score (0.92).

“The strengths of this study include the wide range of endoscopic add-ons included, the number of trials included, and the granularity of some of the reporting data,” Jeremy Glissen Brown, MD, a gastroenterologist and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, told this news organization.

Dr. Glissen Brown, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches AI tools for polyp detection. He and colleagues have found that AI decreases adenoma miss rates and increases the number of first-pass adenomas detected per colonoscopy.

“The limitations include significant heterogeneity among many of the comparisons, as well as a high risk of bias, as it is technically difficult to achieve blinding of provider participants in the device-based RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that this analysis was based on,” he said.
 

Additional considerations

Dr. Aziz and colleagues note the need for additional studies of AI-based detection, particularly for screening and surveillance. For widespread adoption into clinical practice, new systems must have higher specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and efficiency, they write.

“AI technology needs further optimization, as there is still the aspect of having a lot of false positives – lesions detected but not necessarily adenomas that can turn into cancer,” Dr. Aziz said. “This decreases the efficiency of the colonoscopy and increases the anesthesia and sedation time. In addition, different AI systems have different diagnostic yield, as it all depends on the images that were fed to the system or algorithm.”

Dr. Glissen Brown also pointed to the low number of AI-based studies involving serrated polyp lesion detection. Future research could investigate whether computer-aided detection systems (CADe) decrease miss rates and increase detection rates for sessile serrated lesions, he said.

For practical clinical purposes, Dr. Glissen Brown highlighted the potential complementary nature of the various colonoscopy tools. When used together, for instance, AI and Endocuff may increase ADRs even further and decrease the number of missed polyps through different mechanisms, he said.

“It is also important in device research to interrogate the cost versus benefit of any intervention or combination of interventions,” he said. “I think with CADe this is still something that we are figuring out. We will need to find novel ways of making these technologies affordable, especially as the debate of which clinically meaningful outcomes we examine when it comes to AI continues to evolve.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Two authors have received grant support from or have consulted for several pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Glissen Brown has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopies with artificial intelligence demonstrate significantly better adenoma detection rates (ADRs) than most other endoscopic interventions, according to a new report.

AI-based tools appear to outperform other methods intended to increase ADRs, including distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices, researchers found in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

“ADR is a very important quality metric. The higher the ADR, the less likely the chance of interval cancer,” first author Muhammad Aziz, MD, co-chief gastroenterology fellow at the University of Toledo (Ohio), told this news organization. Interval cancer refers to colorectal cancer that is diagnosed within 5 years of a patient’s undergoing a negative colonoscopy.

“Numerous interventions have been attempted and researched to see the impact on ADR,” he said. “The new kid on the block – AI-assisted colonoscopy – is a game-changer. I knew that AI was impactful in improving ADR, but I didn’t know it would be the best.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing detection rates

Current guidelines set an ADR benchmark of 25% overall, with 30% for men and 20% for women undergoing screening colonoscopy. Every 1% increase in ADR results in a 3% reduction in colorectal cancer, Dr. Aziz and his co-authors write.

Several methods can improve ADR over standard colonoscopy. Computer-aided detection and AI methods, which have emerged in recent years, alert the endoscopist of potential lesions in real time with visual signals.

No direct comparative studies had been conducted, so to make an indirect comparison, Dr. Aziz and colleagues undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 94 randomized controlled trials that included 61,172 patients and 20 different study interventions.

The research team assessed the impact of AI in comparison with other endoscopic methods, using relative risk for proportional outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes. About 63% of the colonoscopies were for screening and surveillance, and 37% were diagnostic. The effectiveness was ranked by P-score (the probability of being the best treatment).

Overall, AI had the highest P-score (0.96), signifying the best modality of all interventions for improving ADR, the study authors write. A sensitivity analysis using the fixed effects model did not significantly alter the effect measure.

The network meta-analysis showed significantly higher ADR for AI, compared with autofluorescence imaging (relative risk, 1.33), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR, 1.22), Endocap (RR, 1.32), Endocuff (RR, 1.19), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.26), EndoRings (RR, 1.30), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR,1.26), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.40), high-definition (HD) colonoscopy (RR, 1.41), linked color imaging (1.21), narrow-band imaging (RR, 1.33), water exchange (RR, 1.22), and water immersion (RR, 1.47).

Among 34 studies of colonoscopies for screening or surveillance only, the ADR was significantly improved for linked color imaging (RR, 1.18), I-Scan with contrast and surface enhancement (RR, 1.25), Endocuff (RR, 1.20), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.13), and water exchange (RR, 1.24), compared with HD colonoscopy. Only one AI study was included in this analysis, because the others had significantly more patients who underwent colonoscopy for diagnostic indications. In this case, AI did not improve ADR, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.44).

In addition, a significantly improved polyp detection rate (PDR) was noted for AI, compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR, 1.28), Endocap (RR, 1.18), Endocuff Vision (RR, 1.21), EndoRings (RR, 1.30), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR, 1.21), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.39), HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.34), linked color imaging (RR, 1.19), and narrow-band imaging (RR, 1.21). Again, AI had the highest P-score (RR, 0.93).

Among 17 studies of colonoscopy for screening and surveillance, only one AI study was included for PDR. A significantly higher PDR was noted for AI, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.33). None of the other interventions improved PDR over HD colonoscopy.
 

No AI advantage for serrated polyps

Twenty-three studies evaluated detection for serrated polyps, including three AI studies. AI did not improve the serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR), compared with other interventions. However, several modalities did improve SPDR: G-EYE, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 3.93), linked color imaging, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (RR, 1.88), and HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.71), and Endocuff Vision, compared with HD colonoscopy (RR, 1.36). G-EYE had the highest P-score (0.93).

AI significantly improved adenomas per colonoscopy, compared with full-spectrum endoscopy (mean difference, 0.38), HD colonoscopy (MD, 0.18), and narrow-band imaging (MD, 0.13), the authors note. However, the number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy was significantly lower for AI, compared with Endocap (-0.13). Endocap had the highest P-score (0.92).

“The strengths of this study include the wide range of endoscopic add-ons included, the number of trials included, and the granularity of some of the reporting data,” Jeremy Glissen Brown, MD, a gastroenterologist and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, told this news organization.

Dr. Glissen Brown, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches AI tools for polyp detection. He and colleagues have found that AI decreases adenoma miss rates and increases the number of first-pass adenomas detected per colonoscopy.

“The limitations include significant heterogeneity among many of the comparisons, as well as a high risk of bias, as it is technically difficult to achieve blinding of provider participants in the device-based RCTs [randomized controlled trials] that this analysis was based on,” he said.
 

Additional considerations

Dr. Aziz and colleagues note the need for additional studies of AI-based detection, particularly for screening and surveillance. For widespread adoption into clinical practice, new systems must have higher specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and efficiency, they write.

“AI technology needs further optimization, as there is still the aspect of having a lot of false positives – lesions detected but not necessarily adenomas that can turn into cancer,” Dr. Aziz said. “This decreases the efficiency of the colonoscopy and increases the anesthesia and sedation time. In addition, different AI systems have different diagnostic yield, as it all depends on the images that were fed to the system or algorithm.”

Dr. Glissen Brown also pointed to the low number of AI-based studies involving serrated polyp lesion detection. Future research could investigate whether computer-aided detection systems (CADe) decrease miss rates and increase detection rates for sessile serrated lesions, he said.

For practical clinical purposes, Dr. Glissen Brown highlighted the potential complementary nature of the various colonoscopy tools. When used together, for instance, AI and Endocuff may increase ADRs even further and decrease the number of missed polyps through different mechanisms, he said.

“It is also important in device research to interrogate the cost versus benefit of any intervention or combination of interventions,” he said. “I think with CADe this is still something that we are figuring out. We will need to find novel ways of making these technologies affordable, especially as the debate of which clinically meaningful outcomes we examine when it comes to AI continues to evolve.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Two authors have received grant support from or have consulted for several pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Glissen Brown has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During screening colonoscopy, a scope withdrawal time (WT) of 9 minutes versus 6 minutes led to a reduced adenoma miss rate (AMR) and advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR) and an improved adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to a randomized controlled trial conducted in China.

“Individual colonoscopists may acquire significant benefits in the ADR, AMR, AAMR, and high-risk adenoma miss rate from a 3-minute WT prolongation without compromising detection efficiency,” Zhao-Shen Li, MD, PhD, director, department of gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital and Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, said in an interview.

Based on evidence to date, the 9-minute WT “deserves to be considered as a new quality indicator to further optimize colonoscopy quality,” Dr. Li added.

The study is published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“This study certainly supports the notion that lengthening the examination time during colonoscopy results in more adenomas being detected,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“When linking that with other studies showing a positive correlation between adenoma detection rate and interval cancers, we can conjecture that these longer exams will result in improved cancer detection. This makes intuitive sense,” said Dr. Gellad, associate professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

In an earlier study, Dr. Li and colleagues found that prolonging the WT from a mean of 6 minutes to 9 minutes significantly improved the ADR (27.1% vs. 36.6%, P = .001).

Their latest study involved 733 asymptomatic adults aged 40-75 years undergoing screening colonoscopy by 15 gastroenterologists at 11 tertiary hospitals in China.

Participants were randomly allocated to segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with 9-minute withdrawal first (9MF) followed by 6-minute withdrawal (6MF) or vice versa.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, compared with 6MF, 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level AMR (14.5% vs. 36.6%, P < .001), which was the primary outcome, and the participant-level AMR (10.9% vs. 25.9%; P < .001).

The 9MF also significantly reduced the AAMR (5.3% vs. 46.9%, P = .002), multiple AMR (20.7% vs. 56.5%; P = .01), and high-risk AMR (14.6% vs. 39.5%; P = .01) – without compromising detection efficiency.

The longer withdrawal time was also associated with a lower false-negative rate for adenomas (5.2% vs. 11.7%; P = .002) and high-risk adenomas (2.2% vs. 5%; P < .05), as well as a lower rate of shortening the surveillance schedule (P < .001).

A 9-minute mean WT also led to an improved ADR (42.3% vs. 33.5%, P = .02). The ADR improvement was associated with diminutive (P = .01), flat (P = .01), and tubular adenomas (P = .02).

Notably, colonoscopists with high ADRs (≥ 25%) in routine practice also showed a tendency of ADR improvement through a 3-minute prolongation (41% vs. 34.8%; P for interaction = .62), the investigators wrote.

Dr. Gellad said in an interview the study “reinforces the importance of careful inspection of the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy withdrawal. This should take as long as it takes to do it right, and that will vary by patient and by endoscopist.”

“Measurement of withdrawal time is helpful for quality improvement purposes when physician detection rates or miss rates are below goal,” Dr. Gellad added, “but timing the withdrawal should not be a goal in and of itself,”

The study was supported by the National Science and Technology Plan Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gellad is a consultant for Merck and Novo Nordisk and a cofounder of Higgs Boson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During screening colonoscopy, a scope withdrawal time (WT) of 9 minutes versus 6 minutes led to a reduced adenoma miss rate (AMR) and advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR) and an improved adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to a randomized controlled trial conducted in China.

“Individual colonoscopists may acquire significant benefits in the ADR, AMR, AAMR, and high-risk adenoma miss rate from a 3-minute WT prolongation without compromising detection efficiency,” Zhao-Shen Li, MD, PhD, director, department of gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital and Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, said in an interview.

Based on evidence to date, the 9-minute WT “deserves to be considered as a new quality indicator to further optimize colonoscopy quality,” Dr. Li added.

The study is published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“This study certainly supports the notion that lengthening the examination time during colonoscopy results in more adenomas being detected,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“When linking that with other studies showing a positive correlation between adenoma detection rate and interval cancers, we can conjecture that these longer exams will result in improved cancer detection. This makes intuitive sense,” said Dr. Gellad, associate professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

In an earlier study, Dr. Li and colleagues found that prolonging the WT from a mean of 6 minutes to 9 minutes significantly improved the ADR (27.1% vs. 36.6%, P = .001).

Their latest study involved 733 asymptomatic adults aged 40-75 years undergoing screening colonoscopy by 15 gastroenterologists at 11 tertiary hospitals in China.

Participants were randomly allocated to segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with 9-minute withdrawal first (9MF) followed by 6-minute withdrawal (6MF) or vice versa.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, compared with 6MF, 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level AMR (14.5% vs. 36.6%, P < .001), which was the primary outcome, and the participant-level AMR (10.9% vs. 25.9%; P < .001).

The 9MF also significantly reduced the AAMR (5.3% vs. 46.9%, P = .002), multiple AMR (20.7% vs. 56.5%; P = .01), and high-risk AMR (14.6% vs. 39.5%; P = .01) – without compromising detection efficiency.

The longer withdrawal time was also associated with a lower false-negative rate for adenomas (5.2% vs. 11.7%; P = .002) and high-risk adenomas (2.2% vs. 5%; P < .05), as well as a lower rate of shortening the surveillance schedule (P < .001).

A 9-minute mean WT also led to an improved ADR (42.3% vs. 33.5%, P = .02). The ADR improvement was associated with diminutive (P = .01), flat (P = .01), and tubular adenomas (P = .02).

Notably, colonoscopists with high ADRs (≥ 25%) in routine practice also showed a tendency of ADR improvement through a 3-minute prolongation (41% vs. 34.8%; P for interaction = .62), the investigators wrote.

Dr. Gellad said in an interview the study “reinforces the importance of careful inspection of the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy withdrawal. This should take as long as it takes to do it right, and that will vary by patient and by endoscopist.”

“Measurement of withdrawal time is helpful for quality improvement purposes when physician detection rates or miss rates are below goal,” Dr. Gellad added, “but timing the withdrawal should not be a goal in and of itself,”

The study was supported by the National Science and Technology Plan Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gellad is a consultant for Merck and Novo Nordisk and a cofounder of Higgs Boson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During screening colonoscopy, a scope withdrawal time (WT) of 9 minutes versus 6 minutes led to a reduced adenoma miss rate (AMR) and advanced adenoma miss rate (AAMR) and an improved adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to a randomized controlled trial conducted in China.

“Individual colonoscopists may acquire significant benefits in the ADR, AMR, AAMR, and high-risk adenoma miss rate from a 3-minute WT prolongation without compromising detection efficiency,” Zhao-Shen Li, MD, PhD, director, department of gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital and Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, said in an interview.

Based on evidence to date, the 9-minute WT “deserves to be considered as a new quality indicator to further optimize colonoscopy quality,” Dr. Li added.

The study is published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“This study certainly supports the notion that lengthening the examination time during colonoscopy results in more adenomas being detected,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“When linking that with other studies showing a positive correlation between adenoma detection rate and interval cancers, we can conjecture that these longer exams will result in improved cancer detection. This makes intuitive sense,” said Dr. Gellad, associate professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

In an earlier study, Dr. Li and colleagues found that prolonging the WT from a mean of 6 minutes to 9 minutes significantly improved the ADR (27.1% vs. 36.6%, P = .001).

Their latest study involved 733 asymptomatic adults aged 40-75 years undergoing screening colonoscopy by 15 gastroenterologists at 11 tertiary hospitals in China.

Participants were randomly allocated to segmental tandem screening colonoscopy with 9-minute withdrawal first (9MF) followed by 6-minute withdrawal (6MF) or vice versa.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, compared with 6MF, 9MF significantly reduced the lesion-level AMR (14.5% vs. 36.6%, P < .001), which was the primary outcome, and the participant-level AMR (10.9% vs. 25.9%; P < .001).

The 9MF also significantly reduced the AAMR (5.3% vs. 46.9%, P = .002), multiple AMR (20.7% vs. 56.5%; P = .01), and high-risk AMR (14.6% vs. 39.5%; P = .01) – without compromising detection efficiency.

The longer withdrawal time was also associated with a lower false-negative rate for adenomas (5.2% vs. 11.7%; P = .002) and high-risk adenomas (2.2% vs. 5%; P < .05), as well as a lower rate of shortening the surveillance schedule (P < .001).

A 9-minute mean WT also led to an improved ADR (42.3% vs. 33.5%, P = .02). The ADR improvement was associated with diminutive (P = .01), flat (P = .01), and tubular adenomas (P = .02).

Notably, colonoscopists with high ADRs (≥ 25%) in routine practice also showed a tendency of ADR improvement through a 3-minute prolongation (41% vs. 34.8%; P for interaction = .62), the investigators wrote.

Dr. Gellad said in an interview the study “reinforces the importance of careful inspection of the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy withdrawal. This should take as long as it takes to do it right, and that will vary by patient and by endoscopist.”

“Measurement of withdrawal time is helpful for quality improvement purposes when physician detection rates or miss rates are below goal,” Dr. Gellad added, “but timing the withdrawal should not be a goal in and of itself,”

The study was supported by the National Science and Technology Plan Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gellad is a consultant for Merck and Novo Nordisk and a cofounder of Higgs Boson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antithrombotic therapy is increasingly used to either reduce the risk of or treat thromboembolic episodes in patients with various medical conditions such as ischemic and valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AF), cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and hypercoagulable diseases. Antithrombotics include medications classified as anticoagulants or antiplatelets. Anticoagulants work by interfering with the native clotting cascade and consist of four main classes: vitamin K antagonists (VKA), heparin derivatives, direct factor Xa inhibitors, and direct thrombin inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) refer to dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor) and the factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban).

Antiplatelets, on the other hand, work by decreasing platelet aggregation and thus preventing thrombus formation; they include P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, protease-activated receptor-1 inhibitors, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. All of these agents may directly cause or increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from luminal sources such as ulcers or diverticula, as well as after endoscopic interventions such as polypectomy. However, there is also a risk of thromboembolic consequences if some of these agents are withheld. Thus, the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing GI endoscopy represents an important clinical challenge and something that every GI physician has to deal with routinely.

The goal of this review is to discuss the optimal strategy for managing antithrombotics in patients undergoing elective endoscopy based on current available evidence and published clinical guidelines.^1-4 Much of our discussion will review recommendations from the recently published joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines on management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in the periendoscopic period by Abraham et al.⁴

Factors that guide decision-making

The two most vital factors to consider prior to performing endoscopic procedures in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy are to assess the risk of bleeding associated with the procedure and to assess the risk of thromboembolism associated with the underlying medical condition for which the antithrombotic agents are being used. In addition, it is also important to keep in mind the individual characteristics of the antithrombotic agent(s) used when making these decisions.

Estimating procedure-related bleeding risk

Various endoscopic procedures have different risks of associated bleeding. Although guidelines from GI societies may differ when classifying procedures into low or high risk, it is important to know that most of the original data on postprocedural bleeding risks are from studies conducted in patients who are not on complex antithrombotic regimens and thus may not accurately reflect the bleeding risk of patients using newer antithrombotic therapies.^1,4-7

Traditionally, some of the common low-risk procedures have included diagnostic EGD and colonoscopy with or without biopsy, ERCP without sphincterotomy, biliary stent placement, and push or balloon-assisted enteroscopy. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures associated with interventions are known to have higher bleeding risk, and other procedural factors can influence this risk as well.⁸ For example, polypectomy, one of the most common interventions during endoscopy, is associated with bleeding risk ranging from 0.3% to 10% depending on multiple factors including polyp size, location, morphology (nonpolypoid, sessile, pedunculated), resection technique (cold or hot forceps, cold or hot snare), and type of cautery used.⁹ For some procedures, such as routine screening colonoscopy, however, the preprocedure estimate of bleeding risk can be uncertain because it is unclear if a high risk intervention (e.g., polypectomy of large polyp) will be necessary. For example, in the most recent ACG/CAG guidelines, colonoscopy with polypectomy < 1cm is considered a low/moderate risk bleeding procedure, whereas polypectomy > 1cm is considered high risk for bleeding.⁴ In these situations, the management of antithrombotic medications may depend on the individual patient’s risk of thrombosis and the specific antithrombotic agent. In the example of a patient undergoing colonoscopy while on antithrombotic medications, the bleeding risk associated with polypectomy can potentially be reduced by procedural techniques such as preferential use of cold snare polypectomy. Further high-quality data on the optimal procedural technique to reduce postpolypectomy bleeding in patients on antithrombotic medications is needed to help guide management.
 

Estimating thromboembolic risk

The risk of thromboembolic events in patients who are withholding their antithrombotic therapy for an endoscopic procedure depends on their underlying condition and individual characteristics. In patients who are on antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF, the risk of cerebral thromboembolism in these patients is predictable using the CHA₂DS₂Vasc index.¹⁰ This scoring index includes heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years or older, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), vascular disease, age 65-74 years, and sex categories.

Patients with previous VTE on anticoagulation or those who have mechanical heart valves may have different risk factors for thromboembolic episodes. Among patients with VTE, time from initial VTE, history of recurrent VTE with antithrombotic interruption, and presence of underlying thrombophilia are most predictive of future thromboembolic risk. And for patients with mechanical heart valves, presence of a mitral valve prosthesis, and the presence or absence of associated heart failure and AF determine the annual risk of thromboembolic events. Bioprosthetic valves are generally considered low risk.

In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), high thrombosis risk scenarios with holding antiplatelets include patients within 3 months of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event, within 6 months of a drug-eluting stent (DES) placement, or within 1 month of a bare metal coronary stent (BMS) placement. In addition, patients with ACS that occurred within the past 12 months of DES placement or within 2 months of BMS placement are also considered high risk.^11,12 Even beyond these periods, certain patients may still be at high risk of stent occlusion. In particular, patients with a prior history of stent occlusion, ACS or ST elevation myocardial infection, prior multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention, diabetes, renal failure, or diffuse CAD are at higher risk of stent occlusion or ACS events with alteration of antithrombotic therapy.¹³ Thus, modification of antithrombotic regimens in these patients should be cautiously approached.
 

Management of antithrombotics prior to elective endoscopy

In patients who need elective endoscopic procedures, if the indication for antithrombotic therapy is short-term, the procedure is probably best delayed until after that period.¹³ For patients on long-term or lifelong antithrombotic treatment, the decision to temporarily hold the treatment for endoscopy should occur after a discussion with the patient and all of the involved providers. In some high-risk patients, these agents cannot be interrupted; therefore, clinicians must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure before proceeding with endoscopy. For patients who are known to be undergoing an elective endoscopic procedure, antithrombotic medications may or may not need to be held prior to the procedure depending on the type of therapy. For example, according to the recent ACG/CAG guidelines, warfarin should be continued, whereas DOACs should be temporarily stopped for patients who are undergoing elective/planned endoscopic GI procedures.

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) administered as a continuous intravenous infusion can generally be held 3-4 hours before the procedure, given its short half-life. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), including enoxaparin and dalteparin, should be stopped 24 hours prior to the procedure.^2,14 Fondaparinux is a synthetic X-a inhibitor that requires discontinuation at least 36 hours preceding a high risk procedure. For patients on warfarin who are undergoing elective endoscopic procedures that are low risk for inducing bleeding, warfarin can be continued, as opposed to temporarily interrupted, although the dose should be omitted the morning of the procedure.⁴ For those who are undergoing high-risk endoscopic procedures (including colonoscopy with possible polypectomy > 1 cm), 5 days of temporary interruption without periprocedural bridging is appropriate in most patients. This is contrary to previous guidelines, which had recommended bridging for patients with a CHA2DS2Vasc score ≥ 2. Recent impactful randomized trials (BRIDGE and PERIOP-2) have called into question the benefit of periprocedural bridging with LMWH. Avoiding bridging anticoagulation was generally found to be similar to bridging in regard to prevention of thromboembolic complications, but importantly was associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding.^15,16 Of note, periprocedural bridging may still be appropriate in a small subset of patients, including those with mechanical valves, AF with CHADS2 score > 5, and previous thromboembolism during temporary interruption of VKAs. The decision to bridge or not should ideally be made in a multidisciplinary fashion.^15-20

Data are lacking on the ideal strategy for periendoscopic DOAC management. As mentioned above, for patients on DOACs who are undergoing elective endoscopic GI procedures, temporarily interrupting DOACs rather than continuing them is recommended. Currently, there are no randomized controlled trials addressing the management of DOACs in the periendoscopic period. However, based on five cohort studies, the ideal duration of DOAC interruption before endoscopic procedures may be between 1 and 2 days, excluding the day of the procedure.^21-25 This strategy allows for a short preprocedural duration of DOAC interruption and likely provides a balance between bleeding and thromboembolism risk. Importantly, there are no reliable laboratory assays to assess the anticoagulant effect of DOACs, and an individual patient’s degree of renal dysfunction may impact how long the DOAC should be held. In general, the anti-Xa drugs should be held for 1-2 days if the creatinine clearance (CrCl) is ≥ 60 mL/min, for 3 days if the CrCl is between 30 mL/min and 59 mL/min, and for 4 days if the CrCl is less than 30 mL/min.²⁶ For edoxaban, the recommendation is to hold at least 24 hours before high-risk procedures. The recommendation for stopping dabigatran is 2-3 days before a high-risk procedure in patients with CrCl more than 80 mL/min, 3-4 days prior if between 30 and 49 mL/min, and 4-6 days prior if less than 30 mL/min respectively.²⁷

In regard to antiplatelet management, ASA and the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors (e.g. clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) are the most commonly utilized antiplatelets in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. For patients who are on ASA monotherapy, whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily, for secondary cardiovascular prevention, no interruption of ASA therapy is necessary for elective procedures. The benefit of ASA for secondary cardiovascular prevention and the possible reduction in thrombotic events seen in RCTs of nonendoscopic surgical procedures is well known. However, there may be certain exceptions in which aspirin should be temporarily held. For example, short-term interruption of ASA could be considered in high risk procedures such as biliary or pancreatic sphincterotomy, ampullectomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. For patients on single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor who are undergoing elective endoscopic GI procedures, the recent CAG/ACG guidelines did not provide a clear recommendation for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor. Although interruption of a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor should theoretically decrease a patient’s risk of bleeding, the available evidence reported a nonsignificant increased bleeding risk in patients who stop a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor for an elective endoscopic procedure compared with those who continue the medication.^28,29 Therefore, until further data are available, for patients on P2Y₁₂ receptor monotherapy, a reasonable strategy would be to temporarily hold therapy prior to high risk endoscopic procedures, assuming the patients are not at high cardiovascular risk. Clopidogrel and prasugrel have to be stopped 5-7 days prior to allow normal platelet aggregation to resume as opposed to ticagrelor, a reversible P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor that can be stopped 3-5 days prior.³⁰

Lastly, for patients who are on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for secondary prevention, continuation of ASA and temporary interruption of the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor is recommended while undergoing elective endoscopy. Studies have shown that those who discontinued both had a much higher incidence of stent thrombosis compared with those who remained on aspirin alone.^4,28,31

Resumption of antithrombotic therapy after endoscopy

In general, antithrombotic therapy should be resumed upon completion of the procedure unless there remains a persistent risk of major bleeding.^1,14 This consensus is based on studies available on warfarin and heparin products, with minimal literature available regarding the resumption of DOACs. The benefits of immediate re-initiation of antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of thromboembolic events should be weighed against the risk of hemorrhage associated with the specific agent, the time to onset of the medication, and procedure-specific circumstances. For the small subset of patients on warfarin with a high risk of thromboembolism (e.g., mechanical heart valve), bridging with LMWH should be started at the earliest possible time when there is no risk of major bleeding and continued until the international normalized ratio (INR) reaches a therapeutic level with warfarin. For patients at a lower risk of thromboembolism, warfarin should be restarted within 24 hours of the procedure. In addition, because of the shorter duration of DOACs, if treatment with these agents cannot resume within 24 hours of a high-risk procedure, bridge therapy should be considered with UFH or LMWH in patients with a high risk of thrombosis.¹⁸ In patients receiving DOACs for stroke prophylaxis in AF, the DOACS can be safely resumed 1 day after low-risk procedures and 2-3 days after high-risk procedures without the need for bridging.²⁵ All antiplatelet agents should be resumed as soon as hemostasis is achieved.

Conclusion

Antithrombotic therapy is increasingly used given the aging population, widespread burden of cardiovascular comorbidities, and expanding indications for classes of medications such as direct oral anticoagulants. Given the association with antithrombotic medications and gastrointestinal bleeding, it is essential for gastroenterologists to understand the importance, necessity, and timing when holding these medications for endoscopic procedures. Even with the practice guidelines available today to help clinicians navigate certain situations, each patient’s antithrombotic management may be different, and communication with the prescribing physicians and including patients in the decision-making process is essential before planned procedures.

Dr. Wang is a gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago. Dr. Sengupta is an associate professor at the University of Chicago. They reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

References

1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Acosta RD et al. The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(1):3-16.

2. Veitch AM et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines. Endoscopy. 2016;48(4):c1. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-122686.

3. Chan FKL et al. Management of patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy: Joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) practice guidelines. Gut. 2018;67(3):405-17.

4. Abraham NS et al. American College of Gastroenterology – Canadian Association of Gastroenterology clinical practice guideline: Management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets during acute gastrointestinal bleeding and the periendoscopic period. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(4):542-58.

5. Boustière C et al. Endoscopy and antiplatelet agents. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2011;43(5):445-61.

6. Fujimoto K et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(1):1-14.

7. Wilke T et al. Patient preferences for oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: A systematic literature review. Patient 2017;10(1):17-37.

8. Gerson LB et al. Adverse events associated with anticoagulation therapy in the periendoscopic period. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jun;71(7):1211-17.e2.

9. Horiuchi A et al. Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: A prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79(3):417-23.

10. Lip GYH et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: The euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137(2):263-72.

11. 2012 Writing Committee Members, Jneid H et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (Updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2012;126(7):875-910.

12. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e326S-e350S.

13. Becker RC et al. Management of platelet-directed pharmacotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease undergoing elective endoscopic gastrointestinal procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(24):2261-76.

14. Kwok A and Faigel DO. Management of anticoagulation before and after gastrointestinal endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(12):3085-97; quiz 3098.

15. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(9):823-33.

16. Kovacs MJ et al. Postoperative low molecular weight heparin bridging treatment for patients at high risk of arterial thromboembolism (PERIOP2): Double blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2021;373:n1205.

17. Tafur A and Douketis J. Perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. Heart 2018;104(17):1461-7.

18. Kato M et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment: 2017 appendix on anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants. Dig Endosc. 2018;30(4):433-40.

19. Inoue T et al. Clinical features of postpolypectomy bleeding associated with heparin bridge therapy. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(2):243-9.

20. Takeuchi Y et al. Continuous anticoagulation and cold snare polypectomy versus heparin bridging and hot snare polypectomy in patients on anticoagulants with subcentimeter polyps: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(4):229-37.

21. Ara N et al. Prospective analysis of risk for bleeding after endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotics in Japan. Dig Endosc. 2015;27(4):458-64.

22. Yanagisawa N et al. Postpolypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism risks associated with warfarin vs. direct oral anticoagulants. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(14):1540-9.

23. Arimoto J et al. Safety of cold snare polypectomy in patients receiving treatment with antithrombotic agents. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(11):3247-55.

24. Heublein V et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving novel direct oral anticoagulants: Results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry. J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(2):236-46.

25. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(11):1469-78.

26. Dubois V et al. Perioperative management of patients on direct oral anticoagulants. Thromb J. 2017;15:14.

27. Weitz JI et al. Periprocedural management and approach to bleeding in patients taking dabigatran. Circulation. 2012 Nov 13;126(20):2428-32.

28. Chan FKL et al. Risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy in an industry-independent, double-blind, randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4):918-25.

29. Watanabe K et al. Effect of antiplatelet agent number, types, and pre-endoscopic management on postpolypectomy bleeding: Validation of endoscopy guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(1):317-25.

30. Gurbel PA et al. Randomized double-blind assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease: The ONSET/OFFSET study. Circulation. 2009;120(25):2577-85.

31. Eisenberg MJ et al. Safety of short-term discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with drug-eluting stents. Circulation. 2009;119(12):1634-42.
 

Antithrombotic therapy is increasingly used to either reduce the risk of or treat thromboembolic episodes in patients with various medical conditions such as ischemic and valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AF), cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and hypercoagulable diseases. Antithrombotics include medications classified as anticoagulants or antiplatelets. Anticoagulants work by interfering with the native clotting cascade and consist of four main classes: vitamin K antagonists (VKA), heparin derivatives, direct factor Xa inhibitors, and direct thrombin inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) refer to dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor) and the factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban).

Antiplatelets, on the other hand, work by decreasing platelet aggregation and thus preventing thrombus formation; they include P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, protease-activated receptor-1 inhibitors, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. All of these agents may directly cause or increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from luminal sources such as ulcers or diverticula, as well as after endoscopic interventions such as polypectomy. However, there is also a risk of thromboembolic consequences if some of these agents are withheld. Thus, the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing GI endoscopy represents an important clinical challenge and something that every GI physician has to deal with routinely.

The goal of this review is to discuss the optimal strategy for managing antithrombotics in patients undergoing elective endoscopy based on current available evidence and published clinical guidelines.^1-4 Much of our discussion will review recommendations from the recently published joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines on management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in the periendoscopic period by Abraham et al.⁴

Factors that guide decision-making

The two most vital factors to consider prior to performing endoscopic procedures in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy are to assess the risk of bleeding associated with the procedure and to assess the risk of thromboembolism associated with the underlying medical condition for which the antithrombotic agents are being used. In addition, it is also important to keep in mind the individual characteristics of the antithrombotic agent(s) used when making these decisions.

Estimating procedure-related bleeding risk

Various endoscopic procedures have different risks of associated bleeding. Although guidelines from GI societies may differ when classifying procedures into low or high risk, it is important to know that most of the original data on postprocedural bleeding risks are from studies conducted in patients who are not on complex antithrombotic regimens and thus may not accurately reflect the bleeding risk of patients using newer antithrombotic therapies.^1,4-7

Traditionally, some of the common low-risk procedures have included diagnostic EGD and colonoscopy with or without biopsy, ERCP without sphincterotomy, biliary stent placement, and push or balloon-assisted enteroscopy. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures associated with interventions are known to have higher bleeding risk, and other procedural factors can influence this risk as well.⁸ For example, polypectomy, one of the most common interventions during endoscopy, is associated with bleeding risk ranging from 0.3% to 10% depending on multiple factors including polyp size, location, morphology (nonpolypoid, sessile, pedunculated), resection technique (cold or hot forceps, cold or hot snare), and type of cautery used.⁹ For some procedures, such as routine screening colonoscopy, however, the preprocedure estimate of bleeding risk can be uncertain because it is unclear if a high risk intervention (e.g., polypectomy of large polyp) will be necessary. For example, in the most recent ACG/CAG guidelines, colonoscopy with polypectomy < 1cm is considered a low/moderate risk bleeding procedure, whereas polypectomy > 1cm is considered high risk for bleeding.⁴ In these situations, the management of antithrombotic medications may depend on the individual patient’s risk of thrombosis and the specific antithrombotic agent. In the example of a patient undergoing colonoscopy while on antithrombotic medications, the bleeding risk associated with polypectomy can potentially be reduced by procedural techniques such as preferential use of cold snare polypectomy. Further high-quality data on the optimal procedural technique to reduce postpolypectomy bleeding in patients on antithrombotic medications is needed to help guide management.
 

Estimating thromboembolic risk

The risk of thromboembolic events in patients who are withholding their antithrombotic therapy for an endoscopic procedure depends on their underlying condition and individual characteristics. In patients who are on antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF, the risk of cerebral thromboembolism in these patients is predictable using the CHA₂DS₂Vasc index.¹⁰ This scoring index includes heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years or older, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), vascular disease, age 65-74 years, and sex categories.

Patients with previous VTE on anticoagulation or those who have mechanical heart valves may have different risk factors for thromboembolic episodes. Among patients with VTE, time from initial VTE, history of recurrent VTE with antithrombotic interruption, and presence of underlying thrombophilia are most predictive of future thromboembolic risk. And for patients with mechanical heart valves, presence of a mitral valve prosthesis, and the presence or absence of associated heart failure and AF determine the annual risk of thromboembolic events. Bioprosthetic valves are generally considered low risk.

In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), high thrombosis risk scenarios with holding antiplatelets include patients within 3 months of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event, within 6 months of a drug-eluting stent (DES) placement, or within 1 month of a bare metal coronary stent (BMS) placement. In addition, patients with ACS that occurred within the past 12 months of DES placement or within 2 months of BMS placement are also considered high risk.^11,12 Even beyond these periods, certain patients may still be at high risk of stent occlusion. In particular, patients with a prior history of stent occlusion, ACS or ST elevation myocardial infection, prior multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention, diabetes, renal failure, or diffuse CAD are at higher risk of stent occlusion or ACS events with alteration of antithrombotic therapy.¹³ Thus, modification of antithrombotic regimens in these patients should be cautiously approached.
 

Management of antithrombotics prior to elective endoscopy

In patients who need elective endoscopic procedures, if the indication for antithrombotic therapy is short-term, the procedure is probably best delayed until after that period.¹³ For patients on long-term or lifelong antithrombotic treatment, the decision to temporarily hold the treatment for endoscopy should occur after a discussion with the patient and all of the involved providers. In some high-risk patients, these agents cannot be interrupted; therefore, clinicians must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure before proceeding with endoscopy. For patients who are known to be undergoing an elective endoscopic procedure, antithrombotic medications may or may not need to be held prior to the procedure depending on the type of therapy. For example, according to the recent ACG/CAG guidelines, warfarin should be continued, whereas DOACs should be temporarily stopped for patients who are undergoing elective/planned endoscopic GI procedures.

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) administered as a continuous intravenous infusion can generally be held 3-4 hours before the procedure, given its short half-life. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), including enoxaparin and dalteparin, should be stopped 24 hours prior to the procedure.^2,14 Fondaparinux is a synthetic X-a inhibitor that requires discontinuation at least 36 hours preceding a high risk procedure. For patients on warfarin who are undergoing elective endoscopic procedures that are low risk for inducing bleeding, warfarin can be continued, as opposed to temporarily interrupted, although the dose should be omitted the morning of the procedure.⁴ For those who are undergoing high-risk endoscopic procedures (including colonoscopy with possible polypectomy > 1 cm), 5 days of temporary interruption without periprocedural bridging is appropriate in most patients. This is contrary to previous guidelines, which had recommended bridging for patients with a CHA2DS2Vasc score ≥ 2. Recent impactful randomized trials (BRIDGE and PERIOP-2) have called into question the benefit of periprocedural bridging with LMWH. Avoiding bridging anticoagulation was generally found to be similar to bridging in regard to prevention of thromboembolic complications, but importantly was associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding.^15,16 Of note, periprocedural bridging may still be appropriate in a small subset of patients, including those with mechanical valves, AF with CHADS2 score > 5, and previous thromboembolism during temporary interruption of VKAs. The decision to bridge or not should ideally be made in a multidisciplinary fashion.^15-20

Data are lacking on the ideal strategy for periendoscopic DOAC management. As mentioned above, for patients on DOACs who are undergoing elective endoscopic GI procedures, temporarily interrupting DOACs rather than continuing them is recommended. Currently, there are no randomized controlled trials addressing the management of DOACs in the periendoscopic period. However, based on five cohort studies, the ideal duration of DOAC interruption before endoscopic procedures may be between 1 and 2 days, excluding the day of the procedure.^21-25 This strategy allows for a short preprocedural duration of DOAC interruption and likely provides a balance between bleeding and thromboembolism risk. Importantly, there are no reliable laboratory assays to assess the anticoagulant effect of DOACs, and an individual patient’s degree of renal dysfunction may impact how long the DOAC should be held. In general, the anti-Xa drugs should be held for 1-2 days if the creatinine clearance (CrCl) is ≥ 60 mL/min, for 3 days if the CrCl is between 30 mL/min and 59 mL/min, and for 4 days if the CrCl is less than 30 mL/min.²⁶ For edoxaban, the recommendation is to hold at least 24 hours before high-risk procedures. The recommendation for stopping dabigatran is 2-3 days before a high-risk procedure in patients with CrCl more than 80 mL/min, 3-4 days prior if between 30 and 49 mL/min, and 4-6 days prior if less than 30 mL/min respectively.²⁷

In regard to antiplatelet management, ASA and the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors (e.g. clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) are the most commonly utilized antiplatelets in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. For patients who are on ASA monotherapy, whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily, for secondary cardiovascular prevention, no interruption of ASA therapy is necessary for elective procedures. The benefit of ASA for secondary cardiovascular prevention and the possible reduction in thrombotic events seen in RCTs of nonendoscopic surgical procedures is well known. However, there may be certain exceptions in which aspirin should be temporarily held. For example, short-term interruption of ASA could be considered in high risk procedures such as biliary or pancreatic sphincterotomy, ampullectomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. For patients on single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor who are undergoing elective endoscopic GI procedures, the recent CAG/ACG guidelines did not provide a clear recommendation for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor. Although interruption of a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor should theoretically decrease a patient’s risk of bleeding, the available evidence reported a nonsignificant increased bleeding risk in patients who stop a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor for an elective endoscopic procedure compared with those who continue the medication.^28,29 Therefore, until further data are available, for patients on P2Y₁₂ receptor monotherapy, a reasonable strategy would be to temporarily hold therapy prior to high risk endoscopic procedures, assuming the patients are not at high cardiovascular risk. Clopidogrel and prasugrel have to be stopped 5-7 days prior to allow normal platelet aggregation to resume as opposed to ticagrelor, a reversible P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor that can be stopped 3-5 days prior.³⁰

Lastly, for patients who are on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for secondary prevention, continuation of ASA and temporary interruption of the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor is recommended while undergoing elective endoscopy. Studies have shown that those who discontinued both had a much higher incidence of stent thrombosis compared with those who remained on aspirin alone.^4,28,31

Resumption of antithrombotic therapy after endoscopy

In general, antithrombotic therapy should be resumed upon completion of the procedure unless there remains a persistent risk of major bleeding.^1,14 This consensus is based on studies available on warfarin and heparin products, with minimal literature available regarding the resumption of DOACs. The benefits of immediate re-initiation of antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of thromboembolic events should be weighed against the risk of hemorrhage associated with the specific agent, the time to onset of the medication, and procedure-specific circumstances. For the small subset of patients on warfarin with a high risk of thromboembolism (e.g., mechanical heart valve), bridging with LMWH should be started at the earliest possible time when there is no risk of major bleeding and continued until the international normalized ratio (INR) reaches a therapeutic level with warfarin. For patients at a lower risk of thromboembolism, warfarin should be restarted within 24 hours of the procedure. In addition, because of the shorter duration of DOACs, if treatment with these agents cannot resume within 24 hours of a high-risk procedure, bridge therapy should be considered with UFH or LMWH in patients with a high risk of thrombosis.¹⁸ In patients receiving DOACs for stroke prophylaxis in AF, the DOACS can be safely resumed 1 day after low-risk procedures and 2-3 days after high-risk procedures without the need for bridging.²⁵ All antiplatelet agents should be resumed as soon as hemostasis is achieved.

Conclusion

Antithrombotic therapy is increasingly used given the aging population, widespread burden of cardiovascular comorbidities, and expanding indications for classes of medications such as direct oral anticoagulants. Given the association with antithrombotic medications and gastrointestinal bleeding, it is essential for gastroenterologists to understand the importance, necessity, and timing when holding these medications for endoscopic procedures. Even with the practice guidelines available today to help clinicians navigate certain situations, each patient’s antithrombotic management may be different, and communication with the prescribing physicians and including patients in the decision-making process is essential before planned procedures.

Dr. Wang is a gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago. Dr. Sengupta is an associate professor at the University of Chicago. They reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

References

1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Acosta RD et al. The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(1):3-16.

2. Veitch AM et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines. Endoscopy. 2016;48(4):c1. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-122686.

3. Chan FKL et al. Management of patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy: Joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) practice guidelines. Gut. 2018;67(3):405-17.

4. Abraham NS et al. American College of Gastroenterology – Canadian Association of Gastroenterology clinical practice guideline: Management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets during acute gastrointestinal bleeding and the periendoscopic period. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(4):542-58.

5. Boustière C et al. Endoscopy and antiplatelet agents. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2011;43(5):445-61.

6. Fujimoto K et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(1):1-14.

7. Wilke T et al. Patient preferences for oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: A systematic literature review. Patient 2017;10(1):17-37.

8. Gerson LB et al. Adverse events associated with anticoagulation therapy in the periendoscopic period. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jun;71(7):1211-17.e2.

9. Horiuchi A et al. Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: A prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79(3):417-23.

10. Lip GYH et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: The euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137(2):263-72.

11. 2012 Writing Committee Members, Jneid H et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (Updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2012;126(7):875-910.

12. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e326S-e350S.

13. Becker RC et al. Management of platelet-directed pharmacotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease undergoing elective endoscopic gastrointestinal procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(24):2261-76.

14. Kwok A and Faigel DO. Management of anticoagulation before and after gastrointestinal endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(12):3085-97; quiz 3098.

15. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(9):823-33.

16. Kovacs MJ et al. Postoperative low molecular weight heparin bridging treatment for patients at high risk of arterial thromboembolism (PERIOP2): Double blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2021;373:n1205.

17. Tafur A and Douketis J. Perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. Heart 2018;104(17):1461-7.

18. Kato M et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment: 2017 appendix on anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants. Dig Endosc. 2018;30(4):433-40.

19. Inoue T et al. Clinical features of postpolypectomy bleeding associated with heparin bridge therapy. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(2):243-9.

20. Takeuchi Y et al. Continuous anticoagulation and cold snare polypectomy versus heparin bridging and hot snare polypectomy in patients on anticoagulants with subcentimeter polyps: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(4):229-37.

21. Ara N et al. Prospective analysis of risk for bleeding after endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotics in Japan. Dig Endosc. 2015;27(4):458-64.

22. Yanagisawa N et al. Postpolypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism risks associated with warfarin vs. direct oral anticoagulants. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(14):1540-9.

23. Arimoto J et al. Safety of cold snare polypectomy in patients receiving treatment with antithrombotic agents. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(11):3247-55.

24. Heublein V et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving novel direct oral anticoagulants: Results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry. J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(2):236-46.

25. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(11):1469-78.

26. Dubois V et al. Perioperative management of patients on direct oral anticoagulants. Thromb J. 2017;15:14.

27. Weitz JI et al. Periprocedural management and approach to bleeding in patients taking dabigatran. Circulation. 2012 Nov 13;126(20):2428-32.

28. Chan FKL et al. Risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy in an industry-independent, double-blind, randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4):918-25.

29. Watanabe K et al. Effect of antiplatelet agent number, types, and pre-endoscopic management on postpolypectomy bleeding: Validation of endoscopy guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(1):317-25.

30. Gurbel PA et al. Randomized double-blind assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease: The ONSET/OFFSET study. Circulation. 2009;120(25):2577-85.

31. Eisenberg MJ et al. Safety of short-term discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with drug-eluting stents. Circulation. 2009;119(12):1634-42.
 

Antithrombotic therapy is increasingly used to either reduce the risk of or treat thromboembolic episodes in patients with various medical conditions such as ischemic and valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AF), cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and hypercoagulable diseases. Antithrombotics include medications classified as anticoagulants or antiplatelets. Anticoagulants work by interfering with the native clotting cascade and consist of four main classes: vitamin K antagonists (VKA), heparin derivatives, direct factor Xa inhibitors, and direct thrombin inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) refer to dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor) and the factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban).

Antiplatelets, on the other hand, work by decreasing platelet aggregation and thus preventing thrombus formation; they include P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, protease-activated receptor-1 inhibitors, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. All of these agents may directly cause or increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from luminal sources such as ulcers or diverticula, as well as after endoscopic interventions such as polypectomy. However, there is also a risk of thromboembolic consequences if some of these agents are withheld. Thus, the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing GI endoscopy represents an important clinical challenge and something that every GI physician has to deal with routinely.

The goal of this review is to discuss the optimal strategy for managing antithrombotics in patients undergoing elective endoscopy based on current available evidence and published clinical guidelines.^1-4 Much of our discussion will review recommendations from the recently published joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines on management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in the periendoscopic period by Abraham et al.⁴

Factors that guide decision-making

The two most vital factors to consider prior to performing endoscopic procedures in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy are to assess the risk of bleeding associated with the procedure and to assess the risk of thromboembolism associated with the underlying medical condition for which the antithrombotic agents are being used. In addition, it is also important to keep in mind the individual characteristics of the antithrombotic agent(s) used when making these decisions.

Estimating procedure-related bleeding risk

Various endoscopic procedures have different risks of associated bleeding. Although guidelines from GI societies may differ when classifying procedures into low or high risk, it is important to know that most of the original data on postprocedural bleeding risks are from studies conducted in patients who are not on complex antithrombotic regimens and thus may not accurately reflect the bleeding risk of patients using newer antithrombotic therapies.^1,4-7

Traditionally, some of the common low-risk procedures have included diagnostic EGD and colonoscopy with or without biopsy, ERCP without sphincterotomy, biliary stent placement, and push or balloon-assisted enteroscopy. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures associated with interventions are known to have higher bleeding risk, and other procedural factors can influence this risk as well.⁸ For example, polypectomy, one of the most common interventions during endoscopy, is associated with bleeding risk ranging from 0.3% to 10% depending on multiple factors including polyp size, location, morphology (nonpolypoid, sessile, pedunculated), resection technique (cold or hot forceps, cold or hot snare), and type of cautery used.⁹ For some procedures, such as routine screening colonoscopy, however, the preprocedure estimate of bleeding risk can be uncertain because it is unclear if a high risk intervention (e.g., polypectomy of large polyp) will be necessary. For example, in the most recent ACG/CAG guidelines, colonoscopy with polypectomy < 1cm is considered a low/moderate risk bleeding procedure, whereas polypectomy > 1cm is considered high risk for bleeding.⁴ In these situations, the management of antithrombotic medications may depend on the individual patient’s risk of thrombosis and the specific antithrombotic agent. In the example of a patient undergoing colonoscopy while on antithrombotic medications, the bleeding risk associated with polypectomy can potentially be reduced by procedural techniques such as preferential use of cold snare polypectomy. Further high-quality data on the optimal procedural technique to reduce postpolypectomy bleeding in patients on antithrombotic medications is needed to help guide management.
 

Estimating thromboembolic risk

The risk of thromboembolic events in patients who are withholding their antithrombotic therapy for an endoscopic procedure depends on their underlying condition and individual characteristics. In patients who are on antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF, the risk of cerebral thromboembolism in these patients is predictable using the CHA₂DS₂Vasc index.¹⁰ This scoring index includes heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years or older, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), vascular disease, age 65-74 years, and sex categories.

Patients with previous VTE on anticoagulation or those who have mechanical heart valves may have different risk factors for thromboembolic episodes. Among patients with VTE, time from initial VTE, history of recurrent VTE with antithrombotic interruption, and presence of underlying thrombophilia are most predictive of future thromboembolic risk. And for patients with mechanical heart valves, presence of a mitral valve prosthesis, and the presence or absence of associated heart failure and AF determine the annual risk of thromboembolic events. Bioprosthetic valves are generally considered low risk.

In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), high thrombosis risk scenarios with holding antiplatelets include patients within 3 months of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event, within 6 months of a drug-eluting stent (DES) placement, or within 1 month of a bare metal coronary stent (BMS) placement. In addition, patients with ACS that occurred within the past 12 months of DES placement or within 2 months of BMS placement are also considered high risk.^11,12 Even beyond these periods, certain patients may still be at high risk of stent occlusion. In particular, patients with a prior history of stent occlusion, ACS or ST elevation myocardial infection, prior multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention, diabetes, renal failure, or diffuse CAD are at higher risk of stent occlusion or ACS events with alteration of antithrombotic therapy.¹³ Thus, modification of antithrombotic regimens in these patients should be cautiously approached.
 

Management of antithrombotics prior to elective endoscopy

In patients who need elective endoscopic procedures, if the indication for antithrombotic therapy is short-term, the procedure is probably best delayed until after that period.¹³ For patients on long-term or lifelong antithrombotic treatment, the decision to temporarily hold the treatment for endoscopy should occur after a discussion with the patient and all of the involved providers. In some high-risk patients, these agents cannot be interrupted; therefore, clinicians must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of the procedure before proceeding with endoscopy. For patients who are known to be undergoing an elective endoscopic procedure, antithrombotic medications may or may not need to be held prior to the procedure depending on the type of therapy. For example, according to the recent ACG/CAG guidelines, warfarin should be continued, whereas DOACs should be temporarily stopped for patients who are undergoing elective/planned endoscopic GI procedures.

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) administered as a continuous intravenous infusion can generally be held 3-4 hours before the procedure, given its short half-life. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), including enoxaparin and dalteparin, should be stopped 24 hours prior to the procedure.^2,14 Fondaparinux is a synthetic X-a inhibitor that requires discontinuation at least 36 hours preceding a high risk procedure. For patients on warfarin who are undergoing elective endoscopic procedures that are low risk for inducing bleeding, warfarin can be continued, as opposed to temporarily interrupted, although the dose should be omitted the morning of the procedure.⁴ For those who are undergoing high-risk endoscopic procedures (including colonoscopy with possible polypectomy > 1 cm), 5 days of temporary interruption without periprocedural bridging is appropriate in most patients. This is contrary to previous guidelines, which had recommended bridging for patients with a CHA2DS2Vasc score ≥ 2. Recent impactful randomized trials (BRIDGE and PERIOP-2) have called into question the benefit of periprocedural bridging with LMWH. Avoiding bridging anticoagulation was generally found to be similar to bridging in regard to prevention of thromboembolic complications, but importantly was associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding.^15,16 Of note, periprocedural bridging may still be appropriate in a small subset of patients, including those with mechanical valves, AF with CHADS2 score > 5, and previous thromboembolism during temporary interruption of VKAs. The decision to bridge or not should ideally be made in a multidisciplinary fashion.^15-20

Data are lacking on the ideal strategy for periendoscopic DOAC management. As mentioned above, for patients on DOACs who are undergoing elective endoscopic GI procedures, temporarily interrupting DOACs rather than continuing them is recommended. Currently, there are no randomized controlled trials addressing the management of DOACs in the periendoscopic period. However, based on five cohort studies, the ideal duration of DOAC interruption before endoscopic procedures may be between 1 and 2 days, excluding the day of the procedure.^21-25 This strategy allows for a short preprocedural duration of DOAC interruption and likely provides a balance between bleeding and thromboembolism risk. Importantly, there are no reliable laboratory assays to assess the anticoagulant effect of DOACs, and an individual patient’s degree of renal dysfunction may impact how long the DOAC should be held. In general, the anti-Xa drugs should be held for 1-2 days if the creatinine clearance (CrCl) is ≥ 60 mL/min, for 3 days if the CrCl is between 30 mL/min and 59 mL/min, and for 4 days if the CrCl is less than 30 mL/min.²⁶ For edoxaban, the recommendation is to hold at least 24 hours before high-risk procedures. The recommendation for stopping dabigatran is 2-3 days before a high-risk procedure in patients with CrCl more than 80 mL/min, 3-4 days prior if between 30 and 49 mL/min, and 4-6 days prior if less than 30 mL/min respectively.²⁷

In regard to antiplatelet management, ASA and the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors (e.g. clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) are the most commonly utilized antiplatelets in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. For patients who are on ASA monotherapy, whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily, for secondary cardiovascular prevention, no interruption of ASA therapy is necessary for elective procedures. The benefit of ASA for secondary cardiovascular prevention and the possible reduction in thrombotic events seen in RCTs of nonendoscopic surgical procedures is well known. However, there may be certain exceptions in which aspirin should be temporarily held. For example, short-term interruption of ASA could be considered in high risk procedures such as biliary or pancreatic sphincterotomy, ampullectomy, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. For patients on single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor who are undergoing elective endoscopic GI procedures, the recent CAG/ACG guidelines did not provide a clear recommendation for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor. Although interruption of a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor should theoretically decrease a patient’s risk of bleeding, the available evidence reported a nonsignificant increased bleeding risk in patients who stop a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor for an elective endoscopic procedure compared with those who continue the medication.^28,29 Therefore, until further data are available, for patients on P2Y₁₂ receptor monotherapy, a reasonable strategy would be to temporarily hold therapy prior to high risk endoscopic procedures, assuming the patients are not at high cardiovascular risk. Clopidogrel and prasugrel have to be stopped 5-7 days prior to allow normal platelet aggregation to resume as opposed to ticagrelor, a reversible P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor that can be stopped 3-5 days prior.³⁰

Lastly, for patients who are on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for secondary prevention, continuation of ASA and temporary interruption of the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor is recommended while undergoing elective endoscopy. Studies have shown that those who discontinued both had a much higher incidence of stent thrombosis compared with those who remained on aspirin alone.^4,28,31

Resumption of antithrombotic therapy after endoscopy

In general, antithrombotic therapy should be resumed upon completion of the procedure unless there remains a persistent risk of major bleeding.^1,14 This consensus is based on studies available on warfarin and heparin products, with minimal literature available regarding the resumption of DOACs. The benefits of immediate re-initiation of antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of thromboembolic events should be weighed against the risk of hemorrhage associated with the specific agent, the time to onset of the medication, and procedure-specific circumstances. For the small subset of patients on warfarin with a high risk of thromboembolism (e.g., mechanical heart valve), bridging with LMWH should be started at the earliest possible time when there is no risk of major bleeding and continued until the international normalized ratio (INR) reaches a therapeutic level with warfarin. For patients at a lower risk of thromboembolism, warfarin should be restarted within 24 hours of the procedure. In addition, because of the shorter duration of DOACs, if treatment with these agents cannot resume within 24 hours of a high-risk procedure, bridge therapy should be considered with UFH or LMWH in patients with a high risk of thrombosis.¹⁸ In patients receiving DOACs for stroke prophylaxis in AF, the DOACS can be safely resumed 1 day after low-risk procedures and 2-3 days after high-risk procedures without the need for bridging.²⁵ All antiplatelet agents should be resumed as soon as hemostasis is achieved.

Conclusion

Antithrombotic therapy is increasingly used given the aging population, widespread burden of cardiovascular comorbidities, and expanding indications for classes of medications such as direct oral anticoagulants. Given the association with antithrombotic medications and gastrointestinal bleeding, it is essential for gastroenterologists to understand the importance, necessity, and timing when holding these medications for endoscopic procedures. Even with the practice guidelines available today to help clinicians navigate certain situations, each patient’s antithrombotic management may be different, and communication with the prescribing physicians and including patients in the decision-making process is essential before planned procedures.

Dr. Wang is a gastroenterology fellow at the University of Chicago. Dr. Sengupta is an associate professor at the University of Chicago. They reported no funding or conflicts of interest.

References

1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Acosta RD et al. The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(1):3-16.

2. Veitch AM et al. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines. Endoscopy. 2016;48(4):c1. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-122686.

3. Chan FKL et al. Management of patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy: Joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) practice guidelines. Gut. 2018;67(3):405-17.

4. Abraham NS et al. American College of Gastroenterology – Canadian Association of Gastroenterology clinical practice guideline: Management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets during acute gastrointestinal bleeding and the periendoscopic period. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(4):542-58.

5. Boustière C et al. Endoscopy and antiplatelet agents. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2011;43(5):445-61.

6. Fujimoto K et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(1):1-14.

7. Wilke T et al. Patient preferences for oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: A systematic literature review. Patient 2017;10(1):17-37.

8. Gerson LB et al. Adverse events associated with anticoagulation therapy in the periendoscopic period. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jun;71(7):1211-17.e2.

9. Horiuchi A et al. Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: A prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79(3):417-23.

10. Lip GYH et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: The euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137(2):263-72.

11. 2012 Writing Committee Members, Jneid H et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (Updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2012;126(7):875-910.

12. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e326S-e350S.

13. Becker RC et al. Management of platelet-directed pharmacotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease undergoing elective endoscopic gastrointestinal procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(24):2261-76.

14. Kwok A and Faigel DO. Management of anticoagulation before and after gastrointestinal endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(12):3085-97; quiz 3098.

15. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(9):823-33.

16. Kovacs MJ et al. Postoperative low molecular weight heparin bridging treatment for patients at high risk of arterial thromboembolism (PERIOP2): Double blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2021;373:n1205.

17. Tafur A and Douketis J. Perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. Heart 2018;104(17):1461-7.

18. Kato M et al. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment: 2017 appendix on anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants. Dig Endosc. 2018;30(4):433-40.

19. Inoue T et al. Clinical features of postpolypectomy bleeding associated with heparin bridge therapy. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(2):243-9.

20. Takeuchi Y et al. Continuous anticoagulation and cold snare polypectomy versus heparin bridging and hot snare polypectomy in patients on anticoagulants with subcentimeter polyps: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(4):229-37.

21. Ara N et al. Prospective analysis of risk for bleeding after endoscopic biopsy without cessation of antithrombotics in Japan. Dig Endosc. 2015;27(4):458-64.

22. Yanagisawa N et al. Postpolypectomy bleeding and thromboembolism risks associated with warfarin vs. direct oral anticoagulants. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(14):1540-9.

23. Arimoto J et al. Safety of cold snare polypectomy in patients receiving treatment with antithrombotic agents. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(11):3247-55.

24. Heublein V et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients receiving novel direct oral anticoagulants: Results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry. J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(2):236-46.

25. Douketis JD et al. Perioperative management of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving a direct oral anticoagulant. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(11):1469-78.

26. Dubois V et al. Perioperative management of patients on direct oral anticoagulants. Thromb J. 2017;15:14.

27. Weitz JI et al. Periprocedural management and approach to bleeding in patients taking dabigatran. Circulation. 2012 Nov 13;126(20):2428-32.

28. Chan FKL et al. Risk of postpolypectomy bleeding with uninterrupted clopidogrel therapy in an industry-independent, double-blind, randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4):918-25.

29. Watanabe K et al. Effect of antiplatelet agent number, types, and pre-endoscopic management on postpolypectomy bleeding: Validation of endoscopy guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(1):317-25.

30. Gurbel PA et al. Randomized double-blind assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease: The ONSET/OFFSET study. Circulation. 2009;120(25):2577-85.

31. Eisenberg MJ et al. Safety of short-term discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with drug-eluting stents. Circulation. 2009;119(12):1634-42.
 

Don’t just sit there. Post something.

To combat misinformation about colonoscopy, health care providers (HCPs) should engage more with social media platforms and create accurate, engaging educational videos, according to investigators.

An assessment of top-ranking YouTube videos about colonoscopy by both lay people and HCPs revealed numerous inaccuracies, which have potentially contributed to public hesitancy to undergo appropriate screening, reported lead author Austin L. Chiang, MD, MPH, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“The prevalence and predictors of misinformation among contents on social media platforms such as YouTube with regard to colonoscopy remain unknown,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. They noted that previous research characterized YouTube as a “suboptimal” resource for information about colonoscopy, although those studies did not use validated instruments.

For the present cohort study, Dr. Chiang and colleagues performed a YouTube search for “colonoscopy” on Nov. 21, 2020. Results with more than 250,000 views were included in the analysis, netting 69 videos. Of these, 39 were posted by lay people, while the remaining 30 were posted by HCPs.

Three board-certified gastroenterologists measured video quality with two validated instruments for evaluating consumer health information: DISCERN and the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT) understandability score. Any video with a DISCERN score less than 2 or a PEMAT score less than 50% was deemed “inaccurate or of low scientific quality per established standards.” The investigators also scored likelihood of recommending a video to a patient on a 5-point Likert scale.

More than half of the videos were low quality based on DISCERN (52.2%) and PEMAT (59.4%) criteria. Videos that featured an HCP scored significantly higher on both scales, while videos created by HCPs were more likely to meet minimum-quality criteria and be recommended to patients.

Specifically, only 20.5% of videos created by laypeople made the grade, compared with 66.7% (PMAT) and 83.3% (DISCERN) of videos made by HCPs, depending on the quality instrument. It therefore follows that an HCP creator was the greatest predictive factor for a high-quality video, according to the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve.

“Our analysis demonstrates a disturbing proportion of inaccuracies and poor scientific quality information among the most viewed YouTube videos around colonoscopy using validated instruments for consumer information,” the investigators wrote.

Types of misinformation varied. Some of the videos contradicted current recommendations and intentionally overstated colonoscopy risk, while others called for screening every year.

“Although it is disheartening to imagine the influence of these inaccurate videos on millions of people, it may be helpful to learn from them and dissect why they have succeeded in attracting viewers,” the investigators wrote.

So which videos had the most views? To put it bluntly, it was the funny, “gross” stuff. The top-ranking colonoscopy videos featured comedians talking about their colonoscopies or had shocking footage, like worms wiggling during an endoscopic exam of a patient with a parasitic infection.
 

How to create better content

While these acts may be hard to follow for the average gastroenterologist-YouTuber, Dr. Chiang and colleagues did detect one video characteristic that should be avoided: complexity. Multivariate analysis showed that endoscopic footage was a negative effect modifier for clarity and understandability.

“The main challenge of any video content is striking a balance between brevity and accuracy/comprehensiveness,” the investigators wrote. “When describing endoscopic videos to lay audiences, gastroenterologists must be careful to provide appropriate clinical context and use wording that is concise and easily comprehended.”

More broadly, the investigators called for a three-pronged approach to combat misinformation by creating better content.

First, they advised HCPs to increase participation on social media channels, with a focus on promoting health equity among at-risk and non–English-speaking audiences. Second, they asked professional societies such as the American Gastroenterological Association to assist HCPs with the fundamentals of content creation, including techniques in storytelling and videography. Finally, they proposed HCPs partner with lay creators, following a common strategy in traditional media in which celebrities share scientifically grounded medical information.

“Although the prevalence of inaccurate colonoscopy videos is concerning, an understanding of existing health misinformation and a proactive approach to cultivate professional content creation may help provide patients with high-quality information to help achieve colorectal cancer screening targets and improve health outcomes,” the investigators concluded.

The study was partially funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chiang is an employee of Medtronic and holds a seat on the YouTube Health Advisory Board. The other investigators disclosed no competing interests.

Don’t just sit there. Post something.

To combat misinformation about colonoscopy, health care providers (HCPs) should engage more with social media platforms and create accurate, engaging educational videos, according to investigators.

An assessment of top-ranking YouTube videos about colonoscopy by both lay people and HCPs revealed numerous inaccuracies, which have potentially contributed to public hesitancy to undergo appropriate screening, reported lead author Austin L. Chiang, MD, MPH, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“The prevalence and predictors of misinformation among contents on social media platforms such as YouTube with regard to colonoscopy remain unknown,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. They noted that previous research characterized YouTube as a “suboptimal” resource for information about colonoscopy, although those studies did not use validated instruments.

For the present cohort study, Dr. Chiang and colleagues performed a YouTube search for “colonoscopy” on Nov. 21, 2020. Results with more than 250,000 views were included in the analysis, netting 69 videos. Of these, 39 were posted by lay people, while the remaining 30 were posted by HCPs.

Three board-certified gastroenterologists measured video quality with two validated instruments for evaluating consumer health information: DISCERN and the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT) understandability score. Any video with a DISCERN score less than 2 or a PEMAT score less than 50% was deemed “inaccurate or of low scientific quality per established standards.” The investigators also scored likelihood of recommending a video to a patient on a 5-point Likert scale.

More than half of the videos were low quality based on DISCERN (52.2%) and PEMAT (59.4%) criteria. Videos that featured an HCP scored significantly higher on both scales, while videos created by HCPs were more likely to meet minimum-quality criteria and be recommended to patients.

Specifically, only 20.5% of videos created by laypeople made the grade, compared with 66.7% (PMAT) and 83.3% (DISCERN) of videos made by HCPs, depending on the quality instrument. It therefore follows that an HCP creator was the greatest predictive factor for a high-quality video, according to the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve.

“Our analysis demonstrates a disturbing proportion of inaccuracies and poor scientific quality information among the most viewed YouTube videos around colonoscopy using validated instruments for consumer information,” the investigators wrote.

Types of misinformation varied. Some of the videos contradicted current recommendations and intentionally overstated colonoscopy risk, while others called for screening every year.

“Although it is disheartening to imagine the influence of these inaccurate videos on millions of people, it may be helpful to learn from them and dissect why they have succeeded in attracting viewers,” the investigators wrote.

So which videos had the most views? To put it bluntly, it was the funny, “gross” stuff. The top-ranking colonoscopy videos featured comedians talking about their colonoscopies or had shocking footage, like worms wiggling during an endoscopic exam of a patient with a parasitic infection.
 

How to create better content

While these acts may be hard to follow for the average gastroenterologist-YouTuber, Dr. Chiang and colleagues did detect one video characteristic that should be avoided: complexity. Multivariate analysis showed that endoscopic footage was a negative effect modifier for clarity and understandability.

“The main challenge of any video content is striking a balance between brevity and accuracy/comprehensiveness,” the investigators wrote. “When describing endoscopic videos to lay audiences, gastroenterologists must be careful to provide appropriate clinical context and use wording that is concise and easily comprehended.”

More broadly, the investigators called for a three-pronged approach to combat misinformation by creating better content.

First, they advised HCPs to increase participation on social media channels, with a focus on promoting health equity among at-risk and non–English-speaking audiences. Second, they asked professional societies such as the American Gastroenterological Association to assist HCPs with the fundamentals of content creation, including techniques in storytelling and videography. Finally, they proposed HCPs partner with lay creators, following a common strategy in traditional media in which celebrities share scientifically grounded medical information.

“Although the prevalence of inaccurate colonoscopy videos is concerning, an understanding of existing health misinformation and a proactive approach to cultivate professional content creation may help provide patients with high-quality information to help achieve colorectal cancer screening targets and improve health outcomes,” the investigators concluded.

The study was partially funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chiang is an employee of Medtronic and holds a seat on the YouTube Health Advisory Board. The other investigators disclosed no competing interests.

Don’t just sit there. Post something.

To combat misinformation about colonoscopy, health care providers (HCPs) should engage more with social media platforms and create accurate, engaging educational videos, according to investigators.

An assessment of top-ranking YouTube videos about colonoscopy by both lay people and HCPs revealed numerous inaccuracies, which have potentially contributed to public hesitancy to undergo appropriate screening, reported lead author Austin L. Chiang, MD, MPH, of Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“The prevalence and predictors of misinformation among contents on social media platforms such as YouTube with regard to colonoscopy remain unknown,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. They noted that previous research characterized YouTube as a “suboptimal” resource for information about colonoscopy, although those studies did not use validated instruments.

For the present cohort study, Dr. Chiang and colleagues performed a YouTube search for “colonoscopy” on Nov. 21, 2020. Results with more than 250,000 views were included in the analysis, netting 69 videos. Of these, 39 were posted by lay people, while the remaining 30 were posted by HCPs.

Three board-certified gastroenterologists measured video quality with two validated instruments for evaluating consumer health information: DISCERN and the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT) understandability score. Any video with a DISCERN score less than 2 or a PEMAT score less than 50% was deemed “inaccurate or of low scientific quality per established standards.” The investigators also scored likelihood of recommending a video to a patient on a 5-point Likert scale.

More than half of the videos were low quality based on DISCERN (52.2%) and PEMAT (59.4%) criteria. Videos that featured an HCP scored significantly higher on both scales, while videos created by HCPs were more likely to meet minimum-quality criteria and be recommended to patients.

Specifically, only 20.5% of videos created by laypeople made the grade, compared with 66.7% (PMAT) and 83.3% (DISCERN) of videos made by HCPs, depending on the quality instrument. It therefore follows that an HCP creator was the greatest predictive factor for a high-quality video, according to the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve.

“Our analysis demonstrates a disturbing proportion of inaccuracies and poor scientific quality information among the most viewed YouTube videos around colonoscopy using validated instruments for consumer information,” the investigators wrote.

Types of misinformation varied. Some of the videos contradicted current recommendations and intentionally overstated colonoscopy risk, while others called for screening every year.

“Although it is disheartening to imagine the influence of these inaccurate videos on millions of people, it may be helpful to learn from them and dissect why they have succeeded in attracting viewers,” the investigators wrote.

So which videos had the most views? To put it bluntly, it was the funny, “gross” stuff. The top-ranking colonoscopy videos featured comedians talking about their colonoscopies or had shocking footage, like worms wiggling during an endoscopic exam of a patient with a parasitic infection.
 

How to create better content

While these acts may be hard to follow for the average gastroenterologist-YouTuber, Dr. Chiang and colleagues did detect one video characteristic that should be avoided: complexity. Multivariate analysis showed that endoscopic footage was a negative effect modifier for clarity and understandability.

“The main challenge of any video content is striking a balance between brevity and accuracy/comprehensiveness,” the investigators wrote. “When describing endoscopic videos to lay audiences, gastroenterologists must be careful to provide appropriate clinical context and use wording that is concise and easily comprehended.”

More broadly, the investigators called for a three-pronged approach to combat misinformation by creating better content.

First, they advised HCPs to increase participation on social media channels, with a focus on promoting health equity among at-risk and non–English-speaking audiences. Second, they asked professional societies such as the American Gastroenterological Association to assist HCPs with the fundamentals of content creation, including techniques in storytelling and videography. Finally, they proposed HCPs partner with lay creators, following a common strategy in traditional media in which celebrities share scientifically grounded medical information.

“Although the prevalence of inaccurate colonoscopy videos is concerning, an understanding of existing health misinformation and a proactive approach to cultivate professional content creation may help provide patients with high-quality information to help achieve colorectal cancer screening targets and improve health outcomes,” the investigators concluded.

The study was partially funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chiang is an employee of Medtronic and holds a seat on the YouTube Health Advisory Board. The other investigators disclosed no competing interests.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.