Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims: Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended in several countries, but uptake rates are often low. Fear of pain and also time-consuming costly sedation are barriers for colonoscopy, and thus development of colonoscopy equipment that decreases patient discomfort is worthwhile. This randomized controlled trial investigated the performance of an ultrathin colonoscope in CRC screening.

Patients and methods: Consecutive participants in a colonoscopy screening trial were randomized to examination with an ultrathin prototype colonoscope or a standard colonoscope. The main outcome measure was pain during the examination. Participants rated pain (no, slight, moderate, severe) using a validated questionnaire.

Results: From 187 enrolled participants (80 women [43 %]), 162 (87 %) responded to the questionnaire. The study groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Pain scores were significantly lower in the prototype instrument group compared with the standard group (78 % vs. 29 % of patients with no pain in prototype and standard groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.11; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06 – 0.23; P < 0.001). Cecal intubation rate was 98 % in the prototype group and 92 % in the standard group (P = 0.085). Sedation was used in 2 % and 7 % in the prototype and standard groups respectively (P = 0.12). Adenoma detection rate was 13 % in the prototype group vs. 24 % in the standard group (P = 0.052).

Conclusion: The new ultrathin Olympus colonoscope decreases patient pain during screening colonoscopy. This feature may improve uptake and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy. Further study is needed to evaluate the lower adenoma detection rate.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01370928.

• References

• 1 Pox C, Schmiegel W, Classen M. Current status of screening colonoscopy in Europe and in the United States. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 168-173
• 2 Stock C, Brenner H. Utilization of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and fecal occult blood test in 11 European countries: evidence from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Endoscopy 2010; 42: 546-556
• 3 Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Coombes JM et al. Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 989-995
• 4 Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS et al. Patient time requirements for screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2401-2410
• 5 Khalid-de Bakker CA, Jonkers DM, Hameeteman W et al. Cardiopulmonary events during primary colonoscopy screening in an average risk population. Neth J Med 2011; 69: 186-191
• 6 Elphick DA, Donnelly MT, Smith KS et al. Factors associated with abdominal discomfort during colonoscopy: a prospective analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 21: 1076-1082
• 7 Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S et al. Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 639-646
• 8 Hoff G, Moritz V, Bretthauer M et al. Colonoscope with a sub-distal hyper-flaccid segment for improved insertion at colonoscopy: a randomized study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 104-108
• 9 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
• 10 Campbell MJ, Julious SA, Altman DG. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. BMJ 1995; 311: 1145-1148
• 11 Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH. Sample size tables for clinical studies. 3rd edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009
• 12 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 13 Deenadayalu VP, Chadalawada V, Rex DK. 170 degrees wide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 2138-2142
• 14 Pellise M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Cardenas A et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1062-1068
• 15 Fatima H, Rex DK, Rothstein R et al. Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 109-114
• 16 Tribonias G, Theodoropoulou A, Konstantinidis K et al. Comparison of standard vs high-definition, wide-angle colonoscopy for polyp detection: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e260-e266
• 17 Rastogi A, Early DS, Gupta N et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard-definition white-light, high-definition white-light, and narrow-band imaging colonoscopy for the detection of colon polyps and prediction of polyp histology. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 593-602
• 18 Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ et al. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 499-505