Division of Gastroenterology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas.
Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jul;90(1):141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.018. Epub 2019 Mar 26.
Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM.
This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time.
No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P = .881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P = .373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤ .05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤ .05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa = .537; P < .05; BBPS score kappa = .184; P <.05).
Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.).
联合使用二甲硅油(SIM)和结肠准备剂已被证明可改善筛查性结肠镜检查中的黏膜可视性,但其对腺瘤检出率(ADR)的影响尚不清楚。SIM 通常通过内镜用于消除内镜检查过程中的气泡。然而,这种做法最近与内镜传播感染有关。我们的目的是确定在聚乙二醇(PEG)准备中添加 SIM 对 ADR、操作时间、结肠准备和 SIM 术中使用的影响。
这是一项针对接受筛查性结肠镜检查的患者的随机、对照、观察者盲法临床试验。排除结直肠癌高危患者。患者被随机分配到 2 种不同的准备方案:PEG 加 SIM 或 PEG。2 名内镜医师对患者准备方案不知情,使用波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)和气泡量表对其质量进行评分。计算了观察者间的一致性。记录息肉检出率、ADR、SIM 术中使用、盲肠插管时间和退出时间。出于研究目的,将盲肠插管时间和退出时间结合起来确定有效操作时间。
在 PEG 加 SIM 组和 PEG 组之间,ADR(33.3% vs 38.8%;P=.881)和有效操作时间(759.3±253.1 秒 vs 800.2±459.6 秒;P=.373)无显著差异。PEG 加 SIM 组中 SIM 术中使用率和气泡量表评分均显著降低(1.6% vs 48.9%;P≤.05)和(0.1 vs 2.1;P≤.05),而 BBPS 评分无差异。2 种评分的观察者间一致性均较强(气泡量表评分 κ=.537;P<.05;BBPS 评分 κ=.184;P<.05)。
在 PEG 制剂中添加 SIM 并未提高 ADR 或有效操作时间。然而,它降低了气泡量表评分,更重要的是,术中 SIM 的使用减少。这种简单且廉价的干预措施可能具有降低内镜传播感染风险的潜力。(临床试验注册号:NCT03119168.)。