Differences with experienced nurse assistance during colonoscopy in detecting polyp and adenoma: a randomized clinical trial
- 89 Downloads
This study aims to evaluate whether the participation of an experienced endoscopy nurse in colonoscopy increases the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) of experienced colonoscopists.
This study was a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the experienced colonoscopist alone (single observer) group, or experienced nurse participation (dual observer) group. The primary outcome was the PDR and ADR. The advanced lesion detection rate was also recorded.
A total of 587 patients were included in the analysis. Among these patients, 291 patients were assigned to the single observer group, while 296 patients were assigned to the dual observer group. The PDR was 33% in the single observer group and 41.9% in the dual observer group (P = 0.026), while the ADR was 23.0% in the single observer group and 30.4% in the dual observer group (P = 0.043). No significant difference was found for advanced lesions between groups.
The present data demonstrated that experienced nurse observation during colonoscopy can improve polyp and adenoma detection rates, even if the colonoscopist is experienced.
Clinicaltrials.gov No. NCT02292563. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02292563&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
KeywordsNurse assistance Polyp detection Adenoma detection, colorectal cancer
The authors thank Dr. Chunjiu Hu, Dr. Honghui Chen, Dr. Xiaoyun Ding, and Dr. Haizhong Jiang at Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China, for their valuable work in colonoscopy examination and data collection.
This study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Zhejiang Province (grant nos. 201483560, 2016KYB257,2017KY581). The funding authorities had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, Stillman JS, O'Brien MJ, Levin B, Smith RA, Lieberman DA, Burt RW, Levin TR, Bond JH, Brooks D, Byers T, Hyman N, Kirk L, Thorson A, Simmang C, Johnson D, Rex DK (2006) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 56(3):143–159 quiz 184-145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, Kraszewska E, Kobiela J, Franczyk R, Rupinska M, Kocot B, Chaber-Ciopinska A, Pachlewski J, Polkowski M, Regula J (2017) Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 153(1):98–105. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.04.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, Zauber AG, de Boer J, Fireman BH, Schottinger JE, Quinn VP, Ghai NR, Levin TR, Quesenberry CP (2014) Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 370(14):1298–1306. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1309086 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Xu L, Zhang Y, Song H, Wang W, Zhang S, Ding X (2016) Nurse participation in colonoscopy observation versus the colonoscopist alone for polyp and adenoma detection: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016:7631981. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7631981 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lee CK, Park DI, Lee SH, Hwangbo Y, Eun CS, Han DS, Cha JM, Lee BI, Shin JE (2011) Participation by experienced endoscopy nurses increases the detection rate of colon polyps during a screening colonoscopy: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 74(5):1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Prachayakul V, Aswakul P, Limsrivilai J, Anuchapreeda S, Bhanthumkomol P, Sripongpun P, Prangboonyarat T, Kachintorn U (2012) Benefit of “transparent soft-short-hood on the scope” for colonoscopy among experienced gastroenterologists and gastroenterologist trainee: a randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc 26(4):1041–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1992-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kim TS, Park DI, Lee DY, Yoon JH, Park JH, Kim HJ, Cho YK, Sohn CI, Jeon WK, Kim BI, Lim JW (2012) Endoscopy nurse participation may increase the polyp detection rate by second-year fellows during screening colonoscopies. Gut Liver 6(3):344–348. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl.2012.6.3.344 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Munroe CA, Lee P, Copland A, Wu KK, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno RM, Friedland S (2012) A tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates during endoscopic training: a venture into uncharted territory. Gastrointest Endosc 75(3):561–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.11.037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Buchner AM, Shahid MW, Heckman MG, Diehl NN, McNeil RB, Cleveland P, Gill KR, Schore A, Ghabril M, Raimondo M, Gross SA, Wallace MB (2011) Trainee participation is associated with increased small adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 73(6):1223–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.060 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Harford WV, Ahnen DJ, Provenzale D, Sontag SJ, Schnell TG, Chejfec G, Campbell DR, Kidao J, Bond JH, Nelson DB, Triadafilopoulos G, Ramirez FC, Collins JF, Johnston TK, McQuaid KR, Garewal H, Sampliner RE, Esquivel R, Robertson D (2007) Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 133(4):1077–1085. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2007.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar