Pros and cons of colonoscopy in management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding （LGIB） is a frequent gastrointestinal cause of hospitalization, particularly in the elderly, and its incidence appears to be on the rise. Endoscopic and radiographic measures are available for the evaluation and treatment of LGIB including flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, angiography, radionuclide scintigraphy and multi detector row computed tomography. Although no modality has emerged as the gold standard in the management of LGIB, colonoscopy is the current preferred initial test for the majority of the patients presenting with hema- tochezia felt to be from a colon source. Colonoscopy has the ability to diagnose all sources of bleeding from the colon and, unlike the radiologic modalities, does not require active bleeding at the time of the examination. In addition, therapeutic interventions such as cautery and endoclips can be applied to achieve hemoo stasis and prevent recurrent bleeding. Studies suggest that colonoscopy, particularly when performed earlyin the hospitalization, can decrease hospital length of stay, rebleeding and the need for surgery. However, results from available small trials are conflicting and larger, multicenter studies are needed. Compared to other management options, colonoscopy is a safe procedure with complications reported in less than 2% of patients, including those undergoing urgent examinations. The requirement of bowel preparation （typically 4 or more liters of polyethylene glycol）, the logistical complexity of coordinating after hours colonoscopy, and the low prevalence of stigmata of hemorrhage complicate the use of colonoscopy for LGIB, particularly in urgent situations. This review discusses the above advantages and disadvantages of colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in further detail.

BRIEF ARTICLE New reduced volume preparation regimen in colon capsule endoscopy

AIM:To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed bowel preparation method for colon capsule endoscopy.METHODS:A pilot,multicenter,randomized controlled trial compared our proposed "reduced volume method"(group A) with the "conventional volume method"(group B) preparation regimens.Group A did not drink polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution(PEGELS) the day before the capsule procedure,while group B drank 2 L.During the procedure day,groups A and B drank 2 L and 1 L of PEG-ELS,respectively,and swallowed the colon capsule(PillCam COLON capsule).Two hours later the first booster of 100 g magnesium citrate mixed with 900 mL water was administered to both groups,and the second booster was administered six hours post capsule ingestion as long as the capsule had not been excreted by that time.Capsule videos were reviewed for grading of cleansing level,RESULTS:Sixty-four subjects were enrolled,with results from 60 analyzed.Groups A and B included 31 and 29 subjects,respectively.Twenty-nine(94%) subjects in group A and 25(86%) subjects in group B had adequate bowel preparation(ns).Twenty-two(71%) of the 31 subjects in group A excreted the capsule within its battery life compared to 16(55%) of the 29 subjects in group B(ns).Of the remaining 22 subjects whose capsules were not excreted within the battery life,all of the capsules reached the left side colon before they stopped functioning.A single adverse event was reported in one subject who had mild symptoms of nausea and vomiting one hour after starting to drink PEG-ELS,due to ingesting the PEG-ELS faster than recommended.CONCLUSION:Our proposed reduced volume bowel preparation method for colon capsule without PEG-ELS during the days before the procedure was as effective as the conventional volume method.

Colometer:A real-time quality feedback system for screening colonoscopy

AIM:To investigate the performance of a new software-based colonoscopy quality assessment system.METHODS:The software-based system employs a novel image processing algorithm which detects the levels of image clarity,withdrawal velocity,and level of the bowel preparation in a real-time fashion from live video signal.Threshold levels of image blurriness and the withdrawal velocity below which the visualization could be considered adequate have initially been determined arbitrarily by review of sample colonoscopy videos by two experienced endoscopists.Subsequently,an overall colonoscopy quality rating was computed based on the percentage of the withdrawal time with adequate visualization(scored 1-5;1,when the percentage was 1%-20%;2,when the percentage was 21%-40%,etc.).In order to test the proposed velocity and blurriness thresholds,screening colonoscopy withdrawal videos from a specialized ambulatory colon cancer screening center were collected,automatically processed and rated.Quality ratings on the withdrawal were compared to the insertion in the same patients.Then,3 experienced endoscopists reviewed the collected videos in a blinded fashion and rated the overall quality of each withdrawal(scored 1-5;1,poor;3,average;5,excellent) based on 3 major aspects:image quality,colon preparation,and withdrawal velocity.The automated quality ratings were compared to the averaged endoscopist quality ratings using Spearman correlation coefficient.RESULTS:Fourteen screening colonoscopies were assessed.Adenomatous polyps were detected in 4/14(29%) of the collected colonoscopy video samples.As a proof of concept,the Colometer software rated colonoscope withdrawal as having better visualization than the insertion in the 10 videos which did not have any polyps(average percent time with adequate visualization:79% ± 5% for withdrawal and 50% ± 14% for insertion,P < 0.01).Withdrawal times during which no polyps were removed ranged from 4-12 min.The median quality rating from the automated system and the reviewers was 3.45 [interquartile range(IQR),3.1-3.68] and 3.00(IQR,2.33-3.67) respectively for all colonoscopy video samples.The automated rating revealed a strong correlation with the reviewer's rating(ρ coefficient= 0.65,P = 0.01).There was good correlation of the automated overall quality rating and the mean endoscopist withdrawal speed rating(Spearman r coefficient= 0.59,P = 0.03).There was no correlation of automated overall quality rating with mean endoscopists image quality rating(Spearman r coefficient= 0.41,P = 0.15).CONCLUSION:The results from a novel automated real-time colonoscopy quality feedback system strongly agreed with the endoscopists' quality assessments.Further study is required to validate this approach.

Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy − enhancements and improvements

Artificial intelligence is a technology that processes and analyzes information with reproducibility and accuracy.Its application in medicine,especially in the field of gastroenterology,has great potential to facilitate in diagnosis of various disease states.Currently,the role of artificial intelligence as it pertains to colonoscopy revolves around enhanced polyp detection and characterization.The aim of this article is to review the current and potential future applications of artificial intelligence for enhanced quality of detection for colorectal neoplasia.