.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Real-world evidence of water exchange colonoscopy improving adenoma detection rates: A propensity score-matched analysis
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
Y
Y
C
P
Y
C
C
DOI：10.1177/17562848261473395.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Randomized trials show that water exchange (WE) colonoscopy improves adenoma detection rate (ADR), but its effectiveness and workflow trade-offs in routine, high-volume practice remain uncertain.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objectives</jats:title>
<jats:p>To evaluate the real-world performance of WE versus conventional air insufflation for adenoma detection, bowel preparation quality, and procedure efficiency.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Design</jats:title>
<jats:p>Retrospective propensity score matched cohort study.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>Outpatient colonoscopies performed from January 2019 through October 2024 at a high-volume Taiwanese center were analyzed. WE procedures were matched 1:1 with air insufflation controls on prespecified covariates. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included segment-specific detection, advanced adenomas detection, sessile serrated lesion detection, bowel preparation quality, and procedure times.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>
The matched cohort included 4,322 colonoscopies (2,161 per group). WE increased ADR by 14.0 percentage points (57.9% vs 44.0%;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< 0.001), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 8. The largest gain occurred in the right colon (right-sided ADR 31.8% vs 18.0%;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< 0.001). WE increased detection of adenomas ≥ 10 mm (8.7% vs 6.7%;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= 0.014) and sessile serrated lesions (1.9% vs 1.0%;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= 0.011). WE improved bowel preparation (adequate preparation 97.4% vs 88.4%;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< 0.001; total BBPS 7.5 vs 6.4;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
<.001). Total procedure time was longer with WE (22.6 vs 15.6 minutes;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< 0.001), primarily due to longer insertion (11.0 vs 6.0 minutes;
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< 0.001).
</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>In real-world, high-volume practice, WE substantially improved neoplasia detection and bowel cleansing, with the greatest benefit in the right colon and persistence of effect against a high-performing air insufflation baseline. The time cost was predictable, supporting WE as an effective insertion technique when maximizing diagnostic yield is prioritized.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
Journal
T
IF:
3.4
Papers:
1.5K
Citations:
3.9K
Organization
Cited Papers