Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 28, 2014; 20(36): 13178-13184
Published online Sep 28, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.13178
Published online Sep 28, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.13178
Table 1 Patient characteristics n (%)
Characteristics | Conventional colonoscopy(n = 122) | Magnetic imaging colonoscopy(n = 131) | Total(n = 253) |
Age (yr, range) | 58.2 (18-82) | 57.7 (19-86) | 57.9 (18-86) |
Gender-male | 63 (51.6) | 68 (51.9) | 131 (51.8) |
Previous colonoscopy | 77 (63.1) | 66 (50.4) | 143 (56.5) |
Prior abdo or pelvic surgery | 19 (15.6) | 26 (19.9) | 45 (17.8) |
Indication | |||
Screening or polyp follow-up | 71 (58.2) | 79 (60.3) | 150 (59.3) |
GI bleeding | 13 (10.7) | 23 (17.6) | 36 (14.2) |
Anemia or FOBT+ | 7 (5.7) | 10 (7.6) | 17 (6.7) |
Diarrhea | 5 (4.1) | 11 (8.4) | 16 (6.3) |
IBD | 8 (6.6) | 4 (3.1) | 12 (4.7) |
Other | 18 (14.8) | 4 (3.1) | 22 (8.7) |
Table 2 Endoscopic outcomes
Endoscopic outcomes | Conventional colonoscopy(n = 122) | Magnetic imaging colonoscopy(n = 131) | Total(n = 253) | P value |
Cecal intubation n (%) | 121 (99.2) | 131 (100) | 252 (99.6) | 0.30 |
TI intubation n (%) | 42 (34.4) | 46 (35.1) | 88 (34.8) | 0.91 |
Distance to cecum (cm) | 83 (53–130) | 82.4 (49–150) | 82.7 (49–150) | 0.71 |
Time-to-cecum (min) | 7.2 (2-29.5) | 6.5 (1.2-28) | 6.9 (1.2-29.5) | 0.18 |
Total procedure time (min) | 16.7 (8.1-36) | 15.7 (5.7-40) | 16.2 (5.7-40) | 0.19 |
Polyp detection rate | 51.60% (0.43, 0.61) | 46.60% (0.38, 0.55) | 49.0% | 0.42 |
Meanpolyps (range) | 1.7 (1-7) | 1.9 (1-8) | 1.8 (1-8) | 0.36 |
Quality of bowel prep | ||||
Excellent | 21.3% | 29.8% | 25.7% | |
Acceptable | 49.2% | 43.5% | 46.3% | |
Fair | 25.4% | 24.4% | 24.9% | |
Poor | 4.1% | 2.3% | 3.2% | |
Procedures self-rated as “difficult”n (%) | 25 (20.5) | 36 (27.5) | 61 (24.1) | 0.19 |
Sedation, mean doses (range) | ||||
Midazolam (mg) | 5.8 (3-15) | 5.5 (2-15) | 5.7 (2-15) | 0.31 |
Fentanyl (mcg) | 86.3 (50-150) | 83.2 (50-150) | 84.7 (50-150) | 0.29 |
Table 3 Patient experience outcomes
Score | Conventional colonoscopy(n = 122) | Magnetic imaging colonoscopy(n = 131) | Total(n = 253) | P value |
Pain score | 0.85 (0.1-8.4) | 1.03 (0.1-10) | 0.94 (0.1-10) | 0.41 |
Pretest pain score | 2.2 (0.1-8.5) | 2.9 (0.1-9) | 2.5 (0.1-9) | 0.02 |
Pain difference | -1.3 | -1.8 | -1.6 | 0.14 |
Sedation score | 8.5 (4.5-17) | 8.2 (4-21) | 8.3 (4-21) | 0.34 |
Table 4 Subgroup of self-rated “difficult” colonoscopy procedures
Colonoscopy procedures | Conventional colonoscopy(n = 25) | Magnetic imaging colonoscopy(n = 36) | Total(n = 61) | P value |
Time-to-cecum (min) | 13.4 | 10.10 | 11.50 | 0.01 |
(6.7-29.5) | (3.8-28) | (3.8-29.5) | ||
Distance to cecum (cm) | 91.20 | 85.70 | 88 | 0.30 |
(68-130) | (49-150) | (49-150) | ||
Sedation score | 9.54 | 9.08 | 9.27 | 0.61 |
(5-17) | (5-21) | (5-21) | ||
Pain score | 1.48 | 1.15 | 1.28 | 0.53 |
(0.1-8.4) | (0.1-7.9) | (0.1-8.4) | ||
Pain difference | -1.05 | -1.50 | -1.32 | 0.54 |
(-6.8-3.3) | (-7.8-4.9) | (-7.8-4.9) |
-
Citation: Teshima CW, Zepeda-Gómez S, AlShankiti SH, Sandha GS. Magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy
vs conventional colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(36): 13178-13184 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i36/13178.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.13178