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 [PMID: 25278714 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.13178]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Christopher W Teshima, MD, MSc (Clin Epi), PhD, FRCPC, Assistant Professor, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, 2-28 Zeidler Ledcor Centre, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2X8, Canada. teshima@ualberta.ca
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 28, 2014; 20(36): 13178-13184 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