The Argentina Brief Colonoscopy Difficulty Score (ABCD)

NCT ID: NCT05422820

Last Updated: 2023-11-24

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

5000 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2022-07-01

Study Completion Date

2023-10-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Colonoscopy completion by caecal intubation seldom represents a significant effort for the endoscopist. In this situation, additional techniques are necessary to achieve this goal: patients' manual abdominal compression, postural changes, and endoscopist relay. To date, no tool allows colonoscopy technical difficulty grading.

This study pursues to describe the frequency of additional techniques for caecal intubation in a large sample of Argentinians in different centres who undergo colonoscopy for attending purposes, to develop a novel score for assessing colonoscopy technical difficulty.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Colonoscopy is the most performed digestive endoscopy procedure worldwide. It is indicated for colorectal cancer screening, pre-existence surveillance, diagnostic approach in symptomatic patients, and therapeutic purposes. Bowel preparation is the most crucial quality criterion that guarantees appropriate colonic mucosa assessment. Other colonoscopy quality criteria included a colonoscope withdrawal time above 6 to 10 minutes and colonoscopy completion by caecal intubation.

Besides bowel preparation, some situations limit caecal intubation: stenosis, diverticulitis, or haemodynamic instability. In the absence of one of those situations or similar, caecal intubation must be the goal to be achieved by every endoscopist. However, it sometimes represents a significant effort for the endoscopist. It can require additional techniques such as manual abdominal compression, postural changes, colonoscopy restart, and another endoscopist's new attempt. Also, this increases caecal intubation time by over 10 minutes, more anaesthesia and post-colonoscopy abdominal pain, with a higher risk of unnoticed lesions.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no standard definition for colonoscopy technical difficulty in terms of caecal intubation or any tool that grades it based on previously mentioned additional techniques. For the moment, developed tools such as the Difficult Colonoscopy Score (DCS) to consider patients' pre-colonoscopy factors such as age, body mass index (BMI), sleep quality, and endoscopist experience. Other tools are based on a qualitative appreciation of the technical difficulty.

A tool that documents those endpoints constitutes an additional objective quality criterion for colonic mucosa assessment, with critical change management during intra-colonoscopy and post-colonoscopy. Noticed a technically difficult colonoscopy deserves a more prolonged withdrawal time, more photo documentation, a more cautious discharge, more detailed patient instructions, and a personalised follow-up directed to adverse events warnings. A patient with a previous technically difficult colonoscopy will be planned for an earlier next colonoscopy, with a risk assessment independently on the age, pre-colonoscopy consulting with detailing of more potential adverse events, planned in a particular time and with a different anaesthesia planning, and even performed by a more experienced endoscopist or in a referral centre.

This study pursues to describe the frequency of additional techniques for caecal intubation in a large sample of Argentinians in different centres who undergo colonoscopy for attending purposes, to develop a novel score for assessing colonoscopy technical difficulty.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Colorectal Cancer Diagnoses Disease Polyp of Colon Adenoma Colon

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Diagnostic high-definition white-light (HDWL) colonoscopy

All participants will undergo to colonoscopy examination performed by competent/junior or expert/senior endoscopists (\>150-400 or \>400 previous colonoscopies, respectively). Bowel preparation was performed using different solutions, according to the clinical discretion of the attending, who indicated colonoscopy. After deep sedation by intravenous propofol with or without fentanyl or midazolam administration, a water-assisted colonoscopy was performed using a high-definition (HD) scope with white light (WL). Colonoscope trademark differs among participant centres.

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Patients with colonoscopy indication due to colorectal cancer screening, pre-existence surveillance, or diagnostic approach in symptomatic patients.
* Patients with colonoscopy indication due to therapeutic purposes, but with the intention of caecal intubation.

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients with a previous colonoscopy performed by the attending centre in the last three months.
* Patients with a Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) ≤1 in at least one colon segment (ascending, transverse, descending).
* Patients with any situations which does not allow caecal intubation: colorectal stenosis, diverticulitis, the indication of proctosigmoidoscopy for assessing ulcerative colitis, or intraprocedural haemodynamic instability, among others.
* Patients with any contraindication for an invasive procedure: uncontrolled coagulopathy, kidney/liver failure or any comorbidity with an important impact on cardiac risk assessment or physical status: New York Heart Association (NYHA) risk III/IV, or American Society Association (ASA) risk III-V, respectively.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

79 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Austral University, Argentina

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Hospital Nacional Profesor Alejandro Posadas

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Institute of Gastroenterology and Advance Endoscopy

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Manuel Valero

Principal investigator - Physician - GI Attending

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Manuel Valero

Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Argentina

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Jia H, Wang L, Luo H, Yao S, Wang X, Zhang L, Huang R, Liu Z, Kang X, Pan Y, Guo X. Difficult colonoscopy score identifies the difficult patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr 9;15:46. doi: 10.1186/s12876-015-0273-7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25886845 (View on PubMed)

Fritz CDL, Smith ZL, Elsner J, Hollander T, Early D, Kushnir V. Prolonged Cecal Insertion Time Is Not Associated with Decreased Adenoma Detection When a Longer Withdrawal Time Is Achieved. Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Nov;63(11):3120-3125. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5100-x. Epub 2018 May 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29721773 (View on PubMed)

Allen JI. Quality measures for colonoscopy: where should we be in 2015? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2015 Mar;17(3):10. doi: 10.1007/s11894-015-0432-6.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25740247 (View on PubMed)

ASGE Technology Committee; Trindade AJ, Lichtenstein DR, Aslanian HR, Bhutani MS, Goodman A, Melson J, Navaneethan U, Pannala R, Parsi MA, Sethi A, Sullivan S, Thosani N, Trikudanathan G, Watson RR, Maple JT. Devices and methods to improve colonoscopy completion (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):625-634. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.011. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29454445 (View on PubMed)

Clancy C, Burke JP, Chang KH, Coffey JC. The effect of hysterectomy on colonoscopy completion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014 Nov;57(11):1317-23. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000223.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25285700 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

IGEA01-2022

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id