Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Randomized trial of standard versus magnetic endoscope imaging colonoscopes for unsedated colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Unsedated colonoscopy has potential benefits, including decreased costs and decreased risks.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient comfort during unsedated colonoscopy can be improved through the use of a magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) colonoscope compared with a standard colonoscope.

DESIGN: Prospective, patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

PATIENTS: Veterans undergoing outpatient screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS: Use of a standard or MEI colonoscope during unsedated colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome variable was patient perception of pain using a 7-point scale. The secondary endpoint was patient willingness to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS: Of the 160 patients enrolled, 140 completed an unsedated colonoscopy in the study protocol. In a per-protocol analysis, the mean and median pain score was 3.12 (standard deviation 1.22) and 4 (interquartile range 2-4) for the standard colonoscope group and 3.06 (standard deviation 1.13) and 3 (interquartile range 2-4) for the MEI group, where 3 was mild pain (P = not significant). Overall, 80% of subjects were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 80% of subjects (64/80) in the standard colonoscope arm and 79% in the MEI arm (63/80) were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy (P = not significant).

LIMITATIONS: Single-center study of mostly male veterans.

CONCLUSIONS: This patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial did not demonstrate any difference in patient perception of pain or willingness to undergo unsedated examinations when using the MEI versus the conventional colonoscope. Unsedated colonoscopy is generally feasible and well tolerated and is associated with high patient satisfaction rates.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app