Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatgraphy (ERCP) carries a radiation risk to patients undergoing the procedure and the team performing it. Fluoroscopy time (FT) has been shown to have a linear relationship with radiation exposure during ERCP. Recent modifications to our ERCP suite design were felt to impact fluoroscopy time and ergonomics. This multivariate analysis was therefore undertaken to investigate these effects, and to identify and validate various clinical, procedural and ergonomic factors influencing the total fluoroscopy time during ERCP. This would better assist clinicians with predicting prolonged fluoroscopic durations and to undertake relevant precautions accordingly. Patients and methods A retrospective analysis of 299 ERCPs performed by 4 endoscopists over an 18-month period, at a single tertiary care center was conducted. All inpatients/outpatients (121 males, 178 females) undergoing ERCP for any clinical indication from January 2012 to June 2013 in the chosen ERCP suite were included in the study. Various predetermined clinical, procedural and ergonomic factors were obtained via chart review. Univariate analyses identified factors to be included in the multivariate regression model with FT as the dependent variable. Results Bringing the endoscopy and fluoroscopy screens next to each other was associated with a significantly lesser FT than when the screens were separated further (–1.4 min, P = 0.026). Other significant factors associated with a prolonged FT included having a prior ERCP (+ 1.4 min, P = 0.031), and more difficult procedures (+ 4.2 min for each level of difficulty, P < 0.001). ERCPs performed by high-volume endoscopists used lesser FT vs. low-volume endoscopists (–1.82, P = 0.015). Conclusions Our study has identified and validated various factors that affect the total fluoroscopy time during ERCP. This is the first study to show that decreasing the distance between the endoscopy and fluoroscopy screens in the ERCP suite significantly reduces the total fluoroscopy time, and therefore radiation exposure to patients and staff involved in the procedure.

Background and Aims Same day bidirectional endoscopies (esophagogastroduodenoscopies [EGD]s and colonoscopies) are routinely performed. However, the best sequence of procedures is unknown, as is whether the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) affects the preferred sequence of procedures. This study aims to determine the preferred sequence of procedures and choice of insufflation gas (air or CO2) in patients undergoing same day bidirectional endoscopies. Methods Two hundred adults with a clinical indication for same day bidirectional endoscopies were randomized equally into four groups: A1 (EGD first, CO2 as insufflator); A2 (EGD first, air as insufflator); B1 (colonoscopy first, CO2 as insufflator); and B2 (colonoscopy first, air as insufflator). All procedures were performed with conscious sedation (Midazolam/Fentanyl). The primary outcome was patients’ overall comfort/satisfaction with the procedures and sedation received, as assessed by questionnaires and validated scoring scales (Nurse-Assessed Patient Comfort Score [NAPCOMS], La Crosse [WI]) collected during the procedures, before discharge, and on day 7 postprocedure. Results Two hundred patients were randomized, with data available for 186. Mean Midazolam dose between groups was significantly less in the EGD first groups (P=0.01). During the procedures, no differences were found in patients’ comfort as per the nurse reported NAPCOMS scores (P=0.19) or the Lacrosse (WI) endoscopy scores (P=0.05). On postprocedure days 0 and 7, no differences were found in the patients’ reported Lacrosse (WI) scores, nausea, sore throat, dizziness, satisfaction with sedation or overall level of procedural satisfaction (P&gt;0.05 for each). However, bloating and discomfort were significantly lower in the CO2 arms (P&lt;0.001). Conclusions This randomized controlled trial using validated patient comfort scoring assessments for same day bidirectional endoscopies demonstrated that the sequence of procedures affects the sedation used but does not affect overall patient comfort or satisfaction. Lesser sedation is needed in the EGD first group, and less postprocedural abdominal pain/discomfort and bloating is seen with CO2 insufflation.

Background and study aims  Methods to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have been investigated, with conflicting results for warm water irrigation. Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) warmed to 37 °C may have similar or more pronounced effects on bowel motility. This study aimed to assess whether warmed CO 2 would improve polyp detection compared to room temperature air insufflation. Patients and methods  This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 204 patients undergoing screening or surveillance outpatient colonoscopy. The primary outcome was polyp per patient detection rate. Secondary outcomes included adenoma per patient detection rates, bowel spasm, and patient comfort. Results  The trial was terminated after an interim analysis determined futility. Between the warmed CO 2 and room air groups, no significant differences were found in the per-colonoscopy polyp detection rate ( P  = 0.57); overall polyp detection rate ( P  = 0.69); or adenoma detection rates ( P  = 0.74). More patients in the room temperature group had lower spasm scores (p = 0.02); however, there was a trend towards greater patient comfort in the warmed CO 2 group ( P  = 0.054). An ex-vivo study showed a significant difference between exiting CO 2 temperature at the insufflator end vs. delivered CO 2 temperature at the colonoscope tip end. The temperature of insufflation at the tip of the colonoscope was not different when using warmed vs. unwarmed insufflation ( P  = 0.62). Conclusion  When compared with room air insufflation, warmed CO 2 insufflation did not affect polyp detection rates.

No abstract