TY - JOUR

T1 - WASh multicentre randomised controlled trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in English NHS bowel scope screening

AU - Rutter, Matthew

AU - Evans, Rachel

AU - Hoare, Zoe

AU - von Wagner, Christian

AU - Deane, Jill

AU - Esmally, Shiran

AU - Larkin, Tony

AU - Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor

AU - Yeo, Seow Tien

AU - Spencer, Llinos

AU - Holmes, Emily

AU - Saunders, Brian

AU - Rees, Colin

AU - Tsiamoulos, Zacharias

AU - Beintaris, Iosif

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2021/4/7

Y1 - 2021/4/7

N2 - Objectives The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps.Design The WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured.Results 1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques.Conclusion In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique.Trial registration number ISRCTN81466870.

AB - Objectives The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps.Design The WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured.Results 1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques.Conclusion In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique.Trial registration number ISRCTN81466870.

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321918

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321918

M3 - Article

C2 - 32895334

VL - 70

SP - 845

EP - 852

JO - GUT

JF - GUT

SN - 0017-5749

IS - 5

ER -