Dataset Information

Prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating cap-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy.

ABSTRACT: AIM:To study the significance of cap-fitted colonoscopy in improving cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate. METHODS:This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study. RESULTS:There were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists. CONCLUSION:CAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.

SUBMITTER: Tee HP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2923764 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating cap-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy.

Tee Hoi-Poh HP Corte Crispin C Al-Ghamdi Hamdan H Prakoso Emilia E Darke John J Chettiar Raman R Rahman Wassim W Davison Scott S Griffin Sean-P SP Selby Warwick-S WS Kaffes Arthur-J AJ

World journal of gastroenterology 20100801 31

<h4>Aim</h4>To study the significance of cap-fitted colonoscopy in improving cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.<h4>Methods</h4>This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colon ...[more]

PMID: 20712051

Similar Datasets

Project description:To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as "usual" or "difficult" by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.

Project description:BackgroundColonic transendoscopic enteral tubing (TET) requires double cecal intubation, raising a common concern of how to save cecal intubation time and make the tube stable. We hypothesized that cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) might reduce the second cecal intubation time and bring potential benefits during the TET procedure.AimTo investigate if CC can decrease the second cecal intubation time compared with regular colonoscopy (RC).MethodsThis prospective multicenter, randomized controlled trial was performed at four centers. Subjects ? 7 years needing colonic TET were recruited from August 2018 to January 2020. All subjects were randomly assigned to two groups. The primary outcome was the second cecal intubation time. Secondary outcomes included success rate, insertion pain score, single clip fixation time, purpose and retention time of TET tube, length of TET tube inserted into the colon, and all procedure-related (serious) adverse events.ResultsA total of 331 subjects were randomized to the RC (n = 165) or CC (n = 166) group. The median time of the second cecal intubation was significantly shorter for CC than RC (2.2 min vs 2.8 min, P < 0.001). In patients with constipation, the median time of second cecal intubation in the CC group (n = 50) was shorter than that in the RC group (n = 43) (2.6 min vs 3.8 min, P = 0.004). However, no difference was observed in the CC (n = 42) and RC (n = 46) groups of ulcerative colitis patients (2.0 min vs 2.5 min, P = 0.152). The insertion pain score during the procedure in CC (n = 14) was lower than that in RC (n = 19) in unsedated colonoscopy (3.8 ± 1.7 vs 5.4 ± 1.9; P = 0.015). Multivariate analysis revealed that only CC (odds ratio [OR]: 2.250, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.161-4.360; P = 0.016) was an independent factor affecting the second cecal intubation time in difficult colonoscopy. CC did not affect the colonic TET tube's retention time and length of the tube inserted into the colon. Moreover, multivariate analysis found that only endoscopic clip number (OR: 2.201, 95%CI: 1.541-3.143; P < 0.001) was an independent factor affecting the retention time. Multiple regression analysis showed that height (OR: 1.144, 95%CI: 1.027-1.275; P = 0.014) was the only independent factor influencing the length of TET tube inserted into the colon in adults.ConclusionCC for colonic TET procedure is a safe and less painful technique, which can reduce cecal intubation time.

Project description:Abstract Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children is usually treated with 10 days of antibiotics. Shorter antibiotic courses may be beneficial if proven effective, with potentially fewer antibiotic adverse effects and decreased antibiotic exposure. Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial (NCT02891915) compared a strategy of short vs standard course ß-lactam therapy for outpatient CAP in children ages 6–71 months. Children demonstrating clinical improvement by day 3–5 of initial therapy were considered for enrollment. Enrolled children were randomized 1:1 to receive either 5 additional days of the originally prescribed antibiotic (standard) or matching placebo (short). The Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR; PMID: 26113652) was the primary outcome, and was defined by classifying the global experience of children into an ordinal clinical response (OCR) that combined the response to CAP treatment and antibiotic adverse effects 11–15 days after the start of therapy. For those subjects with equivalent OCR, documented days of antibiotic administration was used to further rank the desirability of the outcome with the a priori assumption that shorter antibiotic exposure was more desirable. The OCR was a secondary outcome. The intention to treat population was used to estimate the probability of a more desirable outcome for the strategy of short vs. standard course therapy for both outcomes. Results 385 children were enrolled; 380 had complete data for analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two strategies. In both strategies, > 90% of children had an adequate response to CAP treatment and most antibiotic adverse effects were minor (Table). In the OCR analysis, short course therapy had a 48% probability (95% CI: 42%-53%) of a more desirable outcome. In the DOOR analysis, short course therapy was superior to standard therapy with a 69% probability (95% CI: 63%-72%; p< 0.001) of a more desirable outcome. Conclusion Among children with CAP demonstrating initial clinical improvement with outpatient therapy, both strategies had a similar response to CAP treatment and antibiotic adverse effects, but short course therapy was superior in our a priori defined outcome that incorporated decreased antibiotic exposure. Disclosures Emmanuel B. Walter, MD, MPH, Moderna (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Jason Newland, MD, MEd, FPIDS, Merck (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Other Financial or Material Support, Industry funded clinical trial) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Actavis (Grant/Research Support)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Affinium (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Ampliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Contrafect (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Cubist (Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant)Forest (Grant/Research Support)Genentech (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)Medimmune (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Trius (Consultant)xBiotech (Consultant) W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics (Consultant)Pfizer, Inc (Consultant)

Dataset Information

Prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating cap-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy.

Publications

Prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating cap-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets