Dataset Information

Comparison of colon adenoma detection rates using cap-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Objectives and study aim ?Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer by removing adenomatous polyps, but missed adenomas lead to interval cancers. Different devices have been used to increase adenoma detection rates (ADR). Two such devices of interest are the transparent cap (Olympus) and Endocuff (ARC Medical). Our study aimed to compare differences in ADR between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC), cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). Patients and methods ?A sample size of 126 subjects was calculated to determine an effect size of 30?%. Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy between March 2016 and January 2017 were randomized to SC, CAC or EAC groups. Three experienced endoscopists performed all colonoscopies. Patient demographics, procedure indication, Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS), withdrawal time, polyp size, location, histopathology, were analyzed. Results ?There was no difference in ADR (52?%, 40?% and 54?%) in the SC, CAC and EAC groups respectively ( P ?=?0.4). Similar findings were also observed for proximal ADR (45?%, 35?%, and 50?%, P ?=?0.4) and SSA detection rate (16?%, 14?%, and 23?%, P ?=?0.5). EAC detected higher mean ADR per colonoscopy compared to CAC (1.70 vs 0.76, P ?=?0.01). However, there was no significant difference in mean ADR per positive colonoscopy (2.08, 1.63, and 2.59, P ?=?0.21). Conclusion ?In a randomized controlled trial comparing AC to CAC and SC, neither device conferred additional benefits in ADR among high detectors. When comparing each device, EAC may be better than CAC at detecting more total adenomas.

SUBMITTER: Marsano J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6877415 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of colon adenoma detection rates using cap-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Marsano Joseph J Johnson Sheeva S Yan Stephanie S Alli-Akintade Latifat L Wilson Machelle M Al-Juburi Amar A Stondell Jesse J Tejaswi Sooraj S

Endoscopy international open 20191125 12

<b>Objectives and study aim</b> Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer by removing adenomatous polyps, but missed adenomas lead to interval cancers. Different devices have been used to increase adenoma detection rates (ADR). Two such devices of interest are the transparent cap (Olympus) and Endocuff (ARC Medical). Our study aimed to compare differences in ADR between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC), cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). <b>Patients and methods</b> A ...[more]

PMID: 31788539

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo study the significance of cap-fitted colonoscopy in improving cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionCAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.

Project description:The adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies widely between physicians, possibly due to patient population differences, hampering direct ADR comparison. We developed and validated a prediction model for adenoma detection in an effort to determine if physicians' ADRs should be adjusted for patient-related factors.Screening and surveillance colonoscopy data from the cross-sectional multicenter cluster-randomized Endoscopic Quality Improvement Program-3 (EQUIP-3) study (NCT02325635) was used. The dataset was split into two cohorts based on center. A prediction model for detection of ?1 adenoma was developed using multivariable logistic regression and subsequently internally (bootstrap resampling) and geographically validated. We compared predicted to observed ADRs.The derivation (5 centers, 35 physicians, overall-ADR: 36%) and validation (4 centers, 31 physicians, overall-ADR: 40%) cohort included respectively 9934 and 10034 patients (both cohorts: 48% male, median age 60 years). Independent predictors for detection of ?1 adenoma were: age (optimism-corrected odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95%-confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.03), male sex (OR: 1.73; 95%-CI: 1.60-1.88), body mass index (OR: 1.02; 95%-CI: 1.01-1.03), American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class (OR class II vs. I: 1.29; 95%-CI: 1.17-1.43, OR class ?III vs. I: 1.57; 95%-CI: 1.32-1.86), surveillance versus screening (OR: 1.39; 95%-CI: 1.27-1.53), and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 1.13; 95%-CI: 1.00-1.27). The model's discriminative ability was modest (C-statistic in the derivation: 0.63 and validation cohort: 0.60). The observed ADR was considerably lower than predicted for 12/66 (18.2%) physicians and 2/9 (22.2%) centers, and considerably higher than predicted for 18/66 (27.3%) physicians and 4/9 (44.4%) centers.The substantial variation in ADRs could only partially be explained by patient-related factors. These data suggest that ADR variation could likely also be due to other factors, e.g. physician or technical issues.

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:BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the quality measures in screening colonoscopy and is crucial for reducing colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality. Up to 25 % of adenomas are missed during colonoscopy. Endocuff is an easy-to-use device that is attached like a cap to the distal tip of the colonoscope in order to optimize visualization behind the folds of the colon and increase the ADR. This is the first prospective study of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) in a screening population with follow-up to determine the ADR and adverse events of EC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled asymptomatic patients referred for screening colonoscopy during the 4-month study period. We documented the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, ADR, number of advanced adenomas, and number of adverse events. Colonoscopies were performed by five board-certified gastroenterologists. During follow-up, the patients were called 4 to 12 weeks after EC. RESULTS: A total of 104 EC procedures were performed. Cecal intubation was achieved in 99 % of the patients, with a median intubation time of 6 minutes. The polyp detection rate and ADR in our study were 72 % and 47 %, respectively, and 13.5 % of the lesions were advanced adenomas. A significant number of adenomas were detected in the right side of the colon. Considering all the adenomas and hyperplastic polyps above the sigmoid, we recommended that nearly 60 % of our patients repeat an endoscopic follow-up according to the existing Swiss guidelines. We noted no perforations or other serious adverse events, even in the patients with extensive diverticulosis. CONCLUSIONS: EC is feasible with the most commonly available colonoscopes without severe adverse events. EC seems to be a safe and effective device for increasing the ADR, including small adenomas in the right side of the colon. Therefore, this technique may be recommended in the future to increase the ADR in a screening population.

Dataset Information

Comparison of colon adenoma detection rates using cap-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Comparison of colon adenoma detection rates using cap-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets