OBJECTIVES:Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) consists of endoscope-based CLE (eCLE) and probe-based CLE (pCLE). This study aimed to compare eCLE and pCLE in their diagnostic yield in different parts of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. METHODS:Consecutive patients were scheduled for CLE examination due to GI symptoms. All patients were randomly assigned to eCLE or pCLE group and underwent a programmed procedure using one type of CLE. Differences in procedure time, complication rate, CLE image quality and image acquisition feasibility between these two types of CLE for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy were calculated. RESULTS: Altogether 513 CLE procedures were performed, including 324 EGD and 189 colonoscopy. The procedure time of pCLE was significantly shorter than that of eCLE both in EGD and colonoscopy (16.78 min vs 18.13 min for EGD, P = 0.027; 32.48 min vs 39.89 min for colonoscopy, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between these two types of CLE in diagnostic utility, including the detection and prediction of histopathological results of the lesions. The CLE image quality of both eCLE and pCLE were comparable in the stomach and colon, but eCLE seemed to be superior to pCLE in examining the esophagus. Colonoscopy using pCLE had a higher complete rate than that of eCLE, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.065). CONCLUSIONS:pCLE is more flexible in diagnosing GI diseases with a shorter procedure time than eCLE regardless of comparable diagnostic yields, except the diagnosis of esophageal diseases in which eCLE provides better image quality.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) consists of endoscope-based CLE (eCLE) and probe-based CLE (pCLE). This study aimed to compare eCLE and pCLE in their diagnostic yield in different parts of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. METHODS: Consecutive patients were scheduled for CLE examination due to GI symptoms. All patients were randomly assigned to eCLE or pCLE group and underwent a programmed procedure using one type of CLE. Differences in procedure time, complication rate, CLE image quality and image acquisition feasibility between these two types of CLE for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy were calculated. RESULTS: Altogether 513 CLE procedures were performed, including 324 EGD and 189 colonoscopy. The procedure time of pCLE was significantly shorter than that of eCLE both in EGD and colonoscopy (16.78 min vs 18.13 min for EGD, P = 0.027; 32.48 min vs 39.89 min for colonoscopy, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between these two types of CLE in diagnostic utility, including the detection and prediction of histopathological results of the lesions. The CLE image quality of both eCLE and pCLE were comparable in the stomach and colon, but eCLE seemed to be superior to pCLE in examining the esophagus. Colonoscopy using pCLE had a higher complete rate than that of eCLE, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.065). CONCLUSIONS: pCLE is more flexible in diagnosing GI diseases with a shorter procedure time than eCLE regardless of comparable diagnostic yields, except the diagnosis of esophageal diseases in which eCLE provides better image quality.