Literature DB >> 26220283

Multicenter, randomized, tandem evaluation of EndoRings colonoscopy--results of the CLEVER study.

Vincent K Dik1, Ian M Gralnek2, Ori Segol3, Alain Suissa3, Tim D G Belderbos1, Leon M G Moons1, Meytal Segev4, Sveta Domanov3, Douglas K Rex5, Peter D Siersema1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Adenoma miss rate during colonoscopy has become a widely acknowledged proxy measure for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Among other reasons, this can happen because of inadequate visualization of the proximal aspects of colonic folds and flexures. EndoRings (EndoAid Ltd., Caesarea, Israel) is a silicone-rubber device that is fitted onto the distal end of the colonoscope. Its flexible circular rings engage and mechanically stretch colonic folds during withdrawal. The primary aim of this study was to compare adenoma miss rates between standard colonoscopy and colonoscopy using EndoRings.
METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, tandem colonoscopy study, we performed same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with EndoRings followed by standard colonoscopy, or vice versa.
RESULTS: After exclusion of 10 patients for protocol violations, 116 patients (38.8% female; mean age 58.7) remained for analysis. The adenoma miss rate of EndoRings colonoscopy (7/67; 10.4%) was significantly lower (P<0.001) compared with standard colonoscopy (28/58; 48.3%). Similar results were found for polyp miss rates: EndoRings (9.1%) and standard colonoscopy (52.8%; P<0.001). Mean cecal intubation times (9.3 vs. 8.4 minutes; P=0.142) and withdrawal times (7.4 vs. 7.2 minutes; P=0.286), respectively, were not significantly different between EndoRings and standard colonoscopy. Mean total procedure time was longer with EndoRings than with standard colonoscopy (21.6 vs. 18.5 minutes, P=0.001) as more polyps were removed.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that colonoscopy with EndoRings has lower adenoma and polyp miss rates than standard colonoscopy, which may improve the efficacy particularly of screening and surveillance colonoscopies. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01955122. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26220283     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1392421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  27 in total

Review 1.  The Use of Attachment Devices to Aid in Adenoma Detection.

Authors:  Zoe Lawrence; Seth A Gross
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-01-27

Review 2.  2017 Emily Couric Memorial Lecture: Colorectal Cancer: Polyps, Prevention, and Progress.

Authors:  Mark B Pochapin
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Water Exchange Method Significantly Improves Adenoma Detection Rate: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Hui Jia; Yanglin Pan; Xuegang Guo; Lina Zhao; Xiangping Wang; Linhui Zhang; Tao Dong; Hui Luo; Zhizheng Ge; Jun Liu; Jianyu Hao; Ping Yao; Yao Zhang; Hongyu Ren; Weizhen Zhou; Yujie Guo; Wei Zhang; Xiaolin Chen; Dayong Sun; Xiaoqiang Yang; Xiaoyu Kang; Na Liu; Zhiguo Liu; Felix Leung; Kaichun Wu; Daiming Fan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Number of significant polyps detected per six-minute withdrawal time at colonoscopy (SP6): a new measure of colonoscopy efficiency and quality.

Authors:  Rajaratnam Rameshshanker; Brian P Saunders
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-01-24

Review 5.  Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.

Authors:  Eelco C Brand; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

Review 6.  Optimizing Screening Colonoscopy: Strategies and Alternatives.

Authors:  Hans-Dieter Allescher; Vincens Weingart
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2019-07-09

Review 7.  Foreign bodies in sigmoid colon diverticulosis.

Authors:  Ellen Ross; Patricia McKenna; John H Anderson
Journal:  Clin J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-10-13

Review 8.  Advances in endoscopy for colorectal polyp detection and classification.

Authors:  Vijeta Pamudurthy; Nayna Lodhia; Vani J A Konda
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2019-12-18

9.  The Secondary Quality Indicator to Improve Prediction of Adenoma Miss Rate Apart from Adenoma Detection Rate.

Authors:  Satimai Aniwan; Piyachai Orkoonsawat; Vichai Viriyautsahakul; Phonthep Angsuwatcharakon; Rapat Pittayanon; Naruemon Wisedopas; Sakolkun Sumdin; Yuwadee Ponuthai; Sumitra Wiangngoen; Pinit Kullavanijaya; Rungsun Rerknimitr
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Latest Generation High-Definition Colonoscopy Increases Adenoma Detection Rate by Trainee Endoscopists.

Authors:  Jong Yoon Lee; Myeongseok Koh; Jong Hoon Lee
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.