Kjetil Garborg1, Håvard Wiig2, Audun Hasund2, Jon Matre2, Øyvind Holme3, Geir Noraberg4, Magnus Løberg5, Mette Kalager6, Hans-Olov Adami7, Michael Bretthauer1. 1. Department of Medicine, Sorlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway; Department of Transplantation Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology, Oslo University Hospital, Norway; Department of Health Economy and Health Management and KG Jebsen Center of Colorectal Cancer Research, University of Oslo, Norway. 2. Department of Medicine, Sorlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway. 3. Department of Medicine, Sorlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway; Department of Health Economy and Health Management and KG Jebsen Center of Colorectal Cancer Research, University of Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Medicine, Sorlandet Hospital, Arendal, Norway. 5. Department of Transplantation Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology, Oslo University Hospital, Norway; Department of Health Economy and Health Management and KG Jebsen Center of Colorectal Cancer Research, University of Oslo, Norway. 6. Department of Health Economy and Health Management and KG Jebsen Center of Colorectal Cancer Research, University of Oslo, Norway; Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway. 7. Department of Health Economy and Health Management and KG Jebsen Center of Colorectal Cancer Research, University of Oslo, Norway; Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopes with gradual stiffness have recently been developed to enhance cecal intubation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine if the performance of gradual stiffness colonoscopes is noninferior to that of magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI)-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. METHODS:Consecutive patients were randomized to screening colonoscopy with Fujifilm gradual stiffness or Olympus MEI-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation rate (noninferiority limit 5%). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time. We estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:We enrolled 475 patients: 222 randomized to the gradual stiffness instrument, and 253 to the MEI-guided variable stiffness instrument. Cecal intubation rate was 91.7% in the gradual stiffness group versus 95.6% in the variable stiffness group. The adjusted absolute risk for cecal intubation failure was 4.3% higher in the gradual stiffness group than in the variable stiffness group (upper CI border 8.1%). Median cecal intubation time was 13 minutes in the gradual stiffness group and 10 minutes in the variable stiffness group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study is inconclusive with regard to noninferiority because the 95% CI for the difference in cecal intubation rate between the groups crosses the noninferiority margin. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01895504).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopes with gradual stiffness have recently been developed to enhance cecal intubation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine if the performance of gradual stiffness colonoscopes is noninferior to that of magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI)-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. METHODS: Consecutive patients were randomized to screening colonoscopy with Fujifilm gradual stiffness or Olympus MEI-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation rate (noninferiority limit 5%). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time. We estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We enrolled 475 patients: 222 randomized to the gradual stiffness instrument, and 253 to the MEI-guided variable stiffness instrument. Cecal intubation rate was 91.7% in the gradual stiffness group versus 95.6% in the variable stiffness group. The adjusted absolute risk for cecal intubation failure was 4.3% higher in the gradual stiffness group than in the variable stiffness group (upper CI border 8.1%). Median cecal intubation time was 13 minutes in the gradual stiffness group and 10 minutes in the variable stiffness group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study is inconclusive with regard to noninferiority because the 95% CI for the difference in cecal intubation rate between the groups crosses the noninferiority margin. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01895504).
Authors: M F Kaminski; M Bretthauer; A G Zauber; E J Kuipers; H-O Adami; M van Ballegooijen; J Regula; M van Leerdam; T Stefansson; L Påhlman; E Dekker; M A Hernán; K Garborg; G Hoff Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: B Rembacken; C Hassan; J F Riemann; A Chilton; M Rutter; J-M Dumonceau; M Omar; T Ponchon Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Christian Gerges; Helmut Neumann; Sauid Ishaq; Visvakanth Sivanathan; Peter R Galle; Horst Neuhaus; Helmut Neumann Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2021-05-30 Impact factor: 4.409