Zhouwen Tang1, Daniel S Zhang2, Aaron P Thrift3, Kalpesh K Patel1. 1. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy competency assessment in trainees traditionally has been informal. Comprehensive metrics such as the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool suggest that competency thresholds are higher than assumed. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) may improve competency, but data regarding novice trainees are lacking. We compared CAC versus standard colonoscopy (SC) performed by novice trainees in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: All colonoscopies performed by 3 gastroenterology fellows without prior experience were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria included patient age <18 or >90 years, pregnancy, prior colon resection, diverticulitis, colon obstruction, severe hematochezia, referral for EMR, or a procedure done without patient sedation. Patients were randomized to either CAC or SC in a 1:1 fashion. The primary outcome was the independent cecal intubation rate (ICIR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation time, polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, adenoma detection rate, ACE tool scores, and cumulative summation learning curves. RESULTS: A total of 203 colonoscopies were analyzed, 101 in CAC and 102 in SC. CAC resulted in a significantly higher cecal intubation rate, at 79.2% in CAC compared with 66.7% in SC (P = .04). Overall cecal intubation time was significantly shorter at 13.7 minutes for CAC versus 16.5 minutes for SC (P =.02). Cecal intubation time in the case of successful independent fellow intubation was not significantly different between CAC and SC (11.6 minutes vs 12.7 minutes; P = .29). Overall ACE tool motor and cognitive scores were higher with CAC. Learning curves for ICIR approached the competency threshold earlier with cap use but reached competency for only 1 fellow. The polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, and adenoma detection rate were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS:CAC resulted in significant improvement in ICIR, overall ACE tool scores, and trend toward competency on learning curves when compared with SC in colonoscopy trainees without prior colonoscopy experience. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02472730.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy competency assessment in trainees traditionally has been informal. Comprehensive metrics such as the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool suggest that competency thresholds are higher than assumed. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) may improve competency, but data regarding novice trainees are lacking. We compared CAC versus standard colonoscopy (SC) performed by novice trainees in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: All colonoscopies performed by 3 gastroenterology fellows without prior experience were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria included patient age <18 or >90 years, pregnancy, prior colon resection, diverticulitis, colon obstruction, severe hematochezia, referral for EMR, or a procedure done without patient sedation. Patients were randomized to either CAC or SC in a 1:1 fashion. The primary outcome was the independent cecal intubation rate (ICIR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation time, polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, adenoma detection rate, ACE tool scores, and cumulative summation learning curves. RESULTS: A total of 203 colonoscopies were analyzed, 101 in CAC and 102 in SC. CAC resulted in a significantly higher cecal intubation rate, at 79.2% in CAC compared with 66.7% in SC (P = .04). Overall cecal intubation time was significantly shorter at 13.7 minutes for CAC versus 16.5 minutes for SC (P =.02). Cecal intubation time in the case of successful independent fellow intubation was not significantly different between CAC and SC (11.6 minutes vs 12.7 minutes; P = .29). Overall ACE tool motor and cognitive scores were higher with CAC. Learning curves for ICIR approached the competency threshold earlier with cap use but reached competency for only 1 fellow. The polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, and adenoma detection rate were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: CAC resulted in significant improvement in ICIR, overall ACE tool scores, and trend toward competency on learning curves when compared with SC in colonoscopy trainees without prior colonoscopy experience. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02472730.).