Transparent cap colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Multicenter propensity score-matched analysis comparing short versus long cap-assisted colonoscopy for acute hematochezia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

While short and long attachment caps are available for colonoscopy, it is unclear which type is more appropriate for stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) identification in acute hematochezia. This study aimed to compare the performance of short versus long caps in acute hematochezia diagnoses and outcomes.

METHODS

We selected 6460 patients who underwent colonoscopy with attachment caps from 10 342 acute hematochezia cases in the CODE BLUE-J study. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline characteristics between short and long cap users. Then, the proportion of definitive or presumptive bleeding etiologies found on the initial colonoscopy and SRH identification rates were compared. We also evaluated rates of blood transfusions, interventional radiology, or surgery, as well as the rate of rebleeding and mortality within 30 days after the initial colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 3098 patients with acute hematochezia (1549 short cap and 1549 long cap users) were selected for PSM. The rate of colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) diagnosis was significantly higher in long cap users (P = 0.006). While the two groups had similar rates of the other bleeding etiologies, the frequency of unknown etiologies was significantly lower in long cap users (P < 0.001). The rate of SRH with active bleeding was significantly higher in long cap users (P < 0.001). Other clinical outcomes did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Compared to that with short caps, long cap-assisted colonoscopy is superior for the diagnosis of acute hematochezia, especially CDB, and the identification of active bleeding.

Underwater cap-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with surgically altered anatomy: a pilot study

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) is technically challenging and associated with a significant number of failures. We examined the feasibility and efficacy of a novel technique for the management of bile duct stones (BDSs), called underwater cap-assisted ERCP (u-ERCP). METHODS : Between June 2019 and February 2020 all patients with SAA with jaundice or cholangitis secondary to BDSs who underwent u-ERCP were enrolled. The u-ERCP technique combines the underwater advancement of a pediatric colonoscope with a transparent cap fitted on the tip of the endoscope. We evaluated the technical success, clinical success, and adverse events associated with u-ERCP. RESULTS : We describe the technique itself and our initial experience in six patients. A complete and successful procedure was carried out in all patients, with the occurrence of no adverse events. None of the patients needed additional treatments for recurrence of symptoms during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS : u-ERCP can be considered as a promising alternative for successful endoscopic management of biliary disease in patients with SAA.

Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy during transendoscopic enteral tubing: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonic 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.

AIM

To investigate if CC can decrease the second cecal intubation time compared with regular colonoscopy (RC).

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSION

CC for colonic TET procedure is a safe and less painful technique, which can reduce cecal intubation time.

Impact of 2 generational improvements in colonoscopes on adenoma miss rates: results of a prospective randomized multicenter tandem study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Numerous randomized studies have shown that changing certain features of colonoscopes, usually incorporated when switching from one endoscope generation to the next, mostly do not increase adenoma yield. There is, however, indirect evidence that it may be necessary to skip one instrument generation (ie, changing from one generation to the next but one) to achieve this effect.

METHODS

We compared the latest-generation colonoscopes from one company (Olympus Exera III, 190-C) with the next to last one (Olympus 160/5-C) in a prospective multicenter study randomized for the order of colonoscopes in a tandem fashion, involving 2 different examiners. Patients with increased risk for colorectal neoplasia undergoing colonoscopy (positive fecal occult blood test, personal/familial history of colorectal cancer/adenoma, rectal bleeding, recent change in bowel movements) were included. The primary outcome was the adenoma miss rate with the 190 (190-C) colonoscope in comparison with the 160/5 colonoscope (160/5-C).

RESULTS

A total of 856 patients (48.8% male; mean age, 58.3 years) with a personal (41%) or family (38%) history of colorectal neoplasia, rectal bleeding (19%), and other indications were included. Of the 429 patients in the 190-C first group, 16.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0%-20.1%) had at least one adenoma missed during the first procedure, compared with 30.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-34.6%) in the group with 160/5-C first (P < .001). Similarly, the adenoma detection rate during the first colonoscopy was 43.8% versus 36.5% (P = .030) for 190-C versus 160/5-C, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized tandem trial showed lower adenoma miss rates and higher adenoma detection rates for the newer 190 colonoscopes compared with the 160/5 series. These results suggest that it takes multiple improvements, such as those implemented over 2 instrument generations, before an effect on adenoma (miss) rate can be observed. (Study registration number: ISRCTN 2010-A01256-33.).

Efficacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal adenomas and cancers. Endoscopic surveillance has been shown to be effective for preventing colorectal cancer. Although detection of colorectal polyps at an early stage is important, endoscopic visualization of early neoplasia can be difficult. The Endocuff is a new device that can be attached to the tip of the colonoscope to hold the colonic folds away from the field of view during withdrawal. The aim of this study was to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and the mean number of adenomas detected per patient (MAP) achieved using Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized prospective study was conducted at two academic endoscopy departments in Japan. A total of 447 patients underwent a complete colonoscopic examination between April 2015 and September 2015. The EAC group included 239 patients. The cecal intubation rate, insertion time, withdrawal time, pain score, complications, polyp detection rate (PDR), ADR, the mean number of polyps detected per patient (MPP), and the MAP were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the EAC and SC groups in terms of cecal intubation rate, insertion time, withdrawal time, or pain scores. The PDR in patients increased by about 12 % (61.9 % vs. 49.2 %, P  = 0.013) and ADR increased by 15 % (52.5 % vs. 39.2 %, P  = 0.001) with the use of the Endocuff. The advanced ADR was higher in the EAC group but no statistically significant difference was found (7.7 % vs. 4.6 %, P  = 0.17). Both MPP and MAP were also higher in the EAC group (mean ± SD: 1.33 ± 1.43 vs. 0.83 ± 0.99 per patient; P  < 0.01, 1.11 ± 1.41 vs. 0.66 ± 0.99 per patient; P  < 0.01, respectively). No major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

 EAC not only enabled a higher ADR but also significantly increased the mean number of adenomas identified per patient, as compared with SC.

Cecal intubation time between cap-assisted water exchange and water exchange colonoscopy: a randomized-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The water exchange (WE) method can decrease the discomfort of the patients undergoing colonoscopy. It also provides salvage cleansing and improves adenoma detection, but a longer intubation time is required. Cap-assisted colonoscopy leads to a significant reduction in cecal intubation time compared with traditional colonoscopy with air insufflation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether combined cap-assisted colonoscopy and water exchange (CWE) could decrease the cecal intubation time compared with WE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 120 patients undergoing fully sedated colonoscopy at a regional hospital in southern Taiwan were randomized to colonoscopy with either CWE (n=59) or WE (n=61). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time.

RESULTS

The mean cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in CWE (12.0 min) compared with WE (14.8 min) (P=0.004). The volume of infused water during insertion was lower in CWE (840 ml) compared with WE (1044 ml) (P=0.003). The adenoma detection rate was 50.8 and 47.5% for CWE and WE, respectively (P=0.472). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores were comparable in the two groups. Results from the multiple linear regression analysis indicated that WE with a cap, a higher degree of endoscopist's experience, a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, and a lower volume of water infused during insertion, without abdominal compression, without change of position, and without chronic laxative use, were significantly associated with a shorter cecal intubation time.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with WE, CWE could shorten the cecal intubation time and required lower volume of water infusion during insertion without compromising the cleansing effect of WE.

Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on detection of proximal colon adenomas: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Proximal colon adenomas can be missed during routine colonoscopy. Use of a cap or hood on the tip of the colonoscope has been shown to improve overall adenoma detection with variable rates. However, it has not been systematically evaluated for detection of proximal colon or right-sided adenomas where the cap may have maximum impact on adenoma detection rate (ADR). Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) on right-sided ADRs (r-ADRs) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases as well as secondary sources (bibliographic review of selected articles and major GI proceedings) were searched through October 1, 2016. Primary outcome was the pooled rate of r-ADR. Detection of flat adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P), and number of right-sided adenomas per patient were also assessed. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models.

RESULTS

We screened 686 records and analyzed data from 4 studies (CC group, 2546 patients; SC group, 2547 patients) that met criteria for determination of r-ADRs, whereas 6 studies (CC group, 3159 patients; SC group, 3137 patients) were analyzed to estimate right-sided adenomas per patient. r-ADR was significantly higher with CC compared with SC (23% vs 17%; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08-2.05; I² = 79%; P = .01). CC also improved detection rates of flat adenoma (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.20; P < .01) and SSA/P (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.74; P = .04). The total number of right-sided adenomas (CC: 1428 [60%] vs SC: 1127 [58%]) and number of right-sided adenomas per patient (CC, .71 ± .5, vs SC, .65 ± .62 [mean ± standard deviation]) were numerically higher for CC but were not statistically significant (P = .43). Approximately 17 CCs would be required to detect an additional patient with right-sided adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of CC significantly improves the proximal colon ADR. In addition, flat adenoma and serrated colonic lesion detection rates are also significantly higher as compared with SC.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: is the cap beneficial? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:

In an effort to improve visualization during colonoscopy, a transparent plastic cap or hood may be placed on the end of the colonoscope. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) has been studied and is thought to improve polyp detection. Numerous studies have been conducted comparing pertinent clinical outcomes between CAC and standard colonoscopy (SC) with inconsistent results.

Methods:

Numerous databases were searched in November 2016. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult subjects that compared CAC to SC were included. Outcomes of total colonoscopy time, time to cecum, cecal intubation rate, terminal ileum intubation rate, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were analyzed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with fixed effect and random effects models.

Results:

Five hundred eighty-nine articles and abstracts were discovered. Of these, 23 RCTs (n=12,947) were included in the analysis. CAC showed statistically significant superiority in total colonoscopy time (MD -1.51 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.67 to -0.34; P<0.01) and time to cecum (MD -0.82 min; 95%CI -1.20 to -0.44; P<0.01) compared to SC. CAC also showed better PDR (OR 1.17; 95%CI 1.06-1.29; P<0.01) but not ADR (OR 1.11; 95%CI 0.95-1.30; P=0.20). In contrast, on sensitivity analysis, ADR was better with CAC. Terminal ileum intubation and cecal intubation rates demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.11 and P=0.73, respectively).

Conclusions:

The use of a transparent cap during colonoscopy improves PDR while reducing procedure times. ADR may improve in cap-assisted colonoscopy but further studies are required to confirm this.

The use of a transparent cap in sigmoidoscopy-A randomized controlled clinical trial on pain, time and success rate

Trials on cap-assisted colonoscopy have shown a reduction in pain, faster intubation time and a higher success rate attributed to the use of the cap. No similar studies have been published on sigmoidoscopy even though it is a common procedure associated with significant pain. Our objective was to investigate whether the use of a transparent cap for sigmoidoscopy has an impact on pain, time or success rate. To mimic the tendencies of daily clinical practice, the trainee endoscopist performed the procedures, and no analgesics or sedatives were used. We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial with a parallel design consisting of two groups masked for the intervention. The primary endpoint was pain, recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Our results found cap-assisted sigmoidoscopy to be significantly more painful than non-cap-assisted sigmoidoscopy (median VAS 50 vs. 38 mm; p = 0.047). We found no differences on time or success rate due to the cap. Our results suggest pain management, e.g. analgesics which is not routinely used for sigmoidoscopy, when a cap is used to gain therapeutic or diagnostic advantages. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02243930.

Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy is the current reference standard for the detection of colorectal neoplasia, but nevertheless adenomas remain undetected. The Endocuff, an endoscopic cap with plastic projections, may improve colonic visualisation and adenoma detection. The aim of this study was to compare the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in five hospitals and included fecal immonochemical test (FIT)-positive screening participants as well as symptomatic patients (>45 years). Consenting patients were randomised 1:1 to EAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists (≥500 colonoscopies) who were trained in EAC. All colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded.

FINDINGS

Of the 1063 included patients (52% male, median age 65 years), 530 were allocated to EAC and 533 to CC. More adenomas were detected with EAC, 722 vs 621, but the gain in MAP was not significant: on average 1.36 per patient in the EAC group versus 1.17 in the CC group (p=0.08). In a per-protocol analysis, the gain was 1.44 vs 1.19 (p=0.02), respectively. In the EAC group, 275 patients (52%) had one or more adenomas detected versus 278 in the CC group (52%; p=0.92). For advanced adenomas these numbers were 109 (21%) vs 117 (22%). The adjusted caecal intubation rate was lower with EAC (94% vs 99%; p<0.001), however when allowing crossover from EAC to CC, they were similar in both groups (98% vs 99%; p value=0.25).

INTERPRETATION

Though more adenomas are detected with EAC, the routine use of Endocuff does not translate in a higher number of patients with one or more adenomas detected. Whether increased detection ultimately results in a lower rate of interval carcinomas is not yet known.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

http://www.trialregister.nl Dutch Trial Register: NTR3962.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

The efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy performed by a single endoscopist in patients after colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

The use of a transparent cap is regarded as a simple method to obtain better outcomes compared with standard colonoscopy. In this study, we investigated whether cap-assisted colonoscopy can improve the quality of procedure-related outcomes in patients with a history of colorectal resection.

METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a single tertiary center by a single endoscopist (Kang J.). A total 183 patients after colorectal resection due to primary colorectal cancer were enrolled and 1:1 randomized to undergo either cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAP group) or standard colonoscopy (non-CAP group). The primary endpoint was the comparison of cecal intubation time between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The mean cecal intubation time of the CAP group (n = 89) was significantly shorter than that of the non-CAP group (n = 89) (538 seconds vs 677 seconds, P = 0.024). In the CAP group, the endoscopist performed faster intubation than average more often compared with the non-CAP group (71.9% vs 57.3%). In regard to moving average curve, the CAP group showed a gentle slope during the learning period, while the non-CAP group showed a steep decrease.

CONCLUSION

The cap-assisted colonoscopy could reduce cecal intubation time and achieve more frequent faster intubation compared with standard colonoscopy in patients after colorectal resection.

Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Aspects

Colonoscopy represents a very important diagnostic modality for screening for colorectal cancer, because it has the ability to both detect and effectively remove pro-malignant and malignant lesions. It is recommended by almost all international and national gastroenterology and cancer societies, as an initial screening modality or, following a positive fecal occult blood test, to be performed every 10 years in individuals of average risk starting from the age of 50. However, a significant problem is the so-called post-screening (interval) polyps and cancers found some years after the index colonoscopy. In order to reduce the rate of interval cancers it is extremely necessary to optimize the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. Bowel preparation is of paramount importance for both accurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment of lesions found on colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation could be significantly improved by splitting the dose regimens, a strategy that has been shown to be superior to single-dose regimen. A good endoscopic technique and optimal withdrawal time offering adequate time for inspection, would further optimize the rate of cecal intubation and the number of lesions detected. During the last years, sophisticated devices have been introduced that would further facilitate cecal intubation. The percentage of total colonoscopies is now super-passing the level of 95 % allowing the adenoma detection rate to be greater than the suggestive level of 25 % in men and 15 % in women. This review aims to provide the reader with the current knowledge concerning indications, usefulness, limitations and future perspectives of this probably most important screening technique for colorectal cancer available today.

Improved biopsy accuracy in Barrett’s esophagus with a transparent cap

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopy with a transparent cap on biopsy positioning in Barrett’s esophagus (BE).

METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight patients with suspected BE at endoscopy were enrolled in our study from November 2007 to December 2009 and divided into two groups: transparent cap group (n = 60) and control group (n = 108). Endoscopy with or without a transparent cap and subsequent biopsy of suspected lesions were performed by five experienced endoscopists in our hospital. In both groups, two biopsy specimens were taken from each patient, and the columnar epithelium or goblet cells in histological assessment were used as the diagnostic standard for BE.

RESULTS: In the transparent cap group, 41 cases were tongue type, while 17 and two cases were identified as island type and circumferential type, respectively. In the control group, 65 tongue-type cases were confirmed, with 38 island-type and five circumferential-type cases. Moreover, there was no significant difference with regard to the composition of endoscopic BE types in the two groups (P > 0.05). In the biopsy specimens, BE was detected in 50 cases in the transparent cap group (83.3%, 50/60), whereas the detection rate in the control group (69.4%, 75/108) was lower compared to that in the transparent cap group (P < 0.05). In addition, goblet cells were recognized in only eight cases (all with columnar epithelium) (8/60, 13.3%) in the transparent cap group, with 11 cases in the control group.

CONCLUSION: Transparent cap-fitted endoscopy can guide biopsy positioning in BE without other accompanying complications, thus increasing the detection rate of BE.