Faster colonoscope withdrawal time without impaired detection using EndoRings

Improvement in Adenoma Detection Rate with Distal Attachment Device Endo-Wing™-Assisted Colonoscopy: A Randomized Control Trial

Aim: Endo-Wing™ is a soft silicone device with six wing-like projections attached at the end of the colonoscope that provides superior visualization by flattening the colonic fold and helps to maintain a central view of the colonoscope during withdrawal. This study aims to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between standard colonoscopy and Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy. Methods: This is a single-center, single-blind, parallel-group, randomized, actively controlled, exploratory clinical trial conducted between July 2019 and April 2020. Participants aged 45 and above who were symptomatic of colorectal cancer (CRC) or with a history of adenoma and under active surveillance were included. Exclusion criteria included colonic strictures, tumors, active colitis, a previous history of polyposis syndrome, colostomy/ileostomy, or a BPPS score of 0. Participants were subsequently randomized to receive standard colonoscopy (n = 96) or Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy (n = 96) at a 1:1 ratio using a central block randomization method with varying block sizes. The primary endpoint was the ADR, and the differences between the two groups were evaluated using univariable statistical methods. Results: The ADR, the number of adenomas, and the size of adenomas in the Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy group were significantly higher compared to standard colonoscopy (p = 0.005, 0.035, and 0.035, respectively). Cecal intubation rates were similar in both groups (p > 0.999). The proportions of colonoscopy requiring increased sedation and standard sedation were similar in both groups (p = 0.613). No adverse effects of bleeding, perforation, and device dislodgement were reported in both groups. Conclusions: This study concludes that Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy improves the ADR compared to standard colonoscopy.

Comparative Efficacy of Endoscopic Assist Devices on Colonic Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Numerous endoscopic assist devices exist, yet data surrounding their comparative efficacy is lacking. We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of endoscopic assist devices on colonic adenoma detection.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using multiple electronic databases through July 2020, to identify all randomized controlled trials and dual-arm observational studies compared with either other endoscopic assist devices and/or standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR), right-sided adenoma detection rate (RADR), and proximal adenoma detection rate (PADR).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies (31,051 patients) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Network meta-analysis identified an enhanced ADR among (clear) cap [odds ratio (OR): 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.99], endocuff, (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 3.15-7.78), and endoring (OR: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.47-9.20)-with no significant difference amongst any particular device. Similar findings for PDR were also seen. Enhanced SADR was identified for endocuff (OR: 9.43) and endoring (OR: 4.06) compared with standard colonoscopy. Enhanced RADR (OR: 5.36) and PADR (OR: 3.78) were only identified for endocuff. Endocuff comparatively demonstrated the greatest ADR, PDR, and SADR, but this was not significant when compared with the other assist devices. Subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials identified enhanced PDR and ADR for both cap and endocuff.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic assist devices displayed increased ADR and PDR as compared with standard colonoscopy and thus should be widely adopted. A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher efficacy for the endocuff device.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.

The Use of Attachment Devices to Aid in Adenoma Detection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the intent of maximizing adenoma detection rate (ADR), different devices and colonoscopic innovations have been introduced over the past few years. There are a variety of attachment devices available for use in colonoscopy, all intended to improve ADR. In this review, we evaluate the evidence surrounding the available attachment devices and their impact on ADR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endocuff, Endoring, Transparent cap, G-EYE balloon, and Third Eye Retroscope were all included in this review. Three of the devices, Endocuff, Endoring, and transparent hood or cap, have been shown to increase ADR without significantly altering the use of the colonoscope. Although balloon-assisted colonoscopy is not currently FDA-approved, it has the potential to increase ADR as well.

SUMMARY

Mechanical enhancement has been shown to complement the current forward-viewing colonoscope, and Endocuff appears to be the most beneficial attachment to improve ADR.

Detection Measures for Colonoscopy: Considerations On the Adenoma Detection Rate, Recommended Detection Thresholds, Withdrawal Times, and Potential Updates to Measures

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was first proposed by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer in 2002 and, subsequently, has been validated as a strong predictor of colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy. ADR is now widely considered the most important quality measure in colonoscopy. ADR is a surrogate for missed lesions and for cancer incidence after colonoscopy. ADR has weaknesses, and multiple other detection targets have been evaluated as alternatives. This review discusses the history of ADR, the strength and weaknesses of ADR, and proposed alternatives to ADR. Of the alternatives, adenomas per colonoscopy has the most advantages with limited disadvantages relative to ADR and has some potential to eventually replace ADR.

Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection: A Clinical Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Mucosal exposure devices improve detection of lesions during colonoscopy and have reduced examination times in uncontrolled studies. We performed a randomized trial of Endocuff Vision vs standard colonoscopy to compare differences in withdrawal time (the primary end point). We proposed that Endocuff Vision would allow complete mucosal inspection in a shorter time without impairing lesion detection.

METHODS

Adults older than 40 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies were randomly assigned to the Endocuff group (n=101, 43.6% women) or the standard colonoscopy group (n=99; 57.6% women). One of 2 experienced endoscopists performed the colonoscopies, aiming for a thorough evaluation of the proximal sides of all haustral folds, flexures, and valves in the shortest time possible. Inspection time was measured with a stopwatch and calculated by subtracting washing, suctioning, polypectomy and biopsy times from total withdrawal time.

RESULTS

There were significantly fewer women in the Endocuff arm (P = .0475) but there were no other demographic differences between groups. Mean insertion time with Endocuff was 4.0 min vs 4.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P = .14). Mean inspection time with Endocuff was 6.5 min vs 8.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P < .0001). Numbers of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.43 vs 1.07; P = .07), adenoma detection rate (61.4% vs 52%; P = .21), number of sessile serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.27 vs 0.21; P = .12), and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (19.8% vs 11.1%; P = .09) were all higher with Endocuff Vision. Results did not differ significantly when we controlled for age, sex, or race.

CONCLUSION

In a randomized trial, we found inclusion of Endocuff in screening or surveillance colonoscopies to decrease examination time without reducing lesion detection. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03361917.

Impact of a ring-fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring-fitted cap (EndoRings; EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate, insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon.

RESULTS

EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, P = .025), but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or sessile serrated polyp detection rate. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with Endo-Rings and contributed substantially to the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without a significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. The use of EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418662.).