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

Douglas K. Rex, James E. Slaven, Jonathan Garcia, Rachel Lahr, Meghan Searight, Seth A. Gross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)158-162.e1
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2020

Fingerprint

Colonoscopy
Randomized Controlled Trials
Polyps
Adenoma
Demography
Biopsy
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Adenoma Detection Rate
  • Colon Cancer
  • Colonoscopy
  • Colorectal
  • Colorectal Polyps
  • Endocuff Vision
  • Withdrawal Time

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection : A Clinical Randomized Trial. / Rex, Douglas K.; Slaven, James E.; Garcia, Jonathan; Lahr, Rachel; Searight, Meghan; Gross, Seth A.

In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 01.2020, p. 158-162.e1.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rex, Douglas K. ; Slaven, James E. ; Garcia, Jonathan ; Lahr, Rachel ; Searight, Meghan ; Gross, Seth A. / Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection : A Clinical Randomized Trial. In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2020 ; Vol. 18, No. 1. pp. 158-162.e1.
@article{2b1977a9ea92487c8e22fc15698503e1,
title = "Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection: A Clinical Randomized Trial",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Adenoma Detection Rate, Colon Cancer, Colonoscopy, Colorectal, Colorectal Polyps, Endocuff Vision, Withdrawal Time",
author = "Rex, {Douglas K.} and Slaven, {James E.} and Jonathan Garcia and Rachel Lahr and Meghan Searight and Gross, {Seth A.}",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "158--162.e1",
journal = "Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology",
issn = "1542-3565",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection

T2 - A Clinical Randomized Trial

AU - Rex, Douglas K.

AU - Slaven, James E.

AU - Garcia, Jonathan

AU - Lahr, Rachel

AU - Searight, Meghan

AU - Gross, Seth A.

PY - 2020/1

Y1 - 2020/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Adenoma Detection Rate

KW - Colon Cancer

KW - Colonoscopy

KW - Colorectal

KW - Colorectal Polyps

KW - Endocuff Vision

KW - Withdrawal Time

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076375939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076375939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.015

DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.015

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85076375939

VL - 18

SP - 158-162.e1

JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

SN - 1542-3565

IS - 1

ER -