Browsing by Author "MacPhail, Margaret"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Comparing adenoma and polyp miss rates for total underwater colonoscopy versus standard CO2: a randomized controlled trial using a tandem colonoscopy approach(Elsevier, 2018) Anderson, Joseph C.; Kahi, Charles J.; Sullivan, Andrew; MacPhail, Margaret; Garcia, Jonathan; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground and Aims Although water exchange may improve adenoma detection when compared to CO2, it is unclear whether water is a better medium to fill the lumen during withdrawal and visualize the mucosa. Total underwater (TUC) involves the use of water exchange with the air valve off during insertion followed by the inspection of the mucosa under water. Our goal was to use a tandem colonoscopy design to compare miss rates for TUC to standard CO2 for polyps and adenomas. Methods We randomized participants (NCT03231917; clinicaltrials.gov) to undergo tandem colonoscopies using TUC or CO2 first. In TUC, water exchange was performed during insertion and withdrawal was performed under water. For the CO2 colonoscopy both insertion and withdrawal were performed with CO2. The main outcomes were miss rates for polyps and adenomas for the first examination calculated as the number of additional polyps/adenomas detected during the second examination divided by the total number of polyps/adenomas detected for both examinations. Inspection times were calculated by subtracting time for polypectomy and care was given to keep the times equal for both examinations. Results A total of 121 participants were randomized with 61 having CO2 first. The overall miss rate for polyps was higher for the TUC first group (81/237; 34%) as compared to the CO2 first cohort (57/264; 22%)(p=0.002). In addition, the overall miss rate for all adenomas was higher for the TUC first group (52/146; 36%) as compared with the CO2 group (37/159; 23%) (p=0.025). However, 1 of the 3 endoscopists had higher polyp/adenoma miss rates for CO2 but these were not statistically significant differences. The insertion time was longer for TUC than CO2. After adjusting for times, participant characteristics and bowel preparation, the miss rate for polyps was higher for TUC than CO2. Conclusions We found that TUC had an overall higher polyp and adenoma miss rate than colonoscopy performed with CO2, and TUC took longer to perform. However, TUC may benefit some endoscopists, an issue that requires further study.Item Determining the adenoma detection rate and adenomas per colonoscopy by photography alone: proof-of-concept study(Thieme, 2015-09) Rex, Douglas K.; Hardacker, Kyle; MacPhail, Margaret; Rahmani, Farrah; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Kahi, Charles J.; Department of Medicine, IU School of MedicineBackground and study aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC) are measures of the quality of mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. In a resect and discard policy, pathologic assessment for calculation of ADR and APC would not be available. The aim of this study was to determine whether ADR and APC calculation based on photography alone is adequate compared with the pathology-based gold standard. Patients and methods: A prospective, observational, proof-of-concept study was performed in an academic endoscopy unit. High definition photographs of consecutive polyps were taken, and pathology was estimated by the colonoscopist. Among 121 consecutive patients aged ≥ 50 years who underwent colonoscopy, 268 polyps were removed from 97 patients. Photographs of consecutive polyps were reviewed by a second endoscopist. Results: The resect and discard policy applied to lesions that were ≤ 5 mm in size. When only photographs of lesions that were ultimately proven to be adenomas were included, the reviewer assessed ADR and APC to be lower than that determined by pathology (absolute reductions of 6.6 % and 0.17, and relative reductions of 12.6 % and 13.1 % in ADR and APC, respectively). When all photographs were included for calculation of ADR and APC, the reviewer determined the ADR to be 3.3 % lower (absolute reduction) and the APC to be the same as the rates determined by pathology. Conclusions: In a simulated resect and discard strategy, a high-level detector can document adequate ADR and APC by photography alone.Item Impact of a ring fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial(Elsevier, 2019) Rex, Douglas K.; Kessler, William R.; Sagi, Sashidhar V.; Rogers, Nicholas A.; Fischer, Monika; Bohm, Matthew E.; Wo, John M.; Dewitt, John M.; McHenry, Lee; Lahr, Rachel E.; Searight, Meghan P.; MacPhail, Margaret; Sullivan, Andrew W.; McWhinney, Connor D.; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground 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: 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 (SSPDR), 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=0.025) but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or SSPDR. 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 EndoRings and contributed substantially to the overall results. Conclusions: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion.