Browsing by Author "Sullivan, Andrew W."

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial
    (Elsevier, 2019) Rex, Douglas K.; Sagi, Sashidhar V.; Kessler, William R.; Rogers, Nicholas A.; Fischer, Monika; Bohm, Matthew E.; Dewitt, John M.; Lahr, Rachel E.; Searight, Meghan P.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; McWhinney, Connor D.; Garcia, Jonathan R.; Broadley, Heather M.; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Endocuff and Endocuff Vision are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE is a knock-off device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing. Methods We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE. Results The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision; p=0.535. The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (p=0.008). There was no difference between the arms in mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, p=0.042). Conclusions AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision of which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE to Endocuff by other investigators are warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Faster colonoscope withdrawal time without impaired detection using EndoRings
    (Thieme, 2018-08) Thygesen, John C.; Ponugoti, Prasanna; Tippins, William W.; Garcia, Jonathan R.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; Broadley, Heather M.; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and study aims:  Mucosal exposure devices on the colonoscope tip have improved detection. We evaluated detection and procedure times in colonoscopies performed with EndoRings. Patients and methods:  We had 14 endoscopists in a university practice trial EndoRings. We compared detection and procedure times to age- and indication-matched procedures by the same endoscopists. Results:  There were 137 procedures with EndoRings. The adenoma detection rate was 44 % with EndoRings vs. 39 % without ( P  = 0.39). Mean adenomas per colonoscopy (standard deviation) was 1.2 (2.3) with EndoRings vs. 0.9 (1.6) without ( P  = 0.055). Mean insertion time with EndoRings was 6.2 (3.2) minutes vs. 6.6 (6.7) minutes without ( P  = 0.81). Mean withdrawal time with EndoRings in all patients with or without polypectomy was 12.2 (5.3) minutes and 16.1 (10.3) minutes without ( P  = 0.0005). Conclusion:  EndoRings may allow faster withdrawal during colonoscopy without any reduction in detection. Prospective trials with mucosal exposure devices targeting procedure times as primary endpoints are warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus Full-Spectrum Endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial
    (Elsevier, 2018) Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Gross, Seth A.; Hassan, Cesare; Ponugoti, Prasanna L.; Garcia, Jonathan R.; Broadley, Heather M.; Thygesen, Jack C.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; Tippins, William W.; Main, Samuel A.; Eckert, George J.; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. Methods We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) Results Among 1,188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC Mean ± SD 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96,) (p<0.001 for APC). Endocuff was higher than standard HD colonoscopy for APC (p=0.014) . Mean cecal insertion times with FUSE (468 ± 311 seconds) and EndoRings (403 ± 263 seconds) were both longer than with Endocuff (354 ± 216 seconds) (p=0.006 and 0.018, respectively). Conclusions For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope.
  • Thumbnail Image
    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 Medicine
    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: 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of scribing history and physical notes and procedure reports on endoscopist efficiency during routine procedures: a proof-of-concept study
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2018-08-10) MacPhail, Margaret E.; Main, Samuel A.; Tippins, William W.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Efficiency is an important aspect of endoscopic practice that has received limited study. We evaluated the impact of scribing electronic pre-procedure history and physical examinations, and electronic procedure reports on endoscopist efficiency. METHODS: We used a stopwatch to measure the time between the procedures (scope out to scope in), pre-procedure patient assessment time, and procedure report generation time for 180 consecutive procedures performed by a single endoscopist with or without a scribe for recording history and physical and procedure reports. Schedulers were unaware of whether a scribe would be present. RESULTS: Mean times for recording the pre-procedure history and physical and procedure reports were reduced by 34% (p = 0.001) and 71% (p < 0.0001), respectively, when scribes were used. The mean time saved by the endoscopist from scribing the history and the physical and procedure reports was 2.12 and 1.59 min, respectively. When both processes were scribed, the endoscopist spent 42% (p = 0.033) longer in the recovery area (absolute mean increase 1.01 min) compared with when no scribes were utilized. The total time saved per 6.5-h procedure block with both scribes averaged to 41.7 min. CONCLUSION: The use of scribes to record history and physical examination notes and procedure reports saved enough endoscopist time to allow additional procedures or longer procedures, or to free the time for other tasks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of water filling on terminal ileum intubation with a distal-tip mucosal exposure device
    (Elsevier, 2019) Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Tippins, Nicholas; Lahr, Rachel E.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; Love, Emma; McWhinney, Connor D.; Peterson, Merritt M.; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Endocuff improves detection at colonoscopy but seems to impede terminal ileal (TI) intubation. We assessed the impact of Endocuff Vision (EV) on TI intubation using adult or pediatric colonoscopes and evaluated whether filling the cecum with gas versus water affected the impact of EV on TI intubation. Methods Using a prospectively recorded quality control database, we explored the impact of EV on TI intubation in ≤1 minute. We used adult and pediatric colonoscopes and tested the effect of filling the cecum with gas versus water. If the initial attempt failed, then the alternative (water vs gas) was tried as a rescue method. Results TI intubation in ≤1 minute occurred in 91% of colonoscopies without EV versus 65% with EV, but the use of the pediatric colonoscope with EV had a higher success rate for TI intubation in ≤1 minute compared with the adult colonoscope with EV (73% vs 57%, P = .043). TI intubation in ≤1 minute was more successful with EV when the cecum was filled with water rather than gas (74% vs 56%, P = .019), but the benefit of water filling was limited to the adult colonoscope with EV. When EV was in place, water filling was more successful as a rescue method of TI intubation (58% vs 21%, P = .011). Conclusions EV adversely affects TI intubation, particularly for adult colonoscopes. Water filling of the cecum mitigates the impact of EV on TI intubation with adult colonoscopes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for endoscopic mucosal resection: a randomized controlled trial
    (Elsevier, 2019) Rex, Douglas K.; Broadley, Heather M.; Garcia, Jonathan R.; Lahr, Rachel E.; MacPhail, Margaret E.; McWhinney, Connor D.; Searight, Meghan P.; Sullivan, Andrew W.; Mahajan, Neal; Eckert, George J.; Vemulapalli, Krishna C.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). SIC-8000 (Eleview, Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available FDA approved solution but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 to hetastarch as submucosal injection agents for colorectal EMR. Methods This was a single-center double-blinded randomized controlled trial performed at a tertiary referral center. Patients were referred to our center with flat or sessile lesions measuring ≥15 mm in size. The primary outcome measures were the Sydney Resection Quotient (SRQ) and the rate of en bloc resections. Secondary outcomes were total volume needed for a sufficient lift, number of resected pieces, and adverse events. Results There were 158 patients with 159 adenomas (84 SIC-8000 and 75 hetastarch) and 57 serrated lesions (30 SIC-8000 and 27 hetastarch). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, p=0.001). There was no difference in the proportion of lesions with en bloc resections. The total volume of injectate was significantly lower with SIC-8000 (14.8 mL vs 20.6 mL, p=0.038) Conclusions SIC-8000 is superior to hetastarch for use during EMR in terms of SRQ and total volume needed, although the absolute differences were small.