Browsing by Subject "adenomas per colonoscopy"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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
    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.