SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for endoscopic mucosal resection: a randomized controlled trial

dc.contributor.authorRex, Douglas K.
dc.contributor.authorBroadley, Heather M.
dc.contributor.authorGarcia, Jonathan R.
dc.contributor.authorLahr, Rachel E.
dc.contributor.authorMacPhail, Margaret E.
dc.contributor.authorMcWhinney, Connor D.
dc.contributor.authorSearight, Meghan P.
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, Andrew W.
dc.contributor.authorMahajan, Neal
dc.contributor.authorEckert, George J.
dc.contributor.authorVemulapalli, Krishna C.
dc.contributor.departmentMedicine, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-09T20:02:13Z
dc.date.available2019-09-09T20:02:13Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationRex, D. K., Broadley, H. M., Garcia, J. R., Lahr, R. E., MacPhail, M. E., McWhinney, C. D., … Vemulapalli, K. C. (2019). SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for endoscopic mucosal resection: A randomized controlled trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.06.040en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/20895
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.gie.2019.06.040en_US
dc.relation.journalGastrointestinal Endoscopyen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourcePublisheren_US
dc.subjectendoscopic mucosal resectionen_US
dc.subjectSIC-8000en_US
dc.subjecthetastarchen_US
dc.titleSIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for endoscopic mucosal resection: a randomized controlled trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Rex_2019_SIC-8000.pdf
Size:
323.22 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: