Impact of a ring-fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial.

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: This was 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, 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 = .025), but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or sessile serrated polyp detection rate. 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 Endo-Rings and contributed substantially to the overall results. CONCLUSIONS: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without a significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. The use of EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418662.).

SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for EMR: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for EMR. SIC-8000 (Eleview; Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved solution, but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 with 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 (SIC-8000, 84; hetastarch, 75) and 57 serrated lesions (SIC-8000, 30; hetastarch, 27). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, P = .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 = .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. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03350217.).

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) is a 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 (standard deviation 2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision (P = .535). The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (P = .008). There was no difference between the arms for 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 = .042). CONCLUSIONS: AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision on which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE with Endocuff by other investigators are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03560128.).