G-EYE colonoscopy is superior to standard colonoscopy for increasing adenoma detection rate: an international randomized controlled trial (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable with routine screening and surveillance colonoscopy; however, interval cancers arising from precancerous lesions missed by standard colonoscopy still occur. An increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been found to be inversely associated with interval cancers. The G-EYE device includes a reusable balloon integrated at the distal tip of a standard colonoscope, which flattens haustral folds, centralizes the colonoscope's optics, and reduces bowel slippage. The insufflated balloon also aims to enhance visualization of the colon during withdrawal, thereby increasing the ADR. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, international, multicenter study (11 centers), patients (aged ≥50 years) referred to colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or changes in bowel habits were randomized to undergo either balloon-assisted colonoscopy by using an insufflated balloon during withdrawal or standard high-definition colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the ADR. RESULTS: One thousand patients were enrolled between May 2014 and September 2016 to undergo colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists; 803 were finally analyzed (standard colonoscopy n = 396; balloon-assisted colonoscopy n = 407). Baseline parameters were similar in both groups. Balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided a 48.0% ADR compared with 37.5% in the standard colonoscopy group (28% increase; P = .0027). Additionally, balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided for a significant increase in detection of advanced (P = .0033) flat adenomas (P < .0001) and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (P = .0026). CONCLUSION: Balloon-assisted colonoscopy yielded a higher ADR and increased the detection of advanced, flat, and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps when compared with standard colonoscopy. Improved detection by the G-EYE device could impact the quality of CRC screening by reducing miss rates and consequently reducing interval cancer incidence. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01917513.).

Functional chest pain responds to biofeedback treatment but functional heartburn does not: what is the difference?

BACKGROUND: Patients with functional esophageal disorders represent a challenging treatment group. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of biofeedback in the treatment of patients with functional esophageal disorders. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with typical/atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease underwent upper endoscopy and 24-h pH monitoring. All patients filled out gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom, Hospital Anxiety and Depression, and Symptom Stress Rating questionnaires. Patients with functional heartburn and those with functional chest pain were offered biofeedback treatment. A global assessment questionnaire was filled out at the end of treatment and then 2.8 (range 1-4) years later. RESULTS: From January 2006 to December 2009, 22 patients with functional esophageal diseases were included in the study. Thirteen had functional heartburn and nine had functional chest pain. Six patients from each group received biofeedback treatment. After treatment for 1-4 years, patients with functional chest pain showed significant improvements in symptoms compared with those who were not treated. Patients with functional heartburn showed no improvement. Patients with functional chest pain had a longer time of esophageal acid exposure than those with functional heartburn. CONCLUSION: Patients with functional chest pain have different central and intraesophageal factors associated with symptom generation in comparison with patients with functional heartburn. Biofeedback is a useful tool in the treatment of patients with functional chest pain, but not for those with functional heartburn.