Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
High-Definition Colonoscopy Compared With Cuff- and Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy: Results From a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Desai, Madhav; Rex, Douglas K; Bohm, Matthew E; Davitkov, Perica; DeWitt, John M; Fischer, Monika; Faulx, Gregory; Heath, Ryan; Imler, Timothy D; James-Stevenson, Toyia N; Kahi, Charles J; Kessler, William R; Kohli, Divyanshoo R; McHenry, Lee; Rai, Tarun; Rogers, Nicholas A; Sagi, Sashidhar V; Sathyamurthy, Anjana; Vennalaganti, Prashanth; Sundaram, Suneha; Patel, Harsh; Higbee, April; Kennedy, Kevin; Lahr, Rachel; Stojadinovikj, Gjorgie; Dasari, Chandra; Parasa, Sravanthi; Faulx, Ashley; Sharma, Prateek.
Afiliación
  • Desai M; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Motility, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
  • Rex DK; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Bohm ME; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Davitkov P; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • DeWitt JM; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Fischer M; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Faulx G; Colgate University, Hamilton, New York.
  • Heath R; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Imler TD; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • James-Stevenson TN; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Kahi CJ; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Kessler WR; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Kohli DR; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • McHenry L; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Rai T; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Rogers NA; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Sagi SV; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Sathyamurthy A; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Vennalaganti P; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Sundaram S; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Patel H; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Higbee A; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Kennedy K; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Lahr R; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Stojadinovikj G; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • Dasari C; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Parasa S; Department of Gastroenterology, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
  • Faulx A; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
  • Sharma P; Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Motility, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas. Electronic address: psharma@kumc.edu.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 20(9): 2023-2031.e6, 2022 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34979245
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices including distal attachments such as the cuff and cap have shown variable results in improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with high-definition white light colonoscopy (HDWLE). METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy comparing HDWLE to 2 different types of distal attachments: cuff (CF) (Endocuff Vision) or cap (CP) (Reveal). The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rate, right-sided ADR, withdrawal time, and adverse events. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test using statistical software Stata version16. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1203 subjects were randomized to either HDWLE (n = 384; mean 62 years of age; 81.3% males), CF (n = 379; mean 62.7 years of age; 79.9% males) or CP (n = 379; mean age 62.1 years of age; 80.5% males). No significant differences were found among 3 groups for ADR (57.3%, 59.1%, and 55.7%; P = .6), adenomas per colonoscopy (1.4 ± 1.9, 1.6 ± 2.4, and 1.4 ± 2; P = .3), advanced adenoma (7.6%, 9.2%, and 8.2%; P = .7), sessile serrated lesion (6.8%, 6.3%, and 5.5%; P = .8), or right ADR (48.2%, 49.3%, and 46.2%; P = .7). The number of polyps per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CF group compared with HDWLE and CP group (2.7 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.5, and 2.2 ± 2.3; P = .013). In a multivariable model, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, withdrawal time, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, there was no impact of device type on the primary outcome of ADR (P = .77). In screening patients, CF resulted in more neoplasms per colonoscopy (CF: 1.7 ± 2.6, HDWLE: 1.3 ± 1.7, and CP: 1.2 ± 1.8; P = .047) with a shorter withdrawal time. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter randomized controlled trial do not show any significant benefit of using either distal attachment devices (CF or CP) over HDWLE, at least in high-detector endoscopists. The Endocuff may have an advantage in the screening population. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03952611).
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Colorrectales / Adenoma / Pólipos del Colon Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Asunto de la revista: GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Colorrectales / Adenoma / Pólipos del Colon Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Asunto de la revista: GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article