RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions. METHODS: This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Blue-light imaging (BLI) is a new image-enhanced endoscopy with a wavelength filter similar to narrow-band imaging (NBI). We compared the 2 with white-light imaging (WLI) on proximal colonic lesion detection and miss rates. METHODS: In this 3-arm prospective randomized study with tandem examination of the proximal colon, we enrolled patients aged ≥40 years. Eligible patients were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio to receive BLI, NBI, or WLI during the first withdrawal from the proximal colon. The second withdrawal was performed using WLI in all patients. Primary outcomes were proximal polyp (pPDRs) and adenoma (pADRs) detection rates. Secondary outcomes were miss rates of proximal lesions found on tandem examination. RESULTS: Of 901 patients included (mean age, 64.7 years; 52.9% men), 48.1% underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. The corresponding pPDRs of the BLI, NBI, and WLI groups were 45.8%, 41.6, and 36.6%, whereas the corresponding pADRs were 36.6%, 33.8%, and 28.3%. There was a significant difference in pPDR and pADR between BLI and WLI groups (difference, 9.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 3.3-16.9] and 8.3% [95% CI, 2.7-15.9]) and between NBI and WLI groups (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, 1.4-12.9] and 5.6% [95% CI, 2.1-13.3]). Proximal adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with BLI (19.4%) than with WLI (27.4%; difference, -8.0%; 95% CI, -15.8 to -.1) but not between NBI (27.2%) and WLI. CONCLUSIONS: Both BLI and NBI were superior to WLI on detecting proximal colonic lesions, but only BLI had lower proximal adenoma miss rates than WLI. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03696992.).
