Esophageal OCT Imaging Using a Paddle Probe Externally Attached to Endoscope.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) by white light examination is insufficient to diagnose dysplastic change. In this work, we describe an optical imaging method to obtain high-resolution cross-sectional imaging using a paddle-shaped probe affixed to the endoscope tip. METHODS: We integrated Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), an optical imaging method that produces cross-sectional images, into a paddle probe attached to video endoscope. We acquired images of esophageal epithelium from patients undergoing routine upper GI endoscopy. Images were classified by a reviewer blinded to patient identity and condition, and these results were compared with clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: We successfully captured epithelial OCT images from 30 patients and identified features consistent with both squamous epithelium and Barrett's esophagus. Our blinded image reviewer classified BE versus non-BE with 91.5% accuracy (65/71 image regions), including sensitivity of 84.6% for BE (11/13) and a specificity of 93.1% (54/58). However, in 16 patients, intubation of the probe into the esophagus could not be achieved. CONCLUSIONS: A paddle probe is a feasible imaging format for acquiring cross-sectional OCT images from the esophagus and can provide a structural assessment of BE and non-BE tissue. Probe form factor is the current limiting obstacle, but could be addressed by further miniaturization.

An integrated electronic health record-based workflow to improve management of colonoscopy-generated pathology results.

PURPOSE: Managing and communicating colonoscopy-generated pathology results and appropriate follow-up recommendations can be challenging. To improve this process, we developed and implemented a standardized electronic health record-based intervention with built-in decision support. METHODS: Fourteen attending endoscopists performed enough colonoscopies to qualify for the study. For each, we randomly sampled and abstracted data from 35 colonoscopies that met prespecified inclusion criteria during both the pre-intervention and also post-intervention periods. Follow-up recommendations were compared to guidelines. We used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to assess the change in the proportion of cases with guideline-concordant results, the proportion with a documented follow-up result letter, and the median time to letter completion. A brief survey assessed endoscopists' satisfaction with the intervention. RESULTS: In total, 1,947 colonoscopies were extracted, of which 968 met inclusion criteria. The proportion of follow-up recommendations that were guideline concordant increased from a median of 82.9% pre-intervention to 85.7% post-intervention (P=0.72). The proportion of observations with a documented follow-up result letter increased from a median of 88.9% pre-intervention to 97.1% post-intervention (P=0.07). The number of calendar days between the date of the colonoscopy and the date the letter was sent decreased from a median of 7.7 days pre-intervention to 6.8 days post-intervention (P=0.79). Eighty-six percentage of endoscopists were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the overall process. CONCLUSION: The intervention was not associated with a statistically significant increase in guideline-concordant recommendations or efficiency measures, perhaps due to high baseline performance. The intervention was well received by endoscopists and captured data necessary for important downstream processes.

Effect of an External Abdominal Compression Device on Polyp Detection during Colonoscopy.

AIM: ColoWrap is an external abdominal compression device applied during colonoscopy to reduce looping and procedure time. It is unclear if a shorter procedure duration or increased abdominal pressure impacts polyp detection. We determined if use of ColoWrap affected adenoma detection rate (ADR) or detection of sessile serrated polyps (SSP) compared to sham. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a single center, participants aged 40-80 were randomized to have ColoWrap or a sham device applied to the lower abdomen. Baseline characteristics, procedural factors, location of polyps, ADR and SSP detection rate (SSPDR) were compared between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether ColoWrap was associated with detection of adenomas and SSP. RESULTS: Of 350 participants, 175 were assigned to each arm. Overall, there were no significant differences in ADR (43% vs 40%, p = 0.52) or SSPDR (8% vs 6%, p = 0.53) between ColoWrap and sham. In sub-group analysis, there were increased odds of adenoma detection with ColoWrap in women (OR: 2.32, 95%CI: 1.21, 4.46), participants > 60 years (OR: 2.95, 95%CI: 1.43, 6.07) and those with a BMI 30-40 (OR: 3.50, 95%CI: 1.00, 12.23). Use of ColoWrap also increased ADR in the left colon (splenic flexure to rectum) (29% vs 22%; p = 0.03) and increased SSPDR in the cecum/ascending colon (6% vs 2%; p = 0.02) compared to sham. CONCLUSION: Use of ColoWrap during colonoscopy did not negatively impact ADR or SSPDR, and there was an apparent improvement in polyp detection in certain colon locations and patient sub-groups. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Looping is a common problem during colonoscopy that prolongs procedure time. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ColoWrap, an external abdominal compression device, with respect to insertion time and other procedural outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy (40-80 years old; mean age, 60.5 years) at endoscopy facilities in the University of North Carolina Hospitals from April 2013 through March 2014. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups that received either ColoWrap (n = 175) or a sham device (control, n = 175) during colonoscopy. Colonoscopists and staff were blinded to the application. The primary outcome was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included use of manual pressure and position change. RESULTS: The mean CIT was similar for the control and ColoWrap groups (6.69 vs 6.67 minutes; P = .98). There were no statistical differences in the frequency of manual pressure (45% for controls vs 37% for ColoWrap group, P = .13) or position changes (4% for controls vs 2% for ColoWrap group, P = .36). Among patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2) (n = 78), CIT was significantly lower for patients in the ColoWrap group (4.69 minutes) than controls (6.10 minutes) (P = .03). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, application of an external abdominal compression device did not improve CIT or affect the frequency of ancillary maneuvers. A possible benefit was observed in patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2), but further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02025504.