Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Distal attachments on a colonoscope: not all the same?

      ,

      Endoscopy International Open

      © Georg Thieme Verlag KG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The reduction in interval colorectal cancer associated with an increase in the endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate (ADR) is well established 1 . ADR is now widely accepted as a key performance indicator in colonoscopy quality assurance 2 . However, adenoma miss rates are reported to be as high as 20 % 3 . Detection of adenoma during colonoscopy can be challenging because adenoma can be located behind flexures, haustral folds and, tight angulations. Evidence is conflicting on distal attachment devices that have recently emerged and which reportedly are associated with an increase in ADR. There are currently three types of distal attachment devices on the market; the transparent cap (Olympus, Tokyo); EndoCuff (Arc Medical, Leeds); and EndoRings (EndoAid, Israel). The transparent cap was the first distal attachment device studied for which reports indicated increased polyp detection. It improves mucosal visualization by straightening colonic haustra, keeping the colonic lumen open with minimal air insufflation 4 . Because the cap projects 4 mm beyond the distal end of the colonoscope, it is associated with a learning curve. The EndoCuff consists of soft projections that remain flat during colonoscopy insertion and open on withdrawal to enhance mucosal inspection behind colonic folds. Unlike the cap, the EndoCuff fits entirely over the colonoscope, without projecting beyond the distal end of the colonoscope, so it is much easier to use. There is no reduction in peripheral field of view 5 . The EndoRings device is flexible silicone and consists of two layers of large, soft circular rings that evert mucosal folds on withdrawal and allow adequate mucosal inspection. It is designed to keep the colonoscope tip away from the bowel wall, promoting all around colonic views 5 It is very good at flattening colonic folds and avoiding rapid withdrawal. However, it can be challenging to introduce the EndoRings device through a narrow, angulated sigmoid colon with diverticulosis. In this edition of Endoscopy International Open, Marsano et al present a single-center parallel design trial in which 126 subjects were randomized to either standard colonoscopy (SC), cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) or EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC). Colonoscopy was performed by three experienced endoscopists in an academic unit. Study participants were blinded to the intervention arm, but not the endoscopist. The primary outcome of the study was ADR. The study did not report a statistically significant difference in ADR for SC (52.4 %) versus CAC (40.5 %) versus EAC (54.8 %) ( P  = 0.37). This pattern of no statistically significant difference between treatment arms was also seen for the remaining study outcomes; proximal ADR, distal ADR, and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate. There was no difference in mean adenoma size between the groups, which is probably related to the diminutive mean adenoma size in all groups. The average withdrawal time was also similar in the SC, CAC and EAC groups (12.9 vs 12.4 and 13.0 minutes respectively, P  = 0.86. In this study, the pre-study ADR of each endoscopist was very high, with a range from 43 % to 55 %. This study further supports the growing body of evidence that device-assisted colonoscopy has no additional benefit for endoscopists with a preexisting high ADR. The authors should be congratulated for performing a trial comparing two distal devices against standard colonoscopy, but the small sample size is a major limitation and makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. The baseline ADR of the endoscopists was underestimated and the potential benefit was overestimated, resulting in the calculation of an incorrect sample size. The current literature on efficacy of distal attachment devices is conflicting, with the majority of studies performed in tertiary academic units with their widespread use still to occur. The impact of the transparent cap on PDR ± ADR appears divided, with some studies showing an improvement 6 7 and others no benefit 8 9 . A recent meta-analysis showed an improvement in PDR with use of the cap 10 . The recent meta-analysis by Desai et al also found an improvement in proximal adenoma detection with use of the cap 11 . A large multicenter study performed by endoscopists with a high baseline ADR (≥ 20 %) found no significant difference in ADR (28 %) between the two study arms 8 . In a large retrospective study where trainees performed the majority of colonoscopies, use of CAC showed a statistically significant increase in polyp and adenoma detection, compared to SC 7 . The transparent cap has been available longer than other distal attachment devices. It is difficult to make sense of the literature in the current era of higher-definition colonoscopes. Furthermore, most of the studies were performed at a time when there was less of emphasis on colonoscopy technique. Initial data on the efficacy of EndoCuff in improving adenoma detection showed a benefit 12 , but the subsequent evidence is inconsistent, with two large RCTs showing no additional benefit 13 14 . Interestingly, the two studies with a negative outcome were performed by endoscopists with a high baseline ADR, mirroring the findings by Marsano et al. A large multicenter RCT showed a marginal (4.7 %) increase in ADR with use of the EndoCuff compared to standard colonoscopy 15 . A recent meta-analysis showed in improvement in ADR with EAC, with the greatest improvement observed when used by endoscopists with low to moderate ADRs 16 . EndoRings Is the newest distal attachment device and while an initial study showed a significant reduction in the adenoma miss rate with the device (10.4 %) versus SC (48.3 %) 17 , a recent large multicenter study has shown no benefit in ADR 18 . More data on the EndoRings are required before we understand its role in neoplasia detection. Finally, a recent multicenter trial by Rex et al showed that the EndoCuff increased adenoma detection more than EndoRings and standard colonoscopy 19 . The proposed mechanism of action of the distal attachment devices is to improve mucosal visualization by flattening colonic folds. It is difficult to understand how the EndoCuff device with shorter, softer prongs can flatten colonic folds and detect more adenomas compared to the EndoRings, with its wider rings. It is also noteworthy that this effect was not seen in all involved centers 19 . Data on distal attachment devices are appealing as they are safe, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. However, the existing literature is flawed. Studies have not been adequately powered to draw definitive conclusions on differences between population groups and endoscopists with varying levels of experience. The majority of data also comes from tertiary centers in trial settings, where enthusiasm for or against their use can introduce investigator bias. The populations studied are heterogenous, with several studies performed on screening subjects with the greatest risk of adenoma. The current data show a trend towards endoscopists with low to moderate ADRs gaining the most benefit. Endoscopists with a high baseline ADR might benefit less as they have good scope handling with excellent tip control, which allows detailed inspection of the colonic mucosa behind folds, without slipping backwards. We feel the distal attachments may show promise in increasing adenoma detection, but further studies are needed to make definitive conclusions about which endoscopist and which population group would benefit the most. The focus should still remain on improving basic colonoscopy techniques and performing simple measures well, such as scope handling, position change, and minimal time on withdrawal.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death.

          The proportion of screening colonoscopic examinations performed by a physician that detect one or more adenomas (the adenoma detection rate) is a recommended quality measure. However, little is known about the association between this rate and patients' risks of a subsequent colorectal cancer (interval cancer) and death. Using data from an integrated health care delivery organization, we evaluated the associations between the adenoma detection rate and the risks of colorectal cancer diagnosed 6 months to 10 years after colonoscopy and of cancer-related death. With the use of Cox regression, our estimates of attributable risk were adjusted for the demographic characteristics of the patients, indications for colonoscopy, and coexisting conditions. We evaluated 314,872 colonoscopies performed by 136 gastroenterologists; the adenoma detection rates ranged from 7.4 to 52.5%. During the follow-up period, we identified 712 interval colorectal adenocarcinomas, including 255 advanced-stage cancers, and 147 deaths from interval colorectal cancer. The unadjusted risks of interval cancer according to quintiles of adenoma detection rates, from lowest to highest, were 9.8, 8.6, 8.0, 7.0, and 4.8 cases per 10,000 person-years of follow-up, respectively. Among patients of physicians with adenoma detection rates in the highest quintile, as compared with patients of physicians with detection rates in the lowest quintile, the adjusted hazard ratio for any interval cancer was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.69), for advanced-stage interval cancer, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.64), and for fatal interval cancer, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.65). Each 1.0% increase in the adenoma detection rate was associated with a 3.0% decrease in the risk of cancer (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98). The adenoma detection rate was inversely associated with the risks of interval colorectal cancer, advanced-stage interval cancer, and fatal interval cancer. (Funded by the Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit program and the National Cancer Institute.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies.

            The miss rate of colonoscopy for neoplasms is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the miss rate of colonoscopy by same day back-to-back colonoscopy. Two consecutive same day colonoscopies were performed in 183 patients. The patients were randomized to undergo the second colonoscopy by the same or a different endoscopist and in the same or different position. The overall miss rate for adenomas was 24%, 27% for adenomas or = 1 cm. Patients with two or more adenomas at the first examination were more likely than patients with no or one adenoma detected at the first examination to have one or more adenomas at the second examination (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-6.46). Right colon adenomas were missed more often (27%) than left colon adenomas (21%), but the difference was not significant. There was evidence of variation in sensitivity between endoscopists, but significant miss rates for small adenomas were found among essentially all endoscopists. Using current colonoscopic technology, there are significant miss rates for adenomas or = 1 cm. The results suggest the need for improvements in colonoscopic technology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

              The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endosc Int Open
                Endosc Int Open
                10.1055/s-00025476
                Endoscopy International Open
                © Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Stuttgart · New York )
                2364-3722
                2196-9736
                December 2019
                25 November 2019
                : 7
                : 12
                : E1592-E1594
                Affiliations
                Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                Author notes
                Corresponding author Professor Pradeep Bhandari Queen Alexandra Hospital – Gastroenterology Southwick Hill Road Cosham Portsmouth PO6 3LYUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland+023-9228-6000 deep3570@ 123456yahoo.co.uk
                10.1055/a-0996-8298
                6877417

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Editorial

                Comments

                Comment on this article