Outcomes of use of electromagnetic guidance with responsive insertion technology (RIT) during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background and study aims Colonoscopy can be technically challenging and cause discomfort in patients. The integrated Scope Guide assist is built in to show that with its use outcomes are improved during colonoscopy. We aimed to test the usefulness of the Magnetic Scope Guide Assist (ScopeGuide) with respect to cecal intubation time, and other procedural quality outcomes.

Patients and methods We conducted a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy at the endoscopic units of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) from March 2016 to July 2016. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 block design to groups that either had standard colonoscopy or Scope-guided colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcome measures included use of manual pressure, position changes for cecal intubation and sedation requirements.

Results Three hundred patients were randomized to either group; standard (n = 150) vs. Scope-guided (n = 150). The mean CIT was not statistically different for the standard and the Scope-guided groups (4.6 vs. 4.3 minutes; P = 0.46). There were also no statistical differences in frequency of manual pressure applied (16.7 % for Scope-guided vs. 19.1 % for standard; P = 0.65) or position changes (11.4 % for scope guided vs. 8.8 % standard; P = 0.56). Sedation requirements showed lesser use of midazolam (3.9 mg vs. 4.7 mg, P = 0.003) in the Scope-guide group, while there was no significant difference in use of fentanyl (fentanyl – 62.1 mg vs. 68.9 mg, P = 0.09 similar between groups, for Scope-guided vs. standard groups, respectively). Adverse events were similar in both groups.

Conclusions In patients undergoing routine elective colonoscopy, use of ScopeGuide by experienced colonoscopists did not improve CIT or affect the frequency of ancillary maneuvers. The benefit of this device during training of endoscopists could be considered for further studies.

• References

• 1 Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA. et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1670-1677
• 2 Kaltenbach T, Leung C, Wu K. et al. Use of the colonoscope training model with the colonoscope 3D imaging probe improved trainee colonoscopy performance: a pilot study. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 1496-1502
• 3 Wehrmann K, Frühmorgen P. Evaluation of a new three-dimensional magnetic imaging system for use during colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 905-908
• 4 Mark-Christensen A, Brandsborg S, Iversen LH. Magnetic endoscopic imaging as an adjuvant to elective colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 251-261
• 5 Singh S, Sedlack RE, Cook DA. Effects of simulation-based training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1611-1623 e1614
• 6 Cheung HY, Chung CC, Kwok SY. et al. Improvement in colonoscopy performance with adjunctive magnetic endoscope imaging: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 214-217
• 7 Rex DK, Goodwine BW. Method of colonoscopy in 42 consecutive patients presenting after prior incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1148-1151
• 8 Shah SG, Brooker JC, Williams CB. et al. Effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on colonoscopy performance: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 1718-1722
• 9 Shah SG, Brooker JC, Thapar C. et al. Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 435-440
• 10 Cheng WB, Moser MA, Kanagaratnam S. et al. Analysis of and mathematical model insight into loop formation in colonoscopy. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H. J Engin Med 2012; 226: 858-867
• 11 Witte TN, Enns R. The difficult colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2007; 21: 487-490
• 12 Shergill AK, McQuaid KR, Deleon A. et al. Randomized trial of standard versus magnetic endoscope imaging colonoscopes for unsedated colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1031-1036 e1031
• 13 Vargo JJ, Niklewski PJ, Williams JL. et al. Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 101-108
• 14 Klare P, Hartrampf B, Haller B. et al. Magnetic endoscope imaging for routine colonoscopy: impact on propofol dosage and patient safety – a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 916-922
• 15 Pasternak A, Szura M, Solecki R. et al. Impact of responsive insertion technology (RIT) on reducing discomfort during colonoscopy: randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2247-2254
• 16 Trindade AJ, Lichtenstein DR, Aslanian HR. et al. Devices and methods to improve colonoscopy completion (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 625-634