Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(11): E1583-E1592
DOI: 10.1055/a-1533-6183
Original article

Endocuff Vision improves adenoma detection rate in a large screening-related cohort

Nauzer Forbes
1   Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
2   Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Robert J. Hilsden
1   Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
2   Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Yibing Ruan
3   Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
4   Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Abbey E. Poirier
3   Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
4   Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Dylan E. O’Sullivan
3   Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Kyla M. Craig
5   Alberta Health Services (Calgary Zone), Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Diana Kerrison
5   Alberta Health Services (Calgary Zone), Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Darren R. Brenner
2   Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
3   Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, CancerControl Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
4   Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
,
Steven J. Heitman
1   Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
2   Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Advanced diagnostic endoscopy for colorectal tumors: Challenges that need to be solved in the years to comeEndosc Int Open 2021; 09(12): E1865-E1867
DOI: 10.1055/a-1552-3346

Abstract

Background and study aims Endocuff Vision (ECV) increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) in randomized clinical trials; however, observational effectiveness data are lacking. We evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and practical aspects of ECV use in a large screening-related real-world cohort.

Patients and methods In this observational study, patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy from November 2018 to April 2019 comprised the baseline period, and those undergoing it from June to November 2019 comprised the ECV period, where ECV use was discretionary. The primary outcome was ADR, compared: 1) between ECV use and standard colonoscopy across both periods; and 2) between time periods. Secondary outcomes included indication-specific ADR, sessile serrated ADR (SSADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), procedure times, patient comfort scores, and sedation use. Multilevel logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Results In 15,814 colonoscopies across both time periods, ADR was 46.7 % with standard colonoscopy and 54.6 % when ECV was used (P < 0.001). Endoscopists used ECV in 77.6 % of procedures in the ECV period, during which overall ADR rose to 53.2 % compared to 46.3 % in the baseline period (P < 0.001). ECV use was significantly associated with higher ADR (AOR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.40) after adjusting for relevant covariates including time period. ECV use did not result in lower CIR, longer procedure time, increased sedation use, or poorer comfort scores.

Conclusions ECV use is associated with improved ADR without negatively impacting other key procedure and patient-related factors. Future studies should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating ECV into routine screening-related practice.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 24 November 2020

Accepted: 06 May 2021

Article published online:
25 October 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Refers to:

Distal attachment device is mandatory for screening-related colonoscopyEndosc Int Open 2021; 09(11): E1593-E1594
DOI: 10.1055/a-1529-6021

Comment to this article:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2021; 53(12): 1293-1293
DOI: 10.1055/a-1561-6433

 

  • References

  • 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, OʼBrien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD. et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016; 65: 1923-1929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S. et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hilsden RJ, Rose SM, Dube C. et al. Defining and applying locally relevant benchmarks for the adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114: 1315-1321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bishay K, Causada-Calo N, Scaffidi MA. et al. Endoscopist feedback is associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 1030-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Desai M, Bilal M, Hamade N. et al. Increasing adenoma detection rates in the right side of the colon comparing retroflexion with a second forward view: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 453-459.e453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lee SW, Chang JH, Ji JS. et al. Effect of dynamic position changes on adenoma detection during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Desai M, Viswanathan L, Gupta N. et al. Impact of electronic chromoendoscopy on adenoma miss rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2019; 62: 1124-1134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pohl H, Bensen SP, Toor A. et al. Cap-assisted colonoscopy and detection of Adenomatous Polyps (CAP) study: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 891-897
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Othman MO, Zhang D, Elhanafi S. et al. Cap-assisted colonoscopy increases detection of advanced adenomas and polyps. Am J Med Sci 2017; 353: 367-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rex DK, Repici A, Gross SA. et al. High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 335-344.e332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hassan C, Senore C, Manes G. et al. Diagnostic yield and miss rate of EndoRings in an organized colorectal cancer screening program: the SMART (Study Methodology for ADR-Related Technology) trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 583-590.e581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bhattacharyya R, Chedgy F, Kandiah K. et al. Endocuff-assisted vs. standard colonoscopy in the fecal occult blood test-based UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (E-cap study): a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1043-1050
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Baek MD, Jackson CS, Lunn J. et al. Endocuff assisted colonoscopy significantly increases sessile serrated adenoma detection in veterans. J Gastrointest Oncol 2017; 8: 636-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Birk JW, Anderson JC. Endocuff and detection of colorectal adenomas: results of a randomized controlled study. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 1684-1686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chin M, Karnes W, Jamal MM. et al. Use of the Endocuff during routine colonoscopy examination improves adenoma detection: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 9642-9649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ngu W, Bevan R, Tsiamoulos Z. et al. Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA ransomised controlled trial. Gut 2018; 66: 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rex DK, Slaven JE, Garcia J. et al. Endocuff vision reduces inspection time without decreasing lesion detection: a clinical randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 158-162.e151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Karsenti D, Tharsis G, Perrot B. et al. Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in routine practice: a cluster-randomised crossover trial. Gut 2020; 69: 2159-2164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rameshshanker R, Tsiamoulos Z, Wilson A. et al. Endoscopic cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus cap-assisted colonoscopy in adenoma detection: randomized tandem study-DEtection in Tandem Endocuff Cap Trial (DETECT). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 894-904.e891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tsiamoulos ZP, Misra R, Rameshshanker R. et al. Impact of a new distal attachment on colonoscopy performance in an academic screening center. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 280-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ. et al. Real-world evidence - what is it and what can it tell us?. New Engl J Med 2016; 375: 2293-2297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Forbes N, Hilsden RJ, Lethebe BC. et al. Prophylactic endoscopic clipping does not prevent delayed postpolypectomy bleeding in routine clinical practice: a propensity score-matched cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 774-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rostom A, Ross ED, Dube C. et al. Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 255-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J 2009; 51: 171-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Causada-Calo N, Gonzalez-Moreno G, Bishay K. et al. Educational interventions are associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E1321-E1331
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yu TM, Tradonsky A, Tang J. et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding Endocuff(®) to standard colonoscopies for interval colorectal cancer screening. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2019; 11: 487-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 1975; 36: 2251-2270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ben Q, An W, Jiang Y. et al. Body mass index increases risk for colorectal adenomas based on meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 762-772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Moon SY, Kim BC, Sohn DK. et al. Predictors for difficult cecal insertion in colonoscopy: The impact of obesity indices. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 2346-2354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 2011; 46: 399-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar