Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) significantly extends visualization in the right colon

Cap-assisted colonoscopy can increase the rate of sessile serrated lesion detection at the left lateral decubitus position: A retrospective case-control study

We investigated the effectiveness of cap-assisted colonoscopy conducted with the patient in the left lateral decubitus position at both the colonoscope's insertion and withdrawal timepoints compared to the effectiveness of colonoscopy without a cap conducted in the supine position at withdrawal. This was a case-control study, based on historical comparisons of patients over 2 time periods. The first group of patients underwent colonoscopies with a transparent cap and the patient was in the left lateral decubitus position at both the insertion and withdrawal timepoints from April to June 2019. The subsequent group underwent colonoscopies without a cap and with the patient in the supine position at withdrawal from July to September 2019. The rates of successful intubation, cecal intubation time, and number, size, shape, and location of the detected adenomas and sessile serrated lesions were compared between the 2 groups. Data from 644 colonoscopies (cap-assisted colonoscopy + left lateral decubitus position, n=320; other colonoscopies, n=324) were analyzed. The demographic characteristics and technical performances were similar. The SSL detection rate was significantly higher with cap-assisted colonoscopy and the left lateral decubitus position than with other colonoscopies (3.4% vs 0.93%, P=.029). The adenoma detection rates in the 2 groups were similar (31% and 28%, respectively, P=.43).Cap-assisted colonoscopy in the left lateral decubitus position may increase the detection rate of sessile serrated lesions compared to colonoscopy without a cap and supine position at withdrawal.

Multicenter propensity score-matched analysis comparing short versus long cap-assisted colonoscopy for acute hematochezia

Background and Aim

While short and long attachment caps are available for colonoscopy, it is unclear which type is more appropriate for stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) identification in acute hematochezia. This study aimed to compare the performance of short versus long caps in acute hematochezia diagnoses and outcomes.

Methods

We selected 6460 patients who underwent colonoscopy with attachment caps from 10 342 acute hematochezia cases in the CODE BLUE-J study. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline characteristics between short and long cap users. Then, the proportion of definitive or presumptive bleeding etiologies found on the initial colonoscopy and SRH identification rates were compared. We also evaluated rates of blood transfusions, interventional radiology, or surgery, as well as the rate of rebleeding and mortality within 30 days after the initial colonoscopy.

Results

A total of 3098 patients with acute hematochezia (1549 short cap and 1549 long cap users) were selected for PSM. The rate of colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) diagnosis was significantly higher in long cap users (P = 0.006). While the two groups had similar rates of the other bleeding etiologies, the frequency of unknown etiologies was significantly lower in long cap users (P < 0.001). The rate of SRH with active bleeding was significantly higher in long cap users (P < 0.001). Other clinical outcomes did not differ significantly.

Conclusion

Compared to that with short caps, long cap-assisted colonoscopy is superior for the diagnosis of acute hematochezia, especially CDB, and the identification of active bleeding.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims  Standard colonoscopy (SC) is the preferred modality for screening for colon cancer; however, it carries a significant polyp/adenoma miss rate. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) has been shown to improve polyp/adenoma detection rate, decrease cecal intubation time and increase cecal intubation rate when compared to standard colonoscopy (SC). However, data on adenoma detection rate (ADR) are conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance of CC with SC for ADR among high-quality randomized controlled trials. Patients and methods  We performed an extensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science databases and abstracts published at national meetings. Only comparative studies between CC and SC were included if they reported ADR, adenoma per person (APP), cecal intubation rate, and cecal intubation time. The exclusion criterion for comparing ADR was studies with Jadad score ≤ 2. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel method. I ² test was used to measure heterogeneity among studies. Results  Analysis of high-quality studies (Jadad score ≥ 3, total of 7 studies) showed that use of cap improved the ADR with the results being statistically significant (OR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.03 - 1.33) and detection of 0.16 (0.02 - 0.30) additional APP. The cecal intubation rate in the CC group was 96.3 % compared to 94.5 % with SC (total of 17 studies). Use of cap improved cecal intubation (OR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.33 - 1.95) when compared to SC ( P value < 0.001). Use of cap decreased cecal intubation time by an average of 0.88 minutes (95 % CI 0.37 - 1.39) or 53 seconds. Conclusions  Meta-analysis of high-quality studies showed that CC improved the ADR compared to SC.

Cap-assisted endoscopy: Do we have enough evidence?

So, is there enough evidence to incorporate CC in clinical practice? If we interpret the literature and the meta-analysis by Nutalapati et al., the answer for the clinically-focused endoscopist, with regard to adenoma detection rate (ADR), at present, may be "no". Significant differences do not necessarily imply clinical benefits and translation into clinical practice. The answer for the improvement of cecal intubation frequency and intubation time by the cap depends on the focus of training commitment, because these effects of the cap may be beneficial, especially for unexperienced endoscopists. It is obvious that further studies are needed. In this line, it is interesting to know, that in a recent meta-analysis of prospective studies, the length of the transparent cap had opposite effects on investigation time and polyp detection rate. Whereas, the anal to cecal time was significantly shortened by a cap length of > 7 mm and a polyp detection rate was significantly improved by a cap length of < 4 mm.

Characteristics of right-sided colonic neoplasia and colonoscopy barriers limiting their early detection and prognosis: a review of the literature

Colonoscopy provides less protection from colorectal cancer in the right colon than the left. Areas covered: This review examines patient outcomes and colonoscopy success rates to identify factors that limit the protective effect of colonoscopy in the right colon. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for literature from 2000 onwards, on the long-term outcomes and differences in screening practice between the right and left colon. In total, 12 systematic reviews (including nine meta-analyses) and 44 primary data records were included. Differences in patient outcomes and colonoscopy practice were identified between the right and left colon, suggesting that several factors, many of which disproportionally affect the right colon, impact lesion detection rates. Shorter withdrawal times reduce detection rates, while longer times significantly increase detection; mostly of adenomas in the right colon. Colonoscope attachments often only show a significant improvement in detection rates in the right colon, suggesting detection is more challenging due to visibility of the right colonic mucosa. Higher bowel cleansing grades significantly improve detection rates in the right colon compared to the left. Expert commentary: These findings confirm the need for continued improvement of colonoscopy effectiveness, and obligatory quality assessment, overall and especially in the right colon.

Higher adenoma detection rates with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy - a randomized controlled multicenter trial

Objectives

The Endocuff is a device mounted on the tip of the colonoscope to help flatten the colonic folds during withdrawal. This study aimed to compare the adenoma detection rates between Endocuff-assisted (EC) colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy (SC).

Methods

This randomized prospective multicenter trial was conducted at four academic endoscopy units in Germany. Participants: 500 patients (235 males, median age 64[IQR 54–73]) for colon adenoma detection purposes were included in the study. All patients were either allocated to EC or SC. The primary outcome measure was the determination of the adenoma detection rates (ADR).

Results

The ADR significantly increased with the use of the Endocuff compared to standard colonoscopy (35.4%[95% confidence interval{CI} 29–41%] vs. 20.7%[95%CI 15–26%], p<0.0001). Significantly more sessile polyps were detected by EC. Overall procedure time and withdrawal time did not differ. Caecal and ileum intubation rates were similar. No major adverse events occurred in both groups. In multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03; 95%[CI] 1.01–1.05), male sex (OR 1.74; 95%CI 1.10–2.73), withdrawal time (OR 1.16; 95%CI 1.05–1.30), procedure time (OR 1.07; 95%CI 1.04–1.10), colon cleanliness (OR 0.60; 95%CI 0.39–0.94) and use of Endocuff (OR 2.09; 95%CI 1.34–3.27) were independent predictors of adenoma detection rates.

Conclusions

EC increases the adenoma detection rate by 14.7%(95%CI 6.9–22.5%). EC is safe, effective, easy to handle and might reduce colorectal interval carcinomas.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02034929.

Improved biopsy accuracy in Barrett’s esophagus with a transparent cap

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopy with a transparent cap on biopsy positioning in Barrett’s esophagus (BE).

METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight patients with suspected BE at endoscopy were enrolled in our study from November 2007 to December 2009 and divided into two groups: transparent cap group (n = 60) and control group (n = 108). Endoscopy with or without a transparent cap and subsequent biopsy of suspected lesions were performed by five experienced endoscopists in our hospital. In both groups, two biopsy specimens were taken from each patient, and the columnar epithelium or goblet cells in histological assessment were used as the diagnostic standard for BE.

RESULTS: In the transparent cap group, 41 cases were tongue type, while 17 and two cases were identified as island type and circumferential type, respectively. In the control group, 65 tongue-type cases were confirmed, with 38 island-type and five circumferential-type cases. Moreover, there was no significant difference with regard to the composition of endoscopic BE types in the two groups (P > 0.05). In the biopsy specimens, BE was detected in 50 cases in the transparent cap group (83.3%, 50/60), whereas the detection rate in the control group (69.4%, 75/108) was lower compared to that in the transparent cap group (P < 0.05). In addition, goblet cells were recognized in only eight cases (all with columnar epithelium) (8/60, 13.3%) in the transparent cap group, with 11 cases in the control group.

CONCLUSION: Transparent cap-fitted endoscopy can guide biopsy positioning in BE without other accompanying complications, thus increasing the detection rate of BE.

Benefits and limitations of cap-fitted colonoscopy in screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is widely used to detect colorectal cancer and to remove precancerous lesions to reduce the risk of colonic cancer.

AIMS

To examine the benefits and limitations of cap-fitted colonoscopy compared to conventional colonoscopy in terms of technical performance and colorectal adenoma detection rate.

METHODS

Screening colonoscopies performed from 2009 to 2010 with or without a transparent cap were retrospectively examined to compare the rate of successful intubation, cecal intubation time, and number, size, shape, and location of adenomas detected. An inclusion criterion was visualization of >95 % of the right colon.

RESULTS

Data from 2,301 colonoscopies (1,165 with cap-fitted colonoscopy, 1,136 without the transparent cap) were retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed by four experienced endoscopists. The subjects' demographic characteristics and technical performances were similar between the two methods. The only significant difference in the technical performance between the two techniques was a shorter cecal intubation time with cap-fitted colonoscopy (5.3 vs. 6.6 min; p = 0.045) by one endoscopist. The total number of adenomas detected was significantly higher with cap-fitted colonoscopy than without the cap (586 vs. 484, respectively; p < 0.0001). Adenoma detection with cap-fitted endoscopy was significantly higher in the right colon than in the left colon (19 vs. 12 %, respectively; p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Cap-fitted colonoscopy did not improve the technical aspects of colonoscopy but significantly increased adenoma detection, especially in the right colon. It did not increase the detection rate of flat or depressed adenomas.