Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Adenoma detection rate (ADR)
Advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR)
Air insufflation (AI)
Cap colonoscopy
Endocuff (EC)
Water exchange (WE)
Journal
Digestive diseases and sciences
ISSN: 1573-2568
Titre abrégé: Dig Dis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7902782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
received:
17
03
2020
accepted:
04
05
2020
pubmed:
27
5
2020
medline:
17
8
2021
entrez:
27
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR. The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score. Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time. WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.
METHODS
The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.
RESULTS
Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.
CONCLUSION
WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32451757
doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06324-0
pii: 10.1007/s10620-020-06324-0
doi:
Substances chimiques
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1175-1188Références
Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;362:1795–1803.
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.
pubmed: 24693890
pmcid: 4036494
Hsieh YH, Leung FW. Increase your adenoma detection rate without using fancy adjunct tools. Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018;30:127–134.
pubmed: 30069119
Fuccio L, Frazzoni L, Hassan C, et al. Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:589–597.
pubmed: 29981753
Cadoni S, Hassan C, Frazzoni L, et al. Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on endoscopy room efficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89:159–167.
pubmed: 30048649
Facciorusso A, Triantafyllou K, Murad MH, et al. Compared abilities of endoscopic techniques to increase colon adenoma detection rates: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:2439–2454.e25.
pubmed: 30529731
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
pubmed: 19621072
pmcid: 2707599
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
pubmed: 22008217
pmcid: 3196245
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.
pubmed: 8721797
Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–857.
pubmed: 22763141
Rücker G, Schwarzer G. Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;31:58.
Rex DK, Repici A, Gross SA. 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.
pubmed: 29530353
Tang Z, et al. Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on learning curve and quality in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:723–732.
pubmed: 28648577
Ngu WS, et al. Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2019;68:280–288.
pubmed: 29363535
Biecker E, et al. Novel endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49:413–418.
pubmed: 24921209
Hsieh Y-H, Koo M, Leung FW. A patient-blinded randomized, controlled trial comparing air insufflation, water immersion, and water exchange during minimally sedated colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1390.
pubmed: 24890443
Floer M, Biecker E, Fitzlaff R, et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy—a randomized controlled multicenter trial. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e114267.
pubmed: 25470133
pmcid: 4255000
Arai M, Okimoto K, Ishigami H, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation during colonoscopy without sedation. Int J Colorect Dis. 2016;31:1217–1223.
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.
pubmed: 28614895
Van Doorn SC, Van der Vlugt M, Depla AC, et al. Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2017;66:438–445.
pubmed: 26674360
González-Fernández C, García-Rangel D, Aguilar-Olivos NE, et al. Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2017;49:1061–1068.
pubmed: 28898920
Wada Y, Fukuda M, Ohtsuka K, et al. Efficacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps. Endosc Int Open. 2018;6:E425–E431.
pubmed: 29607395
pmcid: 5876019
Cadoni S, Gallittu P, Sanna S, et al. A two-center randomized controlled trial of water-aided colonoscopy versus air insufflation colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014;46:212–218.
pubmed: 24218307
Cadoni S, et al. Water exchange for screening colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2017;49:456–467.
pubmed: 28282689
Garborg K, Kaminski MF, Lindenburger W, et al. Water exchange versus carbon dioxide insufflation in unsedated colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2015;47:192–199.
pubmed: 25412093
Hsieh Y-H, Tseng CW, Hu CT, et al. Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:192–201.
pubmed: 27988288
Jia H, Pan Y, Guo X, et al. Water exchange method significantly improves adenoma detection rate: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:568–576.
pubmed: 27922025
Lee YT, Lai LH, Hui AJ, et al. Efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with regular colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:41.
pubmed: 19098847
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.
pubmed: 28317624
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.
pubmed: 26126162
Rastogi A, Bansal A, Rao DS, et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with cap-assisted colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61:402–408.
pubmed: 21997547
de Wijkerslooth TR, Stoop EM, Bossuyt PM, et al. Adenoma detection with cap-assisted colonoscopy versus regular colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61:1426–1434.
pubmed: 22187070
Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–750.
pubmed: 19240699
Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90.
pubmed: 25448873
Triantafyllou K, Gkolfakis P, Tziatzios G, et al. Effect of Endocuff use on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25:1158.
pubmed: 30863002
pmcid: 6406188
Facciorusso A, Del Prete V, Buccino RV, et al. Comparative efficacy of colonoscope distal attachment devices in increasing rates of adenoma detection: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:1209–1219.
pubmed: 29133257
Greenspan M, Rajan KB, Baig A, et al. Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1286–1292.
pubmed: 23711625
Leung FW, Koo M, Cadoni S, et al. Water exchange produces significantly higher adenoma detection rate than water immersion. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019;53:204–209.
pubmed: 29505552
Leung FW. Water exchange may be superior to water immersion for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:1012–1014.
pubmed: 21946120
Leung FW, Cheung R, Fan RS, et al. The water exchange method for colonoscopy-effect of coaching. J Interv Gastroenterol. 2012;2:122.
pubmed: 23805391
pmcid: 3655365
Leung FW. Water-aided colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin. 2013;42:507–519.
Yen AW. Insertion water exchange minimizes endoscopist multi-tasking during withdrawal inspection—a plausible explanation for enhanced polyp detection in the right colon. J Interv Gastroenterol. 2015;5:3.
Hsieh Y-H, Koo M, Tseng CW, et al. Reduction of multitasking distractions underlies the higher adenoma detection rate of water exchange compared to air insufflation–blinded analysis of withdrawal phase videos. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2019;7:230–238.
Barret M, Boustiere C, Canard JM, et al. Factors associated with adenoma detection rate and diagnosis of polyps and colorectal cancer during colonoscopy in France: results of a prospective, nationwide survey. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68947.
pubmed: 23874822
pmcid: 3715530
Yun GY, Eun HS, Kim JS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma detection in the right colon. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e12113.