Endosc Int Open 2015; 3(03): E236-E239
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391418
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Prospective Swiss pilot study of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy in a screening population

Mikael Sawatzki
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland
,
Christa Meyenberger
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland
,
Urs Albert Marbet
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital Uri, Switzerland
,
Johannes Haarer
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland
,
Remus Frei
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 26 November 2014

accepted after revision 24 December 2014

Publication Date:
27 February 2015 (online)

Background and study aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the quality measures in screening colonoscopy and is crucial for reducing colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality. Up to 25 % of adenomas are missed during colonoscopy. Endocuff is an easy-to-use device that is attached like a cap to the distal tip of the colonoscope in order to optimize visualization behind the folds of the colon and increase the ADR. This is the first prospective study of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) in a screening population with follow-up to determine the ADR and adverse events of EC.

Patients and methods: We prospectively enrolled asymptomatic patients referred for screening colonoscopy during the 4-month study period. We documented the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, ADR, number of advanced adenomas, and number of adverse events. Colonoscopies were performed by five board-certified gastroenterologists. During follow-up, the patients were called 4 to 12 weeks after EC.

Results: A total of 104 EC procedures were performed. Cecal intubation was achieved in 99 % of the patients, with a median intubation time of 6 minutes. The polyp detection rate and ADR in our study were 72 % and 47 %, respectively, and 13.5 % of the lesions were advanced adenomas. A significant number of adenomas were detected in the right side of the colon. Considering all the adenomas and hyperplastic polyps above the sigmoid, we recommended that nearly 60 % of our patients repeat an endoscopic follow-up according to the existing Swiss guidelines. We noted no perforations or other serious adverse events, even in the patients with extensive diverticulosis.

Conclusions: EC is feasible with the most commonly available colonoscopes without severe adverse events. EC seems to be a safe and effective device for increasing the ADR, including small adenomas in the right side of the colon. Therefore, this technique may be recommended in the future to increase the ADR in a screening population.

 
  • References

  • 1 Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut 2013; 62: 236-241
  • 2 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
  • 3 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
  • 4 Dik VK, Moons LM, Siersema PD et al. Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 2200-2211
  • 5 Lenze F, Beyna T, Lenz P et al. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a new accessory to improve adenoma detection rate? Technical aspects and first clinical experiences. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 610-614
  • 6 Biecker E, Floer M, Heinecke A et al. Novel Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol Epub 2014 Jun 11
  • 7 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
  • 8 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
  • 9 Criblez D. Schweizer Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie (SGGSSG). Konsensus-Empfehlung zur Nachsorge nach koloskopischer Polypektomie. Schweiz Med Forum 2007; 7: 994-999
  • 10 Marbet UA, Bauerfeind P, Brunner J et al. Colonoscopy is the preferred colorectal cancer screening method in a population-based program. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 650-655
  • 11 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
  • 12 Westwood DA, Alexakis N, Connor SJ et al. Transparent cap-assisted colonoscopy versus standard adult colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55: 218-225
  • 13 Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 353-360