Improved adenoma detection by a novel distal attachment device-assisted colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Published:April 29, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.1307

      Background and Aims

      WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC, Seongnam, South Korea) is a novel distal attachment device for colonoscopy that combines a cap and an existing mucosal exposure device, such as Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design Ltd, Leeds, UK) and AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA). We aimed to investigate whether WingCap-assisted colonoscopy can improve the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and simultaneously shorten cecal intubation time compared with standard colonoscopy.

      Methods

      We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial for outpatients aged ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR differences with the assistance of WingCap. Secondary outcomes were APC and other colonoscopy quality indicators, such as cecal intubation and withdrawal times.

      Results

      In total, 537 patients were randomized for WingCap-assisted or standard colonoscopy. Their mean age was 59.3 years, and 48.5% were men. ADR was significantly higher in the WingCap group than in the control group (37.2% vs 26.6%, P = .012). APC was greater with WingCap than with standard colonoscopy (.72 ± 1.34 vs .45 ± 0.97, P = .008), prominently for nonpedunculated (.65 ± 1.25 vs .42 ± .95, P = .015) and diminutive (.42 ± .94 vs .20 ± .64, P = .002) adenomas. With WingCap, ADR and APC significantly increased for beginner endoscopists, whereas a modest increase was seen for experienced endoscopists. There were no differences in cecal intubation and withdrawal times between the 2 arms. No serious adverse event was associated with the use of WingCap.

      Conclusions

      WingCap-assisted colonoscopy was tolerable and efficacious for improving ADR and APC compared with standard colonoscopy, especially for nonpedunculated and diminutive adenomas and for beginner endoscopists. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0005214.)

      Abbreviations:

      ADR (adenoma detection rate), APC (adenoma per colonoscopy), ITT (intention to treat), PDR (polyp detection rate), RCT (randomized controlled trial), SSPDR (sessile serrated polyp detection rate)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kahi C.J.
        • Imperiale T.F.
        • Juliar B.E.
        • et al.
        Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7 (quiz 11): 770-775
        • Baxter N.N.
        • Warren J.L.
        • Barrett M.J.
        • et al.
        Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 2664-2669
        • Zauber A.G.
        • Winawer S.J.
        • O'Brien M.J.
        • et al.
        Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 687-696
        • Rex D.K.
        • Petrini J.L.
        • Baron T.H.
        • et al.
        Quality indicators for colonoscopy.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101: 873-885
        • Dawwas M.F.
        Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 2539-2540
        • Ngu W.S.
        • Bevan R.
        • Tsiamoulos Z.P.
        • et al.
        Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial.
        Gut. 2019; 68: 280-288
        • Rex D.K.
        • Sagi S.V.
        • Kessler W.R.
        • et al.
        A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 90: 835-840
        • 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
        • Sze S.F.
        • Cheung W.I.
        • Wong W.C.
        • et al.
        AmplifEYE assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study.
        J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 36: 376-382
        • Lee Y.T.
        • Lai L.H.
        • Hui A.J.
        • et al.
        Efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with regular colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104: 41-46
        • Nutalapati V.
        • Kanakadandi V.
        • Desai M.
        • et al.
        Cap-assisted colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials.
        Endosc Int Open. 2018; 6: E1214-E1223
        • Floer M.
        • Tschaikowski L.
        • Schepke M.
        • et al.
        Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomised controlled clinical trial.
        United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2021; 9: 443-450
        • Lai E.J.
        • Calderwood A.H.
        • Doros G.
        • et al.
        The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 69: 620-625
        • Gupta S.
        • Lieberman D.
        • Anderson J.C.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
        Gastroenterology. 2020; 158: 1131-1153
        • Hassan C.
        • Antonelli G.
        • Dumonceau J.M.
        • et al.
        Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline—update 2020.
        Endoscopy. 2020; 52: 687-700
        • 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
        • Tsiamoulos Z.P.
        • 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
        • Patel H.K.
        • Chandrasekar V.T.
        • Srinivasan S.
        • et al.
        Second-generation distal attachment cuff improves adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2021; 93: 544-553
        • Zorzi M.
        • Hassan C.
        • Battagello J.
        • et al.
        Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in an organized screening program: the “ItaVision” randomized controlled trial.
        Endoscopy. 2022; 54: 138-147
        • 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
        • Triantafyllou K.
        • Polymeros D.
        • Apostolopoulos P.
        • et al.
        Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy is associated with a lower adenoma miss rate: a multicenter randomized tandem study.
        Endoscopy. 2017; 49: 1051-1060
        • Lakoff J.
        • Paszat L.F.
        • Saskin R.
        • et al.
        Risk of developing proximal versus distal colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008; 6 (quiz 064): 1117-1121
        • le Clercq C.M.
        • Bouwens M.W.
        • Rondagh E.J.
        • et al.
        Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study.
        Gut. 2014; 63: 957-963
        • Anderson R.
        • Burr N.E.
        • Valori R.
        Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis.
        Gastroenterology. 2020; 158: 1287-1299
        • Williet N.
        • Tournier Q.
        • Vernet C.
        • et al.
        Effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        Endoscopy. 2018; 50: 846-860
        • Abdeljawad K.
        • Vemulapalli K.C.
        • Kahi C.J.
        • et al.
        Sessile serrated polyp prevalence determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate and an experienced pathologist.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81: 517-524
        • Bettington M.
        • Walker N.
        • Rahman T.
        • et al.
        High prevalence of sessile serrated adenomas in contemporary outpatient colonoscopy practice.
        Intern Med J. 2017; 47: 318-323
        • Hong S.W.
        • Kim J.
        • Lee J.Y.
        • et al.
        Sessile serrated lesions in patients with adenoma on index colonoscopy do not increase metachronous advanced adenoma risk.
        Dig Endosc. 2022; 34: 850-857
        • Lui R.N.
        • Kyaw M.H.
        • Lam T.Y.T.
        • et al.
        Prevalence and risk factors for sessile serrated lesions in an average risk colorectal cancer screening population.
        J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 36: 1656-1662
        • Rembacken B.
        • Hassan C.
        • Riemann J.F.
        • et al.
        Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE).
        Endoscopy. 2012; 44: 957-968