4.6 Article

AmplifEYE assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: A randomized controlled study

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 376-382

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15331

Keywords

adenoma detection rate; colonoscopy; colorectal cancer screening; mucosal exposure device; polyp detection rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the adenoma detection rates of AmplifEYE-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy. The results showed that the polyp detection rate and serrated polyp detection rate were significantly higher in the AmplifEYE group compared to the standard colonoscopy group.
Background and Aim AmplifEYE is a mucosal exposure device mounted to the tip of colonoscope to improve polyp or adenoma detection. We aim to compare the adenoma detection rates (ADR) of AmplifEYE-assisted colonoscopy (AC) with standard colonoscopy (SC). Methods We performed a randomized controlled trial involving patients aged 50 to 79 who underwent AC or SC in two centers. Procedures were performed by five experienced colonoscopists. Results Three hundred fifty-five patients were recruited, with 334 patients (170 AC and 164 SC) included into analysis. The ADR was numerically higher in AC (47.1%) versus SC (40.9%), P = 0.253. The polyp detection rate (PDR) in AC was 68.2% versus 54.3% in SC, P = 0.009, and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) in AC was 37.6% versus 20.1% in SC, P < 0.001, both statistically significant higher in the study group. The mean cecal intubation time was shorter with AmplifEYE (8.0 min in AC vs 8.9 min in SC, P = 0.030), and there was no difference in pain score (3 in AC vs 4 in SC, P = 0.121). Conclusions AmplifEYE-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved the PDR and SDR, while the ADR was numerically higher in AC that did not reach statistical significance. Using the device resulted in shorter cecal intubation time and did not cause more pain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available