Su1018 Higher Polyp Detection Rate and Shorter Cecal Intubation Time With Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy (CAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 142 (5) ◽  
pp. S-401
Author(s):  
Sachin Wani ◽  
Srinivas Gaddam ◽  
Ajay Bansal ◽  
Matthew Hall ◽  
Prateek Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation Time

scholarly journals Cap-assisted endoscopy: Do we have enough evidence?

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (10) ◽  
pp. E1224-E1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Frieling
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
Transparent Cap

AbstractSo, 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.

Risk factors associated with longer cecal intubation time: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veeravich Jaruvongvanich ◽  
Tomoki Sempokuya ◽  
Passisd Laoveeravat ◽  
Patompong Ungprasert
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Cecal Intubation Time

scholarly journals Efficacy of Endocuff Vision compared to first-generation Endocuff in adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate in high-definition colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (01) ◽  
pp. E41-E50
Author(s):  
Muhammad Aziz ◽  
Hossein Haghbin ◽  
Manesh Kumar Gangwani ◽  
Sachit Sharma ◽  
Yusuf Nawras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
High Definition ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection

Abstract Background and study aims Recently, the newer Endocuff Vision (ECV) has been evaluated for improving colonoscopy outcome metrics such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). Due to lack of direct comparative studies between ECV and original Endocuff (ECU), we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate these outcomes. Methods The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Sciences to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECV or ECU colonoscopy to high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. Direct as well as network meta-analyses comparing ADR and PDR were performed using a random effects model. Relative-risk (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Results A total of 12 RCTs with 8638 patients were included in the final analysis. On direct meta-analysis, ECV did not demonstrate statistically improved ADR compared to HD colonoscopy (RR: 1.12, 95 % CI 0.99–1.27). A clinically and statistically improved PDR was noted for ECV compared to HD (RR: 1.15, 95 % CI 1.03–1.28) and ECU compared to HD (RR: 1.26, 95 % CI 1.09–1.46) as well as improved ADR (RR: 1.22, 95 % CI 1.05–1.43) was observed for ECU colonoscopy when compared to HD colonoscopy. These results were also consistent on network meta-analysis. Lower overall complication rates (RR: 0.14, 95 % CI 0.02–0.84) and particularly lacerations/erosions (RR: 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02–0.70) were noted with ECV compared to ECU colonoscopy. Conclusions Although safe, the newer ECV did not significantly improve ADR compared to ECU and HD colonoscopy. Further device modification is needed to increase the overall ADR and PDR.

scholarly journals Impact of propofol sedation versus opioid/benzodiazepine sedation on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (06) ◽  
pp. E701-E707
Author(s):  
Muhammad Aziz ◽  
Simcha Weissman ◽  
Rawish Fatima ◽  
Zubair Khan ◽  
Babu P. Mohan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adenoma Detection Rate ◽  
Advanced Adenoma ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Propofol Sedation ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background and study aims Choice of sedation (propofol vs opioid/benzodiazepine) has been studied in the literature and has shown variable outcomes. The majority of recent studies have evaluated propofol sedation (PS) versus opioids, benzodiazepines, or a combination of both. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PS to other sedation methods to assess the impact on colonoscopy outcomes. Methods Multiple databases were searched and studies of interest were extracted. Primary outcome of the study was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 177,016 patients (148,753 and 28,263 in the opioids/benzodiazepine group and PS group, respectively). Overall, ADR (RR: 1.07, 95 % CI 0.99–1.15), PDR (RR: 1.01, 95 % CI 0.93–1.10), and AADR (RR: 1.17, 95 % CI 0.92–1.48) did not improve with the use of PS. The CIR was slightly higher for propofol sedation group (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.00–1.03). Conclusion Based on our analysis, PS and opioid/benzodiazepine sedation seem to have comparable ADR. Our results do not favor use of a particular sedation method and the choice of sedation should be individualized based on patient preference, risk factors and resource availability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document