Safety and efficacy of a novel balloon colonoscope: a prospective cohort study^[*]

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Although colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC), adenomas and cancers are missed. We aimed to establish the safety and feasibility of use of a novel balloon-colonoscope.

Patients and methods: Patients (40 – 75 years) referred for CRC screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic evaluation were enrolled in a prospective pilot cohort study whose primary endpoint was device safety. Additional endpoints included success of and time to cecal intubation, withdrawal and total procedure times, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and success of polypectomies.

Results: Among 50 patients (mean age 59.0 years, 27 women [54 %]), three were excluded (inadequate colon preparation, technical problem, abdominal hernia) and 47 were analyzed. Two patients experienced minor adverse events (diarrhea, abdominal pain). Cecal intubation rate was 47 /47 (100 %). Mean times, to reach cecum, withdrawal, and total procedure, were 4.3, 7.4, and 16.5 minutes, respectively. We identified 44 polyps (all successfully removed) in 25 /47 patients (PDR 53.2 %), 35 polyps (79.5 %) were 1 – 5 mm, 4 (9.1 %) 6 – 9 mm, and 5 (11.4 %) ≥ 10 mm. Of 44 polyps, 36 (81.8 %) were “adenomas”; 21/47 patients had ≥ 1 adenoma (ADR 44.7 %).

Conclusions: The NaviAid G-EYE balloon-colonoscope appears safe and feasible to use. Comparative human studies are underway.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01749722

^* This was presented in abstract form as a poster presentation (IMG) at Digestive Diseases Week (DDW) 2013, May 2013, Orlando, Florida, USA

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 162-168
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Lieberman DA, Rex DK et al. 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopy polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE et al. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 125-127
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 284-290
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A et al. Effect of retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 480-489
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Leufkens AM, van Oijen MGH, Siersema PD. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 470-475
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 858-864
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 89-95
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK. Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 519-522
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 246-252
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Rex DK. Update on colonoscopic imaging and projections for the future. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 318-321
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 ASGE Technology Committee. Report on emerging technology: devices to improve colon polyp detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1092-1097
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Rex DK. Accessing proximal aspects of folds and flexures during colonoscopy: impact of a pediatric colonoscope with a short bending section. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1504-1507
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Rex DK, Chadalawada V, Helper DJ. Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency as determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2000-2005
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Sanchez-Yague A, Kaltenbach T, Yamamoto H et al. The endoscopic cap that can (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 169-178
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 DeMarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF et al. Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 542-550
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Waye JD, Heigh RI, Rex DK et al. A retrograde-viewing device improves detection of adenomas in the colon: a prospective efficacy evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 551-556
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Matsumoto T et al. A novel extra-wide-angle-view colonoscope: a simulated pilot study using anatomic colorectal models. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 480-483
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Gralnek IM, Carr-Locke DL, Segol O et al. Comparison of standard forward viewing mode versus ultra-wide viewing mode of a novel colonoscopy platform: a prospective, multicenter study in the detection of simulated polyps in an in vitro colon model. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 472-479
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Gralnek IM, Segol O, Suissa A et al. A prospective cohort study evaluating a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 697-702
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-359
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar