Adverse events and residual lesion rate after cold endoscopic mucosal resection of serrated lesions ≥10 mm

Background and Aims Cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is being increasingly used for large serrated lesions. We sought to measure residual lesion rates and adverse events after cold EMR of large serrated lesions. Methods In a single academic center, we retrospectively examined a database of serrated class lesions ≥ 10 mm removed with cold EMR for safety and efficacy. Results Five hundred and sixty-six serrated lesions ≥10 mm in size were removed from 312 patients. We successfully contacted 223 patients (71.5%) with no reported serious adverse events that required hospitalization, repeat endoscopy, or transfusion. The residual lesion rate per lesion at first follow-up colonoscopy was 18 out of 225 (8%; 95% CI, 5-12.1). Lesions with residual were larger at polypectomy compared with lesions without recurrence (median, 23 mm vs 16 mm, p=0.017). Conclusion Cold EMR appears to be safe and effective for the removal of large serrated lesions

SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for endoscopic mucosal resection: a randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). SIC-8000 (Eleview, Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available FDA approved solution but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 to hetastarch as submucosal injection agents for colorectal EMR. Methods This was a single-center double-blinded randomized controlled trial performed at a tertiary referral center. Patients were referred to our center with flat or sessile lesions measuring ≥15 mm in size. The primary outcome measures were the Sydney Resection Quotient (SRQ) and the rate of en bloc resections. Secondary outcomes were total volume needed for a sufficient lift, number of resected pieces, and adverse events. Results There were 158 patients with 159 adenomas (84 SIC-8000 and 75 hetastarch) and 57 serrated lesions (30 SIC-8000 and 27 hetastarch). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, p=0.001). There was no difference in the proportion of lesions with en bloc resections. The total volume of injectate was significantly lower with SIC-8000 (14.8 mL vs 20.6 mL, p=0.038) Conclusions SIC-8000 is superior to hetastarch for use during EMR in terms of SRQ and total volume needed, although the absolute differences were small

Impact of water filling on terminal ileum intubation with a distal-tip mucosal exposure device

Background and Aims Endocuff improves detection at colonoscopy but seems to impede terminal ileal (TI) intubation. We assessed the impact of Endocuff Vision (EV) on TI intubation using adult or pediatric colonoscopes and evaluated whether filling the cecum with gas versus water affected the impact of EV on TI intubation. Methods Using a prospectively recorded quality control database, we explored the impact of EV on TI intubation in ≤1 minute. We used adult and pediatric colonoscopes and tested the effect of filling the cecum with gas versus water. If the initial attempt failed, then the alternative (water vs gas) was tried as a rescue method. Results TI intubation in ≤1 minute occurred in 91% of colonoscopies without EV versus 65% with EV, but the use of the pediatric colonoscope with EV had a higher success rate for TI intubation in ≤1 minute compared with the adult colonoscope with EV (73% vs 57%, P = .043). TI intubation in ≤1 minute was more successful with EV when the cecum was filled with water rather than gas (74% vs 56%, P = .019), but the benefit of water filling was limited to the adult colonoscope with EV. When EV was in place, water filling was more successful as a rescue method of TI intubation (58% vs 21%, P = .011). Conclusions EV adversely affects TI intubation, particularly for adult colonoscopes. Water filling of the cecum mitigates the impact of EV on TI intubation with adult colonoscopes

Impact of a ring fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims: Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring fitted cap (EndoRings, EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy. Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon. Results: EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, p=0.025) but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or SSPDR. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with EndoRings and contributed substantially to the overall results. Conclusions: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims Endocuff and Endocuff Vision are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE is a knock-off device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing. Methods We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE. Results The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision; p=0.535. The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (p=0.008). There was no difference between the arms in mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, p=0.042). Conclusions AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision of which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE to Endocuff by other investigators are warranted

Frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathologic errors leading to referral for endoscopic resection to a tertiary center

Background and study aims We anecdotally encounter cases where referring endoscopists made errors in endoscopic interpretation of a colorectal lesion, sometimes combined with pathology errors at the referring centers, resulting in referral to our center for endoscopic resection. In this paper, we describe the frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathology errors leading to consultation for endoscopic resection. Patients and methods Review of 760 consecutive referrals to our center over a 26-month interval. Results In total, 28 (3.7 %) of all referred patients had ≥ 1 lesion that did not require any resection after investigation. There were 12 cases (1.6 % of all referrals) involving errors by both the referring endoscopist and the pathologist at the referring center. Errors commonly involved the ileocecal valve, lipomas, and mucosal prolapse changes. There were 15 additional referrals (2.0 % of all referrals) where no neoplastic lesion was identified at our center and either no biopsy was taken at the referring center (n = 9 patients, 10 lesions), the patient was referred although biopsy showed no neoplasia (n = 6), or the referring doctor correctly interpreted the lesion (lipoma), but the outside pathologist incorrectly reported adenoma (n = 1). Conclusions Endoscopists at tertiary centers should expect referrals to clarify the nature of colorectal lesions as neoplastic or non-neoplastic. Community endoscopists with equivocal endoscopic findings and unexpected or equivocal pathology results can consider pathology review at their center or at an expert center before referral for endoscopic or surgical resection