Dataset Information

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

Looping is a common problem during colonoscopy that prolongs procedure time. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ColoWrap, an external abdominal compression device, with respect to insertion time and other procedural outcomes.

Methods

We performed a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy (40-80 years old; mean age, 60.5 years) at endoscopy facilities in the University of North Carolina Hospitals from April 2013 through March 2014. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups that received either ColoWrap (n = 175) or a sham device (control, n = 175) during colonoscopy. Colonoscopists and staff were blinded to the application. The primary outcome was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included use of manual pressure and position change.

Results

The mean CIT was similar for the control and ColoWrap groups (6.69 vs 6.67 minutes; P = .98). There were no statistical differences in the frequency of manual pressure (45% for controls vs 37% for ColoWrap group, P = .13) or position changes (4% for controls vs 2% for ColoWrap group, P = .36). Among patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2) (n = 78), CIT was significantly lower for patients in the ColoWrap group (4.69 minutes) than controls (6.10 minutes) (P = .03). Adverse events were similar between groups.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, application of an external abdominal compression device did not improve CIT or affect the frequency of ancillary maneuvers. A possible benefit was observed in patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2), but further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02025504.

SUBMITTER: Crockett SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4875866 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.

Crockett Seth D SD Cirri Holly O HO Kelapure Renuka R Galanko Joseph A JA Martin Christopher F CF Dellon Evan S ES

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 20160106 6

<h4>Background & aims</h4>Looping is a common problem during colonoscopy that prolongs procedure time. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ColoWrap, an external abdominal compression device, with respect to insertion time and other procedural outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy (40-80 years old; mean age, 60.5 years) at endoscopy facilities in the University of North Carolina Hospitals from April 2013 through March ...[more]

PMID: 26767313

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).MethodsMagnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as "usual" or "difficult" by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.ResultsTwo hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.ConclusionAlthough the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.

Project description:AimTo study the significance of cap-fitted colonoscopy in improving cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.MethodsThis study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.ResultsThere were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.ConclusionCAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether percutaneous vertebroplasty results in more pain relief than a sham procedure in patients with acute osteoporotic compression fractures of the vertebral body.DesignRandomised, double blind, sham controlled clinical trial.SettingFour community hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-15.Participants180 participants requiring treatment for acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures were randomised to either vertebroplasty (n=91) or a sham procedure (n=89).InterventionsParticipants received local subcutaneous lidocaine (lignocaine) and bupivacaine at each pedicle. The vertebroplasty group also received cementation, which was simulated in the sham procedure group.Main outcome measuresMain outcome measure was mean reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at one day, one week, and one, three, six, and 12 months. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a decrease of 1.5 points in VAS scores from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were the differences between groups for changes in the quality of life for osteoporosis and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores during 12 months' follow-up.ResultsThe mean reduction in VAS score was statistically significant in the vertebroplasty and sham procedure groups at all follow-up points after the procedure compared with baseline. The mean difference in VAS scores between groups was 0.20 (95% confidence interval -0.53 to 0.94) at baseline, -0.43 (-1.17 to 0.31) at one day, -0.11 (-0.85 to 0.63) at one week, 0.41 (-0.33 to 1.15) at one month, 0.21 (-0.54 to 0.96) at three months, 0.39 (-0.37 to 1.15) at six months, and 0.45 (-0.37 to 1.24) at 12 months. These changes in VAS scores did not, however, differ statistically significantly between the groups during 12 months' follow-up. The results for secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Use of analgesics (non-opioids, weak opioids, strong opioids) decreased statistically significantly in both groups at all time points, with no statistically significant differences between groups. Two adverse events occurred in the vertebroplasty group: one respiratory insufficiency and one vasovagal reaction.ConclusionsPercutaneous vertebroplasty did not result in statistically significantly greater pain relief than a sham procedure during 12 months' follow-up among patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01200277.

Dataset Information

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.

Background & aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets