Comparative Efficacy of Colonoscope Distal Attachment Devices in Increasing Rates of Adenoma Detection: A Network Meta-analysis

Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1209-1219.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.007. Epub 2017 Nov 11.

Abstract

Background & aims: Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection (ADR). We assessed their overall and comparative efficacy, and estimated absolute magnitude of benefit through a network meta-analysis.

Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2017 and identified 25 randomized controlled trials (comprising 16,103 patients) that compared the efficacy of add-on devices (cap; Endocuff; Arc Medical Design Ltd, Leeds, UK, and Endorings; Us Endoscopy, Mentor, OH) with each other or with standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included rate of polyp detection, and rate of and time to cecal intubation. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We estimated the magnitude of increase in ADR by low-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 10%) and high-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 40%) with use of these devices.

Results: Overall, distal attachment devices increased ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (relative risk [RR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23; low-quality evidence), with potential absolute increases in ADR to 11.3% for low-performing endoscopists and to 45.2% for high-performing endoscopists. In a comparative evaluation, we found low-quality evidence that Endocuff increases ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41), with anticipated increases in ADR to 12% for low-performing endoscopists and to 48% for high-performing endoscopists. We found very low quality evidence to support the use of Endorings (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.86-3.36) or caps (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96-1.19) vs standard colonoscopy for increasing ADR. The benefit of one distal attachment device over another was uncertain due to very low quality evidence.

Conclusions: Based on network meta-analysis, we anticipate only modest improvement in ADRs with use of distal attachment devices, especially in low-performing endoscopists.

Keywords: Cap-Assisted; Colon Cancer; GRADE; Tumor.

Publication types

  • Evaluation Study
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Adenoma / diagnosis*
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Colonic Neoplasms / diagnosis*
  • Colonoscopes*
  • Colonoscopy / instrumentation*
  • Colonoscopy / methods*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Network Meta-Analysis
  • United Kingdom
  • Young Adult