Mo1563 CAP-Assisted Colonoscopy Versus Standard Colonoscopy in Polyp Detection and Cecal Intubation Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised-Controlled Trials

Siew C. Ng,Kelvin K. Tsoi,Hoyee W. Hirai,Justin C. Wu,Francis K.L. Chan,Joseph J. Sung,James Y. Lau
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.862
IF: 10.396
2011-01-01
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Abstract:Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) by fitting a transparent cap or hood to the tip of a colonoscope has been shown to improve polyp detection and cecal intubation rate but data are inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the benefit of CAC versus standard colonoscopy (SC) in polyp detection and success of cecal intubation. Full English-language publications from OVID electronic databases and abstracts in major international conferences were manually searched over the past 10 years for randomized-controlled trials comparing CAC and SC. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. We examined heterogeneity of trials and pooled the effects by meta-analysis. Outcome measures included (i) number of patients with polyp detected; (ii) number of polyps detected (iii) total colonoscopy time; (iv) cecal intubation rate and (v) cecal intubation time. Subgroup analyses of outcome measures were performed on trainee endoscopists. Five randomised controlled trials fulfilling search criteria were identified. Mean CONSORT quality score was 4 (range 3-5). Among 2548 subjects (mean age 61 years old; 54% male) recruited in these five randomized trials, 1261 underwent CAC and 1287 had SC. There was no difference in the number of patients with polyp detected (RR: 1.01; 95% CI=0.83 to 1.23; p=0.89) or the number of adenomas detected (RR: 0.89; 95% CI=0.70 to 1.14; p=0.37) between the CAC and SC groups. The mean total colonoscopy time was significantly lower in CAC than SC group (mean difference −1.47 minutes; 95% CI= −2.58 to −0.37, p<0.01). Cecal intubation rate (RR: 1.01; 95% CI=0.99 to 1.03; p=0.24) and cecal intubation time (mean difference −0.85 minutes; 95% CI= −1.91 to 0.21; p=0.12) were comparable between the CAC and SC groups. In subgroup analysis of trainees, CAC improved cecal intubation rate (p=0.02) but not cecal intubation time (p=0.16). CAC has an overall similar efficacy to SC in terms of polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate and cecal intubation time. CAC improves cecal intubation rate when performed by a trainee endoscopist.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?