July 24, 2019
1 min read

Endocuff, novel colonoscopy accessory produce similar results

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

AmplifEYE — an endoscopy accessory designed to smooth folds in the mucosa and improve polyp detection — was non-inferior to a similar device, Endocuff Vision, according to study results.

The results should allow endoscopists to consider cost when choosing their instrument, they concluded.

Douglas K. Rex, MD, director of endoscopy at Indiana University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy that the devices differ slightly in terms of overall size and design of the arms that assist in the smoothing process. However, the devices operate using a similar concept.

“There are few data on the effect of AmplifEYE on detection compared with standard colonoscopy,” they wrote. “Because Endocuff Vision appears established as effective, and AmplifEYE appears to be an alternative that should function similarly, we performed a randomized controlled trial to test whether performance differences exist between Endocuff Vision and AmplifEYE.”

Researchers enrolled patients aged at least 40 years presenting for screening, surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy (n = 592) and randomly assigned them to undergo colonoscopy with AmplifEYE (Medivators) or Endocuff Vision (Olympus). The primary outcome of the study was the number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). Researchers also explored several secondary endpoints, including insertion time to the cecum and inspection time.

Investigators found that the APC was similar between AmplifEYE (1.63) and Endocuff Vision (1.51), and the ratio for noninferiority was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88–1.33).

There was no difference between the two devices in mean insertion time, while the mean inspection time — defined as withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning — was shorter in the AmplifEYE group (6.8 minutes vs. 6.9 minutes; P = .042).

“These results suggest that cost can be considered by colonoscopists choosing between Endocuff Vision and AmplifEYE,” Rex and colleagues concluded. “We recommend that additional groups evaluate this issue.” by Alex Young

Disclosures: Healio Gastroenterology and Liver Disease could not confirm the authors’ relevant financial disclosures prior to publication.