Background & Aims: Mucosal exposure devices improve detection of lesions during colonoscopy and have reduced examination times in uncontrolled studies. We performed a randomized trial of Endocuff Vision vs standard colonoscopy to compare differences in withdrawal time (the primary end point). We proposed that Endocuff Vision would allow complete mucosal inspection in a shorter time without impairing lesion detection. Methods: Adults older than 40 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies were randomly assigned to the Endocuff group (n=101, 43.6% women) or the standard colonoscopy group (n=99; 57.6% women). One of 2 experienced endoscopists performed the colonoscopies, aiming for a thorough evaluation of the proximal sides of all haustral folds, flexures, and valves in the shortest time possible. Inspection time was measured with a stopwatch and calculated by subtracting washing, suctioning, polypectomy and biopsy times from total withdrawal time. Results: There were significantly fewer women in the Endocuff arm (P=.0475) but there were no other demographic differences between groups. Mean insertion time with Endocuff was 4.0 min vs 4.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P=.14). Mean inspection time with Endocuff was 6.5 min vs 8.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P<.0001). Numbers of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.43 vs 1.07; P=.07), adenoma detection rate (61.4% vs 52%; P=0.21), number of sessile serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.27 vs 0.21; P=0.12), and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (19.8% vs 11.1%; P= 0.09) were all higher with Endocuff Vision. Results did not differ significantly when we controlled for age, sex, or race. Conclusion: In a randomized trial, we found inclusion of Endocuff in screening or surveillance colonoscopies to decrease examination time without reducing lesion detection. ClinicalTrials.gov no.: NCT03361917 KEY WORDS: colonoscopy, colorectal polyp, colon cancer; colorectal What You Need to Know Background: We performed a randomized trial of Endocuff Vision vs standard colonoscopy to compare differences in withdrawal time and lesion detection in 200 patients. Findings: Mean inspection time with Endocuff was 6.5 min vs 8.4 min for standard colonoscopy. Numbers of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate, number of sessile serrated polyps per colonoscopy, and sessile serrated polyp detection rate did not differ significantly with vs without Endocuff. Limitations: The study was performed by 2 examiners with extensive experience with Endocuff Vision. Implications for patient care: Inclusion of Endocuff in screening or surveillance colonoscopies decreases examination time without reducing lesion detection.

No abstract

No abstract

A s elective endoscopy resumes in the United States, little is known about the concerns of endoscopy staff regarding their risk of acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by returning to work. We investigated this issue with a survey of endoscopists and staff at a single academic center delivering outpatient endoscopy services. Methods The Indiana University institutional review board approved the survey instrument (Supplementary Table 1) on April 10, 2020. Staff were eligible if they were endoscopists, nurses, technicians, or registration staff and had direct contact with patients. Six research assistants administered all surveys by telephone. The first and final surveys were conducted April 14 and 24, 2020, respectively. After inquiring about protective measures in question 12, each respondent ranked up to 3 protective measures they considered most important. Indiana permitted the resumption of elective surgical procedures, including endoscopy, on

No abstract