Colonoscopy Clinical Trial
Official title:
Motorized Spiral Colonoscopy Trial (MSCT): A First Feasibility Trial
The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and the safety of the Novel Motorized Spiral Endoscope to examine the colon. The study is conceived as proof of concept trial with the primary aim to achieve a cecal intubation rate of at least 90 % according to quality guidelines recommendations. All other clinically relevant quality parameters of standard colonoscopy will be evaluated as secondary aims comparable to our recent trial. This study represents the first clinical evaluation of using a motorized spiral assisted endoscope for examination of the colon with potential advantages for patients in terms of effectiveness and convenience of colonoscopy.
Colonoscopy has been widely accepted for the diagnosis and treatment of colon diseases.
Properly performed, colonoscopy is generally safe, accurate, and well-tolerated. Diagnostic
colonoscopy is the preferred method to evaluate the colon in most patients with large-bowel
symptoms, iron deficiency anemia, abnormal results on radiographic studies of the colon,
positive results on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, post-polypectomy and post-cancer
resection surveillance, and diagnosis and surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. In
addition, colonoscopy has been introduced for CRC screening in some Western countries e.g. in
the United States and Germany. Recent trials showed that screening colonoscopy has a large
potential for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer. Diagnostic colonoscopy is
usually combined with endoscopic resection of small and medium sized polyps and flat
neoplastic lesions. Patients in whom larger lesions are detected at a diagnostic colonoscopy
are usually rescheduled for therapeutic colonoscopy in an appropriate setting.
Quality parameters for colonoscopy were recently reported. In terms of intraprocedural
indicators a cecal intubation rate of ≥ 90% for all cases of colonoscopy is widely accepted.
Even experienced endoscopists classify up to 10% of colonoscopies as difficult and intubation
of the cecum may then be impossible. A recent study evaluated the efficacy and safety of
repeating colonoscopy in 520 patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy. Reasons for failure
to complete colonoscopy in referring institutions were "looping/redundant colon" in 53.8% of
the cases, "sigmoid fixation/angulation" in 38.8%, "both sigmoid angulation and looping
colon" in 5.8% of the cases. Issues with sedation caused failures in 1.5% of the patients.
Conventional colonoscopy can be difficult in particular in these anatomical variations
because pushing the endoscope tends to form loops with limited or no advancement of the tip
of the instrument. Techniques like alternating pushing and pulling the endoscope or external
compression of the abdomen are used to overcome these limitations. Loop formation and
stretching the colon with the adjacent mesenterium as well as external compression are
inconvenient or even painful for the patient. In addition these maneuvers prolong the
procedural duration. We recently compared the use of ultrathin colonoscopies with standard
colonoscope in a randomized trial in terms of cecal intubation rate, level of sedation,
amount of propofol needed for sedation, number of external compressions, pain score patient
satisfaction and other parameters. The results indicate that these parameters can be well
used for evaluation of a new technique of colonoscopy.
Spiral assisted endoscopy is based on a completely different concept of advancing an
endoscope by pleating of bowel on the instrumentation shaft by rotation. This technique has
been widely used for antegrade enteroscopy. For this purpose a manually rotatable overtube is
used through which a thin flexible enteroscope is inserted. The distal end of the overtube
contains a raised spiral thread for pleating the small intestine over the overtube. By
manually rotating the spiral element the bowel pleats onto the overtube, allowing the
operator to access and visualize the more distal portions of the small intestine. Spiral
assisted endoscopy has been also approved and evaluated for retrograde enteroscopy via the
anal route. It promises advantage for intubation of the cecum and the terminal ileum by its
principle of pleating at least parts of the colon with consecutive shortening and less loop
formation. These effects should reduce the need for external compression and they may cause
less pain for patients. In addition, the spiral should stabilize the position of the
colonoscope which is advantageous for careful examination and targeted interventions. Spiral
overtube-assisted colonoscopy achieved a success rate of cecal intubation in 92% of 24
patients in whom conventional colonoscopy had failed. However conventional spiral endoscopy
is cumbersome to use and requires assistance by a second endoscopist for its appropriate use.
The Novel Motorized Spiral Endoscope represents a new technology which offers all of the
advantageous options of spiral-assisted endoscopy with a faster and less invasive approach.
The system is similar to other currently marketed endoscopes in that it incorporates a
flexible insertion tube, light source, digital imaging, and channels for passing accessories
for sample collection or therapeutic interventions. The system is unique in that it
incorporates a user-controlled motor contained in the endoscope's handle to rotate a spiral
cuff located on the endoscope's insertion tube. Rotation of this cuff, which has soft
spiral-shaped "fins", pleats the colon on to the endoscope's insertion tube, thereby allowing
rapid and atraumatic access into the colon. The system also includes a display monitor, a
motor control unit, device to display measured motor current and signal torque, and a set of
foot pedals. It is currently being evaluated in a prospective study in patients with
indications for antegrade enteroscopy ("European Novel Motorized Spiral Endoscopy Trial
(ENMSET)) in the two centers conducting this study. So far more than 60 patients were
successfully examined without major adverse events.
The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and the safety of the Novel Motorized
Spiral Endoscope to examine the colon. The study is conceived as proof of concept trial with
the primary aim to achieve a cecal intubation rate of at least 90 % according to quality
guidelines recommendations. All other clinically relevant quality parameters of standard
colonoscopy will be evaluated as secondary aims comparable to our recent trial. This study
represents the first clinical evaluation of using a motorized spiral assisted endoscope for
examination of the colon with potential advantages for patients in terms of effectiveness and
convenience of colonoscopy.
;
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Completed |
NCT04101097 -
Training and Validation of Models of Factors to Predict Inadequate Bowel Preparation Colonoscopy
|
||
Completed |
NCT03247595 -
Testing How Well Magnesium Citrate Capsules Work as Preparation for a Colonoscopy
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04214301 -
An Open-Label Preference Evaluation of BLI800
|
Phase 4 | |
Withdrawn |
NCT05754255 -
Comparison of High-flow Oxygen With or Without Nasal Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) During Propofol Sedation for Colonoscopy in an Ambulatory Surgical Center
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT02484105 -
Comforting Conversation During Colonoscopy: A Trial on Patient Satisfaction
|
Phase 4 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT02264249 -
Residual Gastric Volume in Same Day Versus Split Dose and Evening Before Bowel Preparation
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT01978509 -
The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT01964417 -
The Comparative Study Between Bowel Preparation Method
|
Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT01685970 -
Comparison of Same-day 2 Sachets Picosulfate Versus High Volume PEG for Afternoon Colonoscopy
|
Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT01518790 -
Short Course, Single-dose PEG 3350 for Colonoscopy Prep in Children
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT00748293 -
Achievement of Better Examinee Compliance on Colon Cleansing Using Commercialized Low-Residue Diet
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00779649 -
MoviPrep® Versus HalfLytely®, Low-VolUme PEG Solutions for Colon Cleansing: An InvesTigator-blindEd, Randomized, Trial
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT00671177 -
Clinical Evaluation of Water Immersion Colonoscopy Insertion Technique
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00380497 -
Pico-Salax Versus Poly-Ethylene Glycol for Bowel Cleanout Before Colonoscopy in Children
|
Phase 4 | |
Recruiting |
NCT00160823 -
Impact of a Self-Administered Information Leaflet on Adequacy of Colonic Cleansing for in-Hospital Patients
|
Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT00390598 -
PEG Solution (Laxabon®) 4L Versus Senna Glycoside (Pursennid® Ex-Lax) 36mg and PEG Solution (Laxabon®) 2L for Large Bowel Cleansing Prior to Colonoscopy
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT00314418 -
Patient Position and Impact on Colonoscopy Time
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00209573 -
A Study of AQUAVAN® Injection Versus Midazolam HCl for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Elective Colonoscopy
|
Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT00427089 -
Comparison of 2L NRL994 With NaP Preparation in Colon Cleansing Prior to Colonoscopies for Colon Tumor Screening
|
Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT05823350 -
The Effect of Abdominal Massage on Pain and Distention After Colonoscopy
|
N/A |