Seven standout studies were presented during this morning's plenary session.
A Retrograde-Viewing Auxiliary Imaging Device (Third Eye Retroscope Improves Adenoma Detection Rates (ADR) During ColonoscopyResearchers: Peter D. Siersema, MD, PhD, FACG, Anke Leufkens, MD, Daniel DeMarco, MD, FACG, Amit Rastogi, MD, Paul Akerman, MD, FACG, Kassem Azzouzi, MD, Richard Rothstein, MD, FACG, Frank Vleggaar, MD, PhD, Alessandro Repici, MD, Giacomo Rando, MD, Patrick Okolo, MD, MPH, Olivier Dewit, MD, Ana Ignjatovic, MD, Elizabeth Odstrcil, MD, James East, MD, Pierre Deprez, MD, PhD, Brian Saunders, MD, MB, Anthony Kalloo, MD, FACG, Bradley Creel, MD, Vikas Singh, MD, and Anne Marie Lennon, MD, PhD
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of the Third Eye Retroscope, during colonoscopy, on adenoma detection rates (ADR).
Results: When combined with a colonoscope, the Third Eye Retroscope significantly increases the detection of adenoma by allow for the visualization of areas behind folds that would not normally be seen during colonoscopy.
2010 ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research
Adenoma Detection Rate Is Not Influenced by the Timing of Colonoscopy, When Performed in Half Day BlocksResearchers:Suryakanth Gurudu, MD, FACG, Shiva Ratuapli, MD, Jonathan Leighton, MD, FACG, Russell Heigh, MD, FACG, and Michael Crowell, PhD
Purpose: “To assess ADR in morning vs. afternoon colonoscopy performed in half-day blocks with different physicians, and to evaluate other factors that might influence ADR.”
Results: Although timing of colonoscopy did not play a role in the prediction of ADR, with equal detection in the morning and afternoon with different endoscopists performing the colonoscopy in half-day blocks, the half-day blocks might play a role, as they allow for the possibility of less physician fatigue. Gurudu and colleagues concluded that additional prospective studies are needed to better explore this relationship.
Single versus Double Balloon Enteroscopy in Small Bowel Diagnostics: A Randomized Multicenter TrialResearchers: Philipp Lenz, MD, Peter Mensink, MD, PhD, Huseyin Aktas, MD, Tobias Meister, MD, Andreas Luegering, MD, Hansjoerg Ullerich, MD, Lars Aabakken, MD, PhD, Wolfram Domschke, MD, PhD, Ernst Kuipers, MD, PhD, Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, and Dirk Domagk, MD
Purpose: To “compare the well established double-balloon enteroscope (DBE, Fujinon, EN-450 T5) with a new single-balloon system (SBE, Olympus, SIF 180).”
Results: For the evaluation of the small bowel, the performance and diagnostic yields of DBE and SBE are comparable.
A Prospective, Single Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) - Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) with and without a StyletResearchers: Amit Rastogi, MD, Sachin Wani, MD, Neil Gupta, MD, MPH, Vikas Singh, MD, Srinivas Gaddam, MD, Savio Reddymasu, MD, Ozlem Ulusarac, MD, Fang Fan, MD, Maria Romanas, MD, Katie Dennis, MD, Prateek Sharma, MD, FACG, Ajay Bansal, MD, Melissa Oropeza-Vail, RN, and Mojtaba Olyaee, MD
Purpose: “To compare specimens obtained by EUS-FNA with stylet (S ) and without stylet (S-) for: 1. Cellularity, contamination, and amount of blood, and 2. Diagnostic yield of malignancy.”
Results: With no differences seen in cellularity, contamination, significant amount of blood, and diagnostic yield of malignancy seen between EUS-FNA using a stylet and not using a stylet, and similar numbers of specimens deemed inadequate with both procedures, the team concluded that no advantage is gained by performing EUS-FNA with a stylet over not using a stylet.
Gastroenterologists Ignore New Guidelines for Endocarditis Prophylaxis Prior to Gastrointestinal ProceduresResearchers: Harish Iyer, MD, Michael Davis, DO, Julian Perez, MD, Nina Mingioni, MD, Philip Katz, MD, FACG
Purpose: “To assess gastroenterologists use of antibiotics for Infective Endocarditis (IE) prophylaxis prior to various gastrointestinal procedures through a survey.”
Results: Of respondents, a substantial percentage ignored the AHA guidelines for peri-procedural antibiotic prophylaxis for IE prevention, despite being aware of the substantial new changes, with most who responded so saying medico-legal issues were the reason for their “incorrect” practice.