Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
Blue-light imaging or narrow-band imaging for proximal colonic lesions: a prospective randomized tandem colonoscopy study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leung Wai K, Tsui Vivien Wai Man, Mak Loey Lung-Yi, Cheung Michael Ka-Shing, Hui Cynthia Ka-Yin, Lam Carla Pui-Mei, Wong Siu-Yin, Liu Kevin Sze-Hang, Ko Michael Kwan-Lung, To Elvis Wai-Pan, Guo Chuan-Guo, Lui Thomas Ka-Luen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Blue-light imaging (BLI) is a new image-enhanced endoscopy with a wavelength filter similar to narrow-band imaging (NBI). We compared the 2 with white-light imaging (WLI) on proximal colonic lesion detection and miss rates.
METHODS: In this 3-arm prospective randomized study with tandem examination of the proximal colon, we enrolled patients aged ≥40 years. Eligible patients were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio to receive BLI, NBI, or WLI during the first withdrawal from the proximal colon. The second withdrawal was performed using WLI in all patients. Primary outcomes were proximal polyp (pPDRs) and adenoma (pADRs) detection rates. Secondary outcomes were miss rates of proximal lesions found on tandem examination.
RESULTS: Of 901 patients included (mean age, 64.7 years; 52.9% men), 48.1% underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. The corresponding pPDRs of the BLI, NBI, and WLI groups were 45.8%, 41.6, and 36.6%, whereas the corresponding pADRs were 36.6%, 33.8%, and 28.3%. There was a significant difference in pPDR and pADR between BLI and WLI groups (difference, 9.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 3.3-16.9] and 8.3% [95% CI, 2.7-15.9]) and between NBI and WLI groups (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, 1.4-12.9] and 5.6% [95% CI, 2.1-13.3]). Proximal adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with BLI (19.4%) than with WLI (27.4%; difference, -8.0%; 95% CI, -15.8 to -.1) but not between NBI (27.2%) and WLI.
CONCLUSIONS: Both BLI and NBI were superior to WLI on detecting proximal colonic lesions, but only BLI had lower proximal adenoma miss rates than WLI. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03696992.).
METHODS: In this 3-arm prospective randomized study with tandem examination of the proximal colon, we enrolled patients aged ≥40 years. Eligible patients were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio to receive BLI, NBI, or WLI during the first withdrawal from the proximal colon. The second withdrawal was performed using WLI in all patients. Primary outcomes were proximal polyp (pPDRs) and adenoma (pADRs) detection rates. Secondary outcomes were miss rates of proximal lesions found on tandem examination.
RESULTS: Of 901 patients included (mean age, 64.7 years; 52.9% men), 48.1% underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. The corresponding pPDRs of the BLI, NBI, and WLI groups were 45.8%, 41.6, and 36.6%, whereas the corresponding pADRs were 36.6%, 33.8%, and 28.3%. There was a significant difference in pPDR and pADR between BLI and WLI groups (difference, 9.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 3.3-16.9] and 8.3% [95% CI, 2.7-15.9]) and between NBI and WLI groups (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, 1.4-12.9] and 5.6% [95% CI, 2.1-13.3]). Proximal adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with BLI (19.4%) than with WLI (27.4%; difference, -8.0%; 95% CI, -15.8 to -.1) but not between NBI (27.2%) and WLI.
CONCLUSIONS: Both BLI and NBI were superior to WLI on detecting proximal colonic lesions, but only BLI had lower proximal adenoma miss rates than WLI. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03696992.).