前瞻性随机对照研究,评估治疗结肠直肠癌的双球囊介入内窥镜平台。

IF 6.7 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastrointestinal endoscopy Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2024.07.001
Sergey V. Kantsevoy MD, PhD, FJGES, Angela Palmer RN, BSN, CGRN, Deborah Hockett RN, BSN, April Vilches RN, BSN
{"title":"前瞻性随机对照研究,评估治疗结肠直肠癌的双球囊介入内窥镜平台。","authors":"Sergey V. Kantsevoy MD, PhD, FJGES,&nbsp;Angela Palmer RN, BSN, CGRN,&nbsp;Deborah Hockett RN, BSN,&nbsp;April Vilches RN, BSN","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Backgrounds and Aims</h3><div>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be challenging and time-consuming. A double-balloon interventional platform (DBIP) was designed to assist with navigation, stabilization, traction, and device delivery during complex colorectal polypectomy. We compared traditional ESD (T-ESD) with DBIP-assisted ESD (DBIP-ESD) in a prospective, randomized trial.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients with colorectal polyps ≥2 cm were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBIP-ESD or T-ESD. The primary study endpoint was the mean total procedure time difference between groups. Secondary endpoints were intraprocedural time points, en bloc resection rate, procedure cost, adverse events, and 3-month assessment. A sample size of 200 subjects for ≥80% power was calculated. Interim analysis for early study termination was planned at 70% enrollment if the primary endpoint was met (<em>P</em> ≤ .05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled between February 2019 and February 2020. Seven patients dropped out, and the interim analysis was performed on 140 patients (71 DBIP-ESD, 69 T-ESD). Demographics, comorbidities, and lesion size, location, and classification were similar between groups. The mean procedure time decreased with DBIP-ESD (88.6 ± 42.7 minutes) versus T-ESD (139.5 ± 83.2 minutes; difference of ∼51 minutes [36.5%]; <em>P</em> &lt; .001], with procedural savings of $610.16 (11.4%) per patient after DBIP cost. The DBIP increased dissection speed by 49.0% (15.1 ± 8.0 vs 7.7 ± 6.6 cm<sup>2</sup>/h, <em>P</em> &lt; .001). En bloc resection was superior with the addition of DBIP (97.2% vs 87.0%, <em>P</em> = .030). The mean navigation time with DBIP-ESD for sutured defect closure decreased by 7.7 minutes (<em>P</em> &lt; .001). There were no adverse events in the DBIP-ESD group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>DBIP-ESD decreased the total procedure time, improved the en bloc resection rate, and facilitated sutured defect closure, making DBIP a promising and cost-effective tool to improve colorectal ESD adoption. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 03846609.)</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":"101 1","pages":"Pages 149-157"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prospective, randomized controlled study evaluating a double-balloon interventional endoscopic platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)\",\"authors\":\"Sergey V. Kantsevoy MD, PhD, FJGES,&nbsp;Angela Palmer RN, BSN, CGRN,&nbsp;Deborah Hockett RN, BSN,&nbsp;April Vilches RN, BSN\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gie.2024.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Backgrounds and Aims</h3><div>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be challenging and time-consuming. A double-balloon interventional platform (DBIP) was designed to assist with navigation, stabilization, traction, and device delivery during complex colorectal polypectomy. We compared traditional ESD (T-ESD) with DBIP-assisted ESD (DBIP-ESD) in a prospective, randomized trial.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients with colorectal polyps ≥2 cm were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBIP-ESD or T-ESD. The primary study endpoint was the mean total procedure time difference between groups. Secondary endpoints were intraprocedural time points, en bloc resection rate, procedure cost, adverse events, and 3-month assessment. A sample size of 200 subjects for ≥80% power was calculated. Interim analysis for early study termination was planned at 70% enrollment if the primary endpoint was met (<em>P</em> ≤ .05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled between February 2019 and February 2020. Seven patients dropped out, and the interim analysis was performed on 140 patients (71 DBIP-ESD, 69 T-ESD). Demographics, comorbidities, and lesion size, location, and classification were similar between groups. The mean procedure time decreased with DBIP-ESD (88.6 ± 42.7 minutes) versus T-ESD (139.5 ± 83.2 minutes; difference of ∼51 minutes [36.5%]; <em>P</em> &lt; .001], with procedural savings of $610.16 (11.4%) per patient after DBIP cost. The DBIP increased dissection speed by 49.0% (15.1 ± 8.0 vs 7.7 ± 6.6 cm<sup>2</sup>/h, <em>P</em> &lt; .001). En bloc resection was superior with the addition of DBIP (97.2% vs 87.0%, <em>P</em> = .030). The mean navigation time with DBIP-ESD for sutured defect closure decreased by 7.7 minutes (<em>P</em> &lt; .001). There were no adverse events in the DBIP-ESD group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>DBIP-ESD decreased the total procedure time, improved the en bloc resection rate, and facilitated sutured defect closure, making DBIP a promising and cost-effective tool to improve colorectal ESD adoption. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 03846609.)</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastrointestinal endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"101 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 149-157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastrointestinal endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510724033388\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510724033388","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)具有挑战性且耗时。研究目的:在一项前瞻性随机试验中比较传统的(T-ESD)和 DBIP 辅助的 ESD(DBIP-ESD):方法:将结肠直肠息肉≥2厘米的患者随机分配(1:1)到DBIP-ESD或T-ESD。主要研究终点:组间平均手术总时间差异。次要终点:术中时间点、全灶切除率、手术费用、不良事件和 3 个月评估。计算得出的样本量为 200 例受试者,功率≥ 80%。如果达到主要终点(P≤0.05),则计划在入选率达到70%时进行中期分析,提前终止研究:147名患者于2019年2月至2020年2月期间入组。7名患者退出。对 140 名患者(71 名 DBIP-ESD 患者,69 名 T-ESD 患者)进行了中期分析。两组患者的人口统计学、合并疾病、病变大小/位置/分类相似。DBIP(88.6±42.7 分钟)与 T-ESD(139.5±83.2 分钟)相比,平均手术时间缩短[51 分钟,36.5%,p2/小时,p< 0.001]。DBIP的全切效果更好(97.2% vs 87.0%,p=0.030)。使用DBIP进行缝合缺损闭合的平均导航时间减少了7.7分钟(p结论:DBIP缩短了手术总时间,提高了全切率,促进了缝合缺损闭合,使DBIP成为改善结肠直肠ESD采用率的一种有前途且具有成本效益的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prospective, randomized controlled study evaluating a double-balloon interventional endoscopic platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

Backgrounds and Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be challenging and time-consuming. A double-balloon interventional platform (DBIP) was designed to assist with navigation, stabilization, traction, and device delivery during complex colorectal polypectomy. We compared traditional ESD (T-ESD) with DBIP-assisted ESD (DBIP-ESD) in a prospective, randomized trial.

Methods

Patients with colorectal polyps ≥2 cm were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBIP-ESD or T-ESD. The primary study endpoint was the mean total procedure time difference between groups. Secondary endpoints were intraprocedural time points, en bloc resection rate, procedure cost, adverse events, and 3-month assessment. A sample size of 200 subjects for ≥80% power was calculated. Interim analysis for early study termination was planned at 70% enrollment if the primary endpoint was met (P ≤ .05).

Results

One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled between February 2019 and February 2020. Seven patients dropped out, and the interim analysis was performed on 140 patients (71 DBIP-ESD, 69 T-ESD). Demographics, comorbidities, and lesion size, location, and classification were similar between groups. The mean procedure time decreased with DBIP-ESD (88.6 ± 42.7 minutes) versus T-ESD (139.5 ± 83.2 minutes; difference of ∼51 minutes [36.5%]; P < .001], with procedural savings of $610.16 (11.4%) per patient after DBIP cost. The DBIP increased dissection speed by 49.0% (15.1 ± 8.0 vs 7.7 ± 6.6 cm2/h, P < .001). En bloc resection was superior with the addition of DBIP (97.2% vs 87.0%, P = .030). The mean navigation time with DBIP-ESD for sutured defect closure decreased by 7.7 minutes (P < .001). There were no adverse events in the DBIP-ESD group.

Conclusions

DBIP-ESD decreased the total procedure time, improved the en bloc resection rate, and facilitated sutured defect closure, making DBIP a promising and cost-effective tool to improve colorectal ESD adoption. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 03846609.)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Gastrointestinal endoscopy 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
7.80%
发文量
1441
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.
期刊最新文献
Erratum Contents Prospective randomized controlled trial of water exchange plus cap versus water exchange colonoscopy in unsedated veterans Boosting efficiency in the endoscopy suite: integrating team workflows improves productivity and minimizes cost Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and capsule endoscopy in patients with diabetes: a matched cohort study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1