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, Angela Palmer RN, BSN, CGRN, Deborah Hockett RN, BSN, 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> < .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> < .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> < .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, Angela Palmer RN, BSN, CGRN, Deborah Hockett RN, BSN, 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> < .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> < .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> < .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}
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.)
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.