Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=612 Randomized Screening

Endocuff Vision Colonoscopy vs. AmplifEYE Colonoscopy

Colorectal Adenoma · Colorectal Polyp · Colorectal Cancer

Enrolled (actual)
612
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Oct 2019
Primary outcome: Primary: Number of Adenomas Detected Per Colonoscopy (APC). — 1.63; 1.51 adenomas

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Endocuff Vision device (Device); AmplifEYE device (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 40+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Indiana University
Primary completion
Dec 2018

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Number of Adenomas Detected Per Colonoscopy (APC).
1.63; 1.51
SECONDARY
Detection Rates (Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Polyp Detection Rate (PDR))
164; 159; 229; 231
SECONDARY
Complications Encountered During Procedure
30; 24; 0; 0; 0; 0
SECONDARY
Passage of Device Through Sigmoid Colon
17; 15
SECONDARY
Polyps Per Colonoscopy (PPC)
2.71; 2.55
SECONDARY
Time Comparison for Each Method
5.6; 5.7; 14.6; 14.9; 6.8; 6.9
SECONDARY
Cecal Intubation Rate
294; 297
SECONDARY
Detection of Serrated Lesions
40; 46; 122; 130

Summary

The study aims to compare the results between colonoscopies with two different attachments on the distal end of the colonoscope.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • 40 years of age or older
  • Undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or diagnostic purposes
  • Able to provide written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

  • Active Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  • Prior resection of the colon
  • Referred for resection of a polyp identified by another physician
  • Referred for a previous incomplete colonoscopy
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03560128). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search