Comparing blind spots of unsedated ultrafine, sedated, and unsedated conventional gastroscopy with and without artificial intelligence: a prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial.

Researchers

Journal

Modalities

Models

Abstract

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the most vital procedure for the diagnosis of upper GI lesions. We aimed to compare the performance of unsedated ultrathin transoral endoscopy (U-TOE), unsedated conventional EGD (C-EGD), and sedated C-EGD, with or without the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system.
In this prospective, single-blind, 3-parallel-group, randomized, single-center trial, 437 patients scheduled to undergo outpatient EGD were randomized to unsedated U-TOE, unsedated C-EGD, or sedated C-EGD, and each group was then divided into 2 subgroups: with or without the assistance of an AI system to monitor blind spots during EGD. The primary outcome was the blind spot rate of these 3 groups with the assistance of AI. The secondary outcomes were to compare blind spot rates of unsedated U-TOE, unsedated, and sedated C-EGD with or without the assistance of AI, respectively, and the concordance between AI and the endoscopists’ review.
The blind spot rate with AI-assisted sedated C-EGD was significantly lower than that of U-TOE and unsedated C-EGD (3.42% vs 21.77% vs 31.23%; P < .05). The blind spot rate of AI subgroup was lower than that of the control subgroup in all 3 groups (sedated C-EGD: 3.42% vs 22.46%; P < .001; U-TOE: 21.77% vs 29.92%, P < .001; unsedated C-EGD: 31.23% vs 42.46%, P < .001).
The blind spot rate of sedated C-EGD was the lowest among the 3 types of EGD, and the addition of AI had a maximal effect on sedated C-EGD. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1900020920.).
Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.