Endoscopic capsule placement improves the completion rate of small-bowel capsule endoscopy and increases diagnostic yield

2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Jie Gao ◽  
Zhi Zheng Ge ◽  
Hai Ying Chen ◽  
Xiao Bo Li ◽  
Jun Dai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Completion Rate ◽  
Endoscopic Capsule

scholarly journals Evaluating a combined bowel preparation for small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a prospective randomized–controlled study

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie L Hansel ◽  
Joseph A Murray ◽  
Jeffrey A Alexander ◽  
David H Bruining ◽  
Mark V Larson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Completion Rate ◽  
Randomized Controlled Study ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Capsule endoscopy (CE) is frequently hindered by intra-luminal debris. Our aim was to determine whether a combination bowel preparation would improve small-bowel visualization, diagnostic yield, and the completion rate of CE. Methods Single-blind, prospective randomized–controlled study of outpatients scheduled for CE. Bowel-preparation subjects ingested 2 L of polyethylene glycol solution the night prior to CE, 5 mL simethicone and 5 mg metoclopramide 20 minutes prior to CE and laid in the right lateral position 30 minutes after swallowing CE. Controls had no solid food after 7 p.m. the night prior to CE and no liquids 4 hours prior to CE. Participants completed a satisfaction survey. Capsule readers completed a small-bowel-visualization assessment. Results Fifty patients were prospectively enrolled (56% female) with a median age of 54.4 years and 44 completed the study (23 patients in the control group and 21 in the preparation group). There was no significant difference between groups on quartile-based small-bowel visualization (all P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups in diagnostic yield (P = 0.69), mean gastric (P = 0.10) or small-bowel transit time (P = 0.89). The small-bowel completion rate was significantly higher in the preparation group (100% vs 78%; P = 0.02). Bowel-preparation subjects reported significantly more discomfort than controls (62% vs 17%; P = 0.01). Conclusions Combined bowel preparation did not improve small-bowel visualization but did significantly increase patient discomfort. The CE completion rate improved in the preparation group but the diagnostic yield was unaffected. Based on our findings, a bowel preparation prior to CE does not appear to improve CE performance and results in decreased patient satisfaction (ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT01243736).

ID: 3519521 FEASIBILITY AND DIAGNOSTIC YIELD OF SMALL BOWEL CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY IN PATIENTS WITH SURGICALLY ALTERED GASTRIC ANATOMY

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB354
Author(s):  
Xavier Dray ◽  
Maria Elena Riccioni ◽  
Gabriele W. Johansson ◽  
Martin Keuchel ◽  
Guillaume Perrod ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield

Rendimiento diagnóstico de la videocápsula endoscópica en el sangrado del intestino delgado manifiesto

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
María Alejandra Arriola ◽  
Diana Valencia ◽  
Carolina Olano
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Frequent Finding ◽  
Male Sex ◽  
Lower Endoscopy ◽  
Small Bowel Bleeding ◽  
Nonspecific Inflammation

Introduction. The small bowel capsule endoscopy is the first line procedure in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. Data regarding overt suspected small bowel bleeding and its predictive factors remain still limited. Aim. To assess the diagnostic yield of the capsule endoscopy and the factors predicting positive findings in patients with overt suspected small bowel bleeding. Methods. Patients with overt suspected small bowel bleeding (melena or enterorrhagia) and negative upper and lower endoscopy were included. A positive diagnostic yield was considered when the capsule endoscopy diagnosed one or more P2 or P3 type lesions (Modified Saurin Classification) Demographic and laboratory data were recorded. Results. 79 patients were included (mean age 62.92 (15-89); F:M 46:33). The diagnostic yield of the capsule endoscopy was 62%. The most frequent finding was angioectasia (44.8%), followed by nonspecific inflammation/ulceration (20.4%). The multivariate analysis found that age older than 50 years and male sex were independent variables that were associated with an increased risk of positive findings and angioectasia. Conclusions. In this group of patients with overt suspected small bowel bleeding, the capsule endoscopy was useful (with a diagnostic yield of 62%). The most frequent lesions were the vascular ones. Age over 50 and male sex were independent predictors of finding lesions and angioectasia.

Diagnostic yield of magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy versus gastroscopy in recurrent and refractory iron deficiency anemia

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (05) ◽  
pp. 409-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hey-Long Ching ◽  
Melissa F. Hale ◽  
Matthew Kurien ◽  
Jennifer A. Campbell ◽  
Stefania Chetcuti Zammit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Iron Deficiency ◽  
Iron Deficiency Anemia ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Deficiency Anemia ◽  
Gi Tract ◽  
Upper Gi ◽  
Upper Gi Tract ◽  
Magnetically Assisted

Abstract Background Small-bowel capsule endoscopy is advocated and repeat upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be considered for evaluation of recurrent or refractory iron deficiency anemia (IDA). A new device that allows magnetic steering of the capsule around the stomach (magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy [MACE]), followed by passive small-bowel examination might satisfy both requirements in a single procedure. Methods In this prospective cohort study, MACE and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were performed in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. Comparisons of total (upper GI and small bowel) and upper GI diagnostic yields, gastric mucosal visibility, and patient comfort scores were the primary end points. Results 49 patients were recruited (median age 64 years; 39 % male). Combined upper and small-bowel examination using the new capsule yielded more pathology than EGD alone (113 vs. 52; P < 0.001). In upper GI examination (proximal to the second part of the duodenum, D2), MACE identified more total lesions than EGD (88 vs. 52; P < 0.001). There was also a difference if only IDA-associated lesions (esophagitis, altered/fresh blood, angioectasia, ulcers, and villous atrophy) were included (20 vs. 10; P = 0.04). Pathology distal to D2 was identified in 17 patients (34.7 %). Median scores (0 – 10 for none – extreme) for pain (0 vs. 2), discomfort (0 vs. 3), and distress (0 vs. 4) were lower for MACE than for EGD (P < 0.001). Conclusion Combined examination of the upper GI tract and small bowel using the MACE capsule detected more pathology than EGD alone in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. MACE also had a higher diagnostic yield than EGD in the upper GI tract and was better tolerated by patients.

scholarly journals Capsule Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: When? To Whom?

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2240
Author(s):  
Soo-Young Na ◽  
Yun-Jeong Lim
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Postoperative Recurrence ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Diagnostic Modality ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Bowel Diseases ◽  
Colon Capsule ◽  
The Cost

Capsule endoscopy (CE) has proven to be a valuable diagnostic modality for small bowel diseases over the past 20 years, particularly Crohn’s disease (CD), which can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract from the mouth to the anus. CE is not only used for the diagnosis of patients with suspected small bowel CD, but can also be used to assess disease activity, treat-to-target, and postoperative recurrence in patients with established small bowel CD. As CE can detect even mildly non-specific small bowel lesions, a high diagnostic yield is not necessarily indicative of high diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of CE as a third diagnostic test employed usually after ileocolonoscopy and MR or CT enterography is an important consideration. Recently, new developments in colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) have increased the utility of CE in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and pan-enteric CD. Although deflation of the colon during the examination and the inability to evaluate dysplasia-associated lesion or mass results in an inherent risk of overestimation or underestimation, the convenience of CCE examination and the risk of flare-up after colonoscopy suggest that CCE could be used more actively in patients with UC.

scholarly journals Colon Capsule Endoscopy vs. CT Colonography Following Incomplete Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3367
Author(s):  
Ulrik Deding ◽  
Lasse Kaalby ◽  
Henrik Bøggild ◽  
Eva Plantener ◽  
Mie Kruse Wollesen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rate Sensitivity ◽  
Completion Rate ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Proximal Point ◽  
Incomplete Colonoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

Following incomplete colonoscopy (IC) patients often undergo computed tomography colonography (CTC), but colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be an alternative. We compared the completion rate, sensitivity and diagnostic yield for polyp detection from CCE and CTC following IC. A systematic literature search resulted in twenty-six studies. Extracted data included inter alia, complete/incomplete investigations and polyp findings. Pooled estimates of completion rates of CCE and CTC and complete colonic view rates (CCE reaching the most proximal point of IC) of CCE were calculated. Per patient diagnostic yields of CCE and CTC were calculated stratified by polyp sizes. CCE completion rate and complete colonic view rate were 76% (CI 95% 68–84%) and 90% (CI 95% 83–95%). CTC completion rate was 98% (CI 95% 96–100%). Diagnostic yields of CTC and CCE were 10% (CI 95% 7–15%) and 37% (CI 95% 30–43%) for any size, 13% (CI 95% 9–18%) and 21% (CI 95% 12–32%) for >5-mm and 4% (CI 95% 2–7%) and 9% (CI 95% 3–17%) for >9-mm polyps. No study performed a reference standard follow-up after CCE/CTC in individuals without findings, rendering sensitivity calculations unfeasible. The increased diagnostic yield of CCE could outweigh its slightly lower complete colonic view rate compared to the superior CTC completion rate. Hence, CCE following IC appears feasible for an introduction to clinical practice. Therefore, randomized studies investigating CCE and/or CTC following incomplete colonoscopy with a golden standard reference for the entire population enabling estimates for sensitivity and specificity are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document