scholarly journals Efficacy of bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (11) ◽  
pp. E1658-E1673
Author(s):  
Thomas Bjoersum-Meyer ◽  
Karolina Skonieczna-Zydecka ◽  
Pablo Cortegoso Valdivia ◽  
Irene Stenfors ◽  
Ivan Lyutakov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Parameters ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Diagnostic Modality ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

Abstract Background and study aims Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. Patients and methods We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Results Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764–0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820–0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735–0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896–0.979). Conclusions In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen.

scholarly journals Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. E562-E571
Author(s):  
Tobias Möllers ◽  
Matthias Schwab ◽  
Lisa Gildein ◽  
Michael Hoffmeister ◽  
Jörg Albert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Optical Colonoscopy ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

Abstract Background and study aims Adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is still unsatisfactory in many countries, thereby limiting prevention of CRC. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), a minimally invasive procedure, could be an alternative to fecal immunochemical tests or optical colonoscopy for CRC screening, and might increase adherence in CRC screening. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of CCE compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the gold standard, adequacy of bowel preparation regimes and the patient perspective on diagnostic measures. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Register for Clinical Trials. Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratio with their respective 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for studies providing sufficient data. Results Of 840 initially identified studies, 13 were included in the systematic review and up to 9 in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivities and specificities for polyps ≥ 6 mm were 87 % (95 % CI: 83 %–90 %) and 87 % (95 % CI: 76 %–93 %) in 8 studies, respectively. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, the pooled estimates for sensitivities and specificities were 87 % (95 % CI: 83 %–90 %) and 95 % (95 % CI: 92 %–97 %) in 9 studies, respectively. A patients’ perspective was assessed in 31 % (n = 4) of studies, and no preference of CCE over OC was reported. Bowel preparation was adequate in 61 % to 92 % of CCE exams. Conclusions CCE provides high diagnostic accuracy in an adequately cleaned large bowel. Conclusive findings on patient perspectives require further studies to increase acceptance/adherence of CCE for CRC screening.

Bowel Preparations Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy – a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Bjoersum-Meyer ◽  
K Skonieczna-Zydecka ◽  
P Cortegoso Valdivia ◽  
I Stenfors ◽  
I Lutakov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule ◽  
Bowel Preparations

ID: 3522221 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF COLON CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY ACCURACY FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING. AN ALTERNATIVE DURING THE COVID ERA?

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB100
Author(s):  
Marianny Sulbaran ◽  
Wanderley M. Bernardo ◽  
Leonardo A. Bustamante-Lopez ◽  
Christiano M. Sakai ◽  
Paulo Sakai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

M1521: Accuracy of Colon Capsule Endoscopy As Compared to Colonoscopy in the Detection of Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. AB244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Riccardo Marmo ◽  
Angelo Zullo ◽  
Paola Cesaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

Endoscopy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny E. R. Vuik ◽  
Stella A. V. Nieuwenburg ◽  
Sarah Moen ◽  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Carlo Senore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Completion Rates ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Screening Population ◽  
Colon Capsule

Abstract Introduction Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. Methods A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. Results 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % – 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % – 96 % and specificity was 66 % – 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % – 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % – 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. Conclusion CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

scholarly journals Usefulness of Castor Oil and Elobixibat and Lactulose and ascorbic Aid for Bowel Preparation for Colon Capsule Endoscopy-Initial examination

2021 ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Emission Rate ◽  
Excretion Rate ◽  
Discharge Rate ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Initial Examination ◽  
National Health Insurance System ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

Colon capsule endoscopy was approved for reimbursement under the national health insurance system of Japan in 2014. However, the capsule excretion rate after recommended bowel preparation reportedly ranges from 70% to 90%, and administration of boosters is also necessary. The caster oil-based booster had an emission rate of 97%, but required a total water content of 3L. Considering whether it is possible to popularize colon capsule endoscopy by reducing the amount of water, including dialysis patients with water restrictions, we will consider whether the capsule discharge rate can be improved by combining new laxatives.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document