Are bowel purgatives and prokinetics useful for small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled study

Optimal Bowel Preparation Method to Visualize the Distal Ileum via Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is a convenient and minimally invasive method widely used to evaluate the small intestine. However, especially in the distal ileum, visualization of the intestinal mucosa is frequently hampered by the remaining intestinal contents, making it difficult to detect critical lesions. Although several studies have reported on the efficacy of bowel preparation before SBCE, no standardized protocol has been established. Herein, we determined the optimal preparation method for better visualization of the distal ileum using SBCE. We retrospectively analyzed 259 consecutive patients who had undergone SBCE between July 2009 and December 2019, divided into three groups: Group A (no preparation except overnight fasting), Group B (ingestion of 1-2 L polyethylene glycol 4 h before colonoscopy after overnight fasting and performing SBCE immediately after colonoscopy), and Group C (ingestion of 0.9 L magnesium citrate [MC] before SBCE after overnight fasting). The visibility of the intestinal mucosa in the first 10 min and at the last 10 min during the period of observation of the distal ileum was examined using a scoring system and compared. The visibility of the images captured by SBCE was assessed based on the scoring of the degree of bile/chyme staining, residual fluid and debris, brightness, bubble reduction, and visualized mucosa. The status of intestinal collapse was also assessed. In the first 10 min of observation of the distal ileum, no significant differences were detected among the groups. In the last 10 min, significantly better images were acquired in Group C in terms of bile/chyme staining, brightness, bubble reduction, and visualized mucosa. Bowel preparation using a low-dose MC solution 2 h before SBCE provided significantly higher-quality images of the distal ileum. Further optimization, such as the timing of initiating the preparation, is necessary to determine the optimal regimen for bowel preparation prior to SBCE.

Clinical utility of purgative bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy: a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Optimal bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy (CE) is currently unknown. In this multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial, we assessed clinical effectiveness of 2 types of purgative regimen and a control arm of clear fluid only.

METHODS

Patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding were randomized into 3 arms: arm A, clear fluids only for 18 hours before CE and simethicone 200 mg in 150 mL water immediately before CE; arm B, same as A + 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) 12 hours before CE; and arm C, same as A + 1 L PEG + sodium ascorbate 3 hours before CE. To assess diagnostic yield, lesions were classified either as highly relevant (P2) or less relevant (P0 or P1) lesions. Small-bowel visualization quality (SBVQ) was assessed using the Brotz score. Patient tolerability was assessed using the visual analog scale (0-10, with lower scores indicating better tolerability).

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients completed the study. The mean age was 58.7 years (95% confidence interval, 29.3-87.9), and 47.2% were men. There was no significant difference in diagnosis of P2 lesions in arms A, B, and C (48.7%, 48.0%, and 45.9%, respectively; P = .94). Overall SBVQ and distal SBVQ were similar across the 3 arms (P = .94 and P = .68, respectively). Patients reported better tolerability in arm A (mean score, 1.5) compared with arms B and C (mean score, 3.5 and 2.6, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a purgative bowel preparation before CE does not improve diagnostic yield or small-bowel visualization and is associated with lower patient tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: ACTRN 12614000883617.).

Value of the diving method for capsule endoscopy in the examination of small-intestinal disease: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is limited by poor image quality and incomplete small-bowel transit. This study was designed to evaluate the diving method for VCE in the examination of small-intestinal disease.

METHODS

From July 2017 to September 2017, eligible patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, the diving group and the control group. For the diving group, 500 mL of water was administered every hour when the capsule reached the small bowel. The primary outcomes were image quality and positive findings. Secondary outcomes were the completion rate of examination, gastric transit time (GTT), small-bowel transit time (SBTT), lesion detection rate, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

One hundred forty patients were included. The scores of endoscopic images in the proximal third and middle third of the small bowel in the diving group were significantly higher than that in the control group (3.47 ± .60 vs 3.11 ± .63 [P = .007] and 3.24 ± .59 vs 2.78 ± .74 [P = .002], respectively). The positive findings in the distal third of the small bowel were significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .005). The completion rate in the diving group was significantly higher (92.19% vs 76.32%, respectively; P = .012). The GTT, SBTT, and lesion detection rate were similar in 2 groups (P = .282, .067, and .577, respectively). No discomfort or adverse events were reported except for a few cases of frequent urination.

CONCLUSIONS

The diving method for VCE examination effectively improves the endoscopic view in the proximal and middle thirds of the small bowel and the positive findings in the distal small intestine and increases the completion rate. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR-RDR-17011823.).

Lavage, Simethicone, and Prokinetics-What to Swallow with a Video Capsule

The development of new capsules now allows endoscopic diagnosis in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract and comes with new needs for differentiated preparation regimens. Although the literature is steadily increasing, the results of the conducted trials on preparation are sometimes conflicting. The ingestion of simethicone before gastric and small bowel capsule endoscopy for prevention of air bubbles is established. The value of a lavage before small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended, although not supported by all studies. Ingestion in the morning before the procedure seems useful for the improvement of mucosa visualization. Lavage after swallowing of the capsule seems to improve image quality, and in some studies also diagnostic yield. Prokinetics has been used with first generation capsules to shorten gastric transit time and increase the rate of complete small bowel visualization. With the massively prolonged battery capacity of the new generation small bowel capsules, prokinetics are only necessary in significantly delayed gastric emptying as documented by a real-time viewer. Lavage is crucial for an effective colon capsule or pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy. Mainly high or low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) is used. Apart from achieving optimal cleanliness, propulsion of the capsule by ingested boosts is required to obtain a complete passage through the colon within the battery lifetime. Boosts with low volume sodium picosulfate (NaP) or diatrizoate (gastrografin) seem most effective, but potentially have more side effects than PEG. Future research is needed for more patient friendly but effective preparations, especially for colon capsule and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy.

[Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Endoscopy and Device-assisted Enteroscopy]

For improved examination of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), bowel preparation is an essential issue. Multiple factors like air bubbles, food material in the small bowel, and gastric and small bowel transit time affect the small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), diagnostic yield (DY) and cecal completion rate (CR). Bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution enhances SBVQ and DY, but it has no effect on CR. Bowel preparation with PEG solution 2 L is similar to PEG 4 L in SBVQ, DY, and CR. Bowel preparation with fasting or PEG solution combined with anti-foaming agents like simethicone enhance SBVQ, but it has no effect on CR. Bowel preparation with prokinetics is not commonly recommended. Optimal timing for purgative bowel preparation has yet to be established. However, the studies regarding bowel preparation for DAE are not sufficient. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends 8-12 hours fasting from solid food and 4-6 hours fasting from liquids prior to the antegrade DAE. For retrograde DAE, colonoscopy preparation regimen is recommended. This article reviews the literature and ESGE, 2013 Korean published guidelines regarding bowel preparation for VCE and DAE, following suggestion for optimal bowel preparation for VCE and balloon enteroscopy.

Feasibility, complications, and quality of visualization using video capsule endoscopy in 40 dogs with overt or questionable gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

Prospective studies describing video capsule endoscopy (VCE), its feasibility, and complications in dogs are limited.

Objective

To assess VCE, quality of visualization, complications, and risk factors for incomplete studies in dogs with overt or questionable gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

Animals

Forty dogs with overt or questionable GIB.

Methods

Prospective, multicenter, interventional study. From August 2017 to March 2020, dogs were examined by VCE (ALICAM) because of overt or questionable GIB. Reported outcomes included diagnostic results of VCE study, quality of visualization, and complications. Risk factors for incomplete studies were evaluated using logistic regression.

Results

In total, 40 dogs (13 overt, 27 questionable GIB) were included. The capsules were administered PO in 29 and endoscopically in 11 dogs (6 duodenum, 5 stomach). One capsule was not retrieved. In 24 of 39 recordings, bleeding lesions were identified (10 overt GIB, 14 questionable GIB). Overall, the quality of visualization was poor to limited in the stomach and colon, and adequate to good in the small intestine. The most common complication was an incomplete study in 15/39 studies, particularly after oral administration (13/28). Risk factors for incomplete study after oral administration included administration of simethicone or opioids, chronic enteropathy, and capsule gastric transit time >6 hours.

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

Video capsule endoscopy can be used to diagnose a variety of lesions causing bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract of dogs with questionable GIB. Incomplete studies are the most common complications in dogs after oral administration of capsules.

Preparation, Timing, Prokinetics, and Surface Agents in Video Capsule Endoscopy

There is a trend in data to support active preparation for video capsule endoscopy (VCE), but the timing of this remains unclear. Split dosing may be the most efficacious preparation. Study methodology continues to evolve, with increased use of standardized scales, with the addition of diagnostic yield as an outcome. The use of adjuncts has not been detrimental, but their value has not been proved to improve outcomes of VCE.

A randomized controlled trial of high volume simethicone to improve visualization during capsule endoscopy

Background

The optimal dose of simethicone before capsule endoscopy is unknown. Prior studies have reported inconsistent cleansing, with some showing improved visualization only in the proximal small intestine. We hypothesized a higher volume of simethicone may improve cleansing and diagnostic yield, especially in the distal small bowel.

Methods

A phase III randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing high volume (1125 mg simethicone in 750 ml water) versus standard volume (300 mg simethicone in 200 ml water) solutions, both at 1.5 mg/ml. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a KOrea-CanaDA (KODA) score >2.25, overall and stratified by the proximal and distal half of the small bowel. Secondary outcomes included mean KODA score, diagnostic yield, completion rate, and adverse events. All analyses were intention-to-treat.

Results

A total of 167 patients were randomized (mean (SD) age 58.7 (15.7), 54% female) and the most common indication was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (71.7%). Adequate cleansing was achieved in 39 (50%) patients in the high volume group and in 39 (48%) patients in the standard volume group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76–1.43, p = 0.82), with no differences observed in the proximal half (71% vs 64%, p = 0.40) or the distal half -of the small bowel (36% vs. 37%, p = 0.88). There was no differences in the mean (SD) KODA score (2.20 (0.41) vs. 2.18 (0.44), p = 0.73), diagnostic yields (53% vs. 56%, p = 0.71), or completion rates (both 95%). One adverse event, nausea, occurred in the control group.

Conclusion

High volume simethicone does not improve visualization during capsule endoscopy.

Clinical trial registration

Clinical trial:NCT02334631.

Can domperidone decrease transit time of pediatric video capsule endoscopy? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The complete examination rate of video capsule endoscopy can be increased by reduced gastric transit time (GTT) and or small bowel transit time (SBTT). This study aims to examine whether the prokinetic domperidone reduces GTT and/or SBTT in pediatric patients undergoing video capsule endoscopy (VCE).

METHODS

We performed a single-center randomized controlled trial (n=200) to evaluate the effect of domperidone on GTT and SBTT among pediatric patients in a tertiary university-affiliated hospital for children. We explored whether patients randomized to domperidone had increased GTT, SBTT (primary outcomes) or higher complete examination rate (secondary outcome). The safety outcomes were the adverse effects in the domperidone group. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03662113).

RESULTS

Demographic features including gender and age were similar between the 100 patients of the domperidone group and the 100 patients of the control group. The median GTT was 67.5 minutes (44.8-117.5) in the domperidone group and 80.0 minutes (42.0-128.0) in the control group, while the median SBTT was 317 minutes (231-436) and 323 minutes (225-426), respectively. There were no significant differences in GTT (P=0.49) and SBTT (P=0.52) between the two groups. The complete examination rate was 97% and 98% in the domperidone and control groups, respectively (P=1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Domperidone shows no effect on GTT, SBTT and complete examination rate in pediatric patients receiving VCE.

KODA score: an updated and validated bowel preparation scale for patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy

Background and study aims  A reliable outcome measure is needed for bowel preparation quality during capsule endoscopy. Currently, no scales are adequately validated. Our objective was to update an existing small bowel preparation score, create a standardized training module, then determine its inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Patients and methods  Modification to produce standardized scoring of an existing small bowel preparation score was performed followed by development of a training module and validation to create the new Korea-Canada (KODA) score. Twenty readers from a range of backgrounds, including capsule endoscopists, gastroenterology fellows, residents, medical students, and nurses rated bowel cleanliness in 25 capsule videos consisting of 1,233 images, in duplicate 4 weeks apart, after completing the training module. Sequential images selected in 5-minute intervals during small bowel transit were rated on a scale between 0-3 based on the amount of visualized mucosa and the degree of obstruction. Reliability was assessed using estimates of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results  Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter-rater (ICC 0.81, 95 % CI 0.70-0.87) and intra-rater (ICC 0.92, 95 % CI 0.87-0.94) reliability were almost perfect among the 20 readers. Inter-rater reliability ranged between 0.72 (95 % CI 0.57-0.81) and 0.89 (95 % CI 0.79-0.93) for nurses and residents, respectively. Intra-rater reliability was greater than 0.90 for all groups except for nurses, which was still almost perfect (ICC 0.86, 95 % CI 0.79-0.90). Conclusions  Almost perfect inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was observed for the KODA score. This simple score could be used for future clinical trials after completion of the training module.

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

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).

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

Repeatability of small bowel transit time in capsule endoscopy in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

There are no reports to prove the repeatability of gastric transit time (GTT) and small bowel transit time (SBTT) in capsule endoscopy (CE).

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the repeatability and factors that affect GTT/SBTT in CE.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 150 healthy subjects from our previous randomized controlled trial that compared small intestinal injuries between two 14-day treatment groups: 1) celecoxib and 2) loxoprofen + lansoprazole. Correlation of GTT/SBTT with pre- and post-treatment CE was analyzed. In addition, the associations of pre-treatment CE SBTT with physical factors, post-treatment CE SBTT and the presence of small intestinal mucosal injuries were analyzed.

RESULTS

Analyses of 148 subjects pre-treatment CE and 146 subjects post-treatment CE were performed. There were no significant differences between mean GTT and SBTT before and after treatment. Both GTT (𝜌 = 0.22, p < 0.01) and SBTT (𝜌 = 0.47, p < 0.0001) showed positive correlations between pre- and post-treatment CE. In pre-treatment CE, physical factors and the presence of small intestinal mucosal injury had no associations with SBTT.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate correlation in SBTT and slight correlation in GTT were shown on repeated CE. The factors affecting SBTT were not clarified in this analysis.

Sham Feeding with Bacon Does Not Alter Transit Time or Complete Examination Rate During Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

During capsule endoscopy (CE) studies, the complete examination rate (CER) can be increased by prolonging capsule battery life or reducing gastric transit time (GTT) and/or small bowel transit time (SBTT). However, despite enhanced battery life, 10% of studies remain incomplete. Previously studied interventions to reduce SBTT and enhance CER have produced conflicting results. We hypothesize that this may be a consequence of an insufficiently potent stimulus of small bowel motility.

AIMS

To examine whether potent stimulation of the cephalic response of digestion during small bowel CE reduces GTT and/or SBTT and thus increases the CER.

METHODS

A single-blind randomized trial was performed to evaluate the effect of bacon sham feeding on GTT, SBTT and CER.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between 63 sham fed patients and 59 controls. The median GTT was 17 min (9-65) in the bacon group and 25 min (14-55) in the control group. The median SBTT was 199 min (119-316) and 222 min (151-287), respectively. Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated no significant difference between groups for GTT (rate ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.71-1.51, P = 0.87) or SBTT (rate ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.49, P = 0.93). Although the taste of bacon was considered favorably by 72% of participants, taste did not correlate with GTT (ρ = 0.03, P = 0.83) or SBTT (ρ = - 0.115, P = 0.33). The CER was 91 and 95% in the bacon and control groups, respectively (P = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

Bacon sham feeding has no effect on GTT, SBTT or CER and cannot be recommended in clinical practice.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: is bowel preparation still necessary in small bowel capsule endoscopy?

INTRODUCTION

Optimal bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy(SBCE) is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of laxatives in SBCE.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies investigating the use of laxatives in SBCE. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield(DY) for SB findings; secondary outcomes SB visualization quality(SBVQ) and completion rate(CR). Pooled odds ratios(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) and number needed to treat(NNT) were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty studies (4380 patients with laxatives, 2185 without) were included. Laxative use did not improve DY of SB findings overall (OR 1.11 (95%CI 0.85-1.44)) or for significant SB findings (OR 1.10 (95%CI 0.76-1.60)). However, SBVQ improved with the use of laxatives (OR 1.60 (95%CI 1.08-2.06)), NNT 14. The OR for completed SBCE was 1.30 (95%CI 0.95-1.78). Patients given polyethylene glycol(PEG) had lower DY than sodium phosphate(NaP). SBVQ improved more with NaP (NNT 7) than PEG (NNT 53).

CONCLUSIONS

Laxatives do not significantly improve DY or CR in SBCE, but do improve SBQV. The use of laxatives may be beneficial in patients likely to have subtle findings. There are significant differences in methodology/definitions between studies, hence the need for standardized visualization scoring and recording of SBCE findings.

Lubiprostone improves visualization of small bowel for capsule endoscopy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled 2-way crossover study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Lubiprostone has been reported to be an anti-constipation drug. The aim of the study was to investigate the usefulness of lubiprostone both for bowel preparation and as a propulsive agent in small bowel endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover study of subjects who volunteered to undergo capsule endoscopy (CE). A total of 20 subjects (16 male and 4 female volunteers) were randomly assigned to receive a 24-μg tablet of lubiprostone 120 minutes prior to capsule ingestion for CE (L regimen), or a placebo tablet 120 minutes prior to capsule ingestion for CE (P regimen). Main outcome was gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT). Secondary outcome was adequacy of small-bowel cleansing and the fluid score in the small bowel. The quality of the capsule endoscopic images and fluid in the small bowel were assessed on 5-point scale.

RESULTS

 The capsule passed into the small bowel in all cases. Median GTT was 57.3 (3 - 221) minutes for the P regimen and 61.3 (10 - 218) minutes for the L regimen ( P  = 0.836). Median SBTT was 245.0 (164 - 353) minutes for the P regimen and 228.05 (116 - 502) minutes for the L regimen ( P  = 0.501). The image quality score in the small bowel was 3.05 ± 1.08 for the P regimen and 3.80 ± 0.49 for the L regimen ( P  < 0.001). The fluid score in the small bowel was 2.04 ± 1.58 for the P regimen and 2.72 ± 1.43 for the L regimen ( P  < 0.001). There was a significant difference between the 2 regimens with regard to image quality. The fluid score was more plentiful for the L regimen than for the P regimen. There were no cases of capsule retention or serious adverse events in this study.

CONCLUSION

 Our study showed that use of lubiprostone prior to CE significantly improved visualization of the small bowel during CE as a result of inducing fluid secretion into the small bowel.

Quality Indicators for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE) enables evaluation of the entire mucosal surface of the small bowel (SB), which is one of the most important steps for evaluating obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Although the diagnostic yield of SB CE depends on many clinical factors, there are no reports on quality indicators. Thus, the Korean Gut Image Study Group (KGISG) publishes an article titled, “Quality Indicators for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy” under approval from the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Herein, we initially identified process quality indicators, while the structural and outcome indicators are reserved until sufficient clinical data are accumulated. We believe that outcomes of SB CE can be improved by trying to meet our proposed quality indicators.

NASPGHAN Capsule Endoscopy Clinical Report

Wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) was introduced in 2000 as a less invasive method to visualize the distal small bowel in adults. Because this technology has advanced it has been adapted for use in pediatric gastroenterology. Several studies have described its clinical use, utility, and various training methods but pediatric literature regarding CE is limited. This clinical report developed by the Endoscopic and Procedures Committee of the North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition outlines the current literature, and describes the recommended current role, use, training, and future areas of research for CE in pediatrics.

Retention during capsule endoscopy: Is it a real problem in routine practice?

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the risks and outcomes of capsule retention during capsule endoscopy (CE) for investigating small bowel disease. Capsule retention is the most serious complication of CE.

METHODS

Before CE, the gastrointestinal tract was evaluated for blockages with computerized tomography. Analysis of CE was made retrospectively.

RESULTS

Capsule endoscopy was used to investigate obscure bleeding (90.2%; n = 324) or other symptoms (9.8%; n = 35). The capsule retention rate was 11/359 (3.1%); it was retained in a malignant lesion area (adenocarcinoma or melanoma) in two patients (18.2%), in the small bowel in an ulcerated area in five patients (45.5%), and in the oesophagus/stomach in four patients (36.4%) due to dysmotility. None of the patients had symptoms of obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning patients before CE did not predict capsule retention. Retention is a complication of CE, but occurs as a result of the underlying disease. The risk of retention is increased in patients with motility disorders, suspected small bowel ulcers or malignancies.

Validated computed cleansing score for video capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diagnostic yield of video capsule endoscopy may be hampered by intestinal content or air bubbles. A major limitation in video capsule-related study is the lack of a validated objective score for bowel preparation quality. We aimed to design and validate a computed small bowel preparation score for research and clinical use.

METHODS

Two experienced physicians reached a consensus regarding bowel preparation quality based on known criteria used in previous studies and their confidence of an accurate medical interpretation of the procedure. A computed algorithm based on the pixels in the color bar was created and validated. Concordance between the gastroenterologists' agreement (gold standard) and the computed analysis was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 85 videos studied, 44 (52%), 13 (15%) and 28 (33%) had adequate, borderline and inadequate bowel preparation, respectively, according to the gastroenterologists' agreement. Computer analysis restricted to adequate and inadequate cases yielded accurate classification of bowel preparation in 65/72 cases (90% agreement, sensitivity 95%, specificity 82%, total accuracy 90%, Kappa 0.79). When adding the borderline definition, the computer analysis correctly classified 71/85 of the cases, yielding an overall agreement of 84% (Kappa 0.72). Minute-by-minute analysis of 10 cases also yielded an agreement of 91.4%.

CONCLUSION

The present study introduces a user-friendly computer analysis-based small bowel preparation score, which demonstrated excellent concordance with the physician's assessment. This score holds promise as a standardization tool in research and clinical practice of video capsule endoscopy. Further validation is warranted.

Low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, and clear liquid diet alone prior to small bowel capsule endoscopy

AIM: To compare low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate and clear liquid diet alone as bowel preparation prior to small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE).

METHODS: We retrospectively collected all CE studies done from December 2011 to July 2013 at a single institution. CE studies were reviewed only if low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate or clear liquid diet alone used as the bowel preparation. The studies were then reviewed by the CE readers who were blinded to the preparation type. Cleanliness and bubble burden were graded independently within the proximal, middle and distal small bowel using a four-point scale according to the percentage of small bowel mucosa free of debris/bubbles: grade 1 = over 90%, grade 2 = between 90%-75%, grade 3 = between 50%-75%, grade 4 = less than 50%. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. ANOVA and Fishers exact test were used where appropriate. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS: A of total of 123 CE studies were reviewed. Twenty-six studies were excluded from analysis because of incomplete small bowel examination. In the remaining studies, 39 patients took low volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid, 31 took sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate and 27 took a clear liquid diet alone after lunch on the day before CE, followed by overnight fasting in all groups. There was no significant difference in small bowel cleanliness (1.98 ± 0.09 vs 1.84 ± 0.08 vs 1.76 ± 0.08) or small bowel transit time (213 ± 13 vs 248 ± 14 ± 225 ± 19 min) for clear liquid diet alone, MoviPrep and Pico-Salax respectively. The bubble burden in the mid small bowel was significantly higher in the MoviPrep group (1.6 ± 0.1 vs 1.9 ± 0.1 vs 1.6 ± 0.1, P < 0.05). However this did not result in a significant difference in diagnosis of pathology.

CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in small bowel cleanliness or diagnostic yield of small bowel CE between the three preparations regimens used in this study.

Bowel preparation in "real-life" small bowel capsule endoscopy: a two-center experience

Background

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is an established diagnostic tool for the investigation of small bowel (SB) pathology. Bowel preparation prior to VCE may improve visualization, transit time, and diagnostic yield. We aimed to evaluate the “real-life” experience comparing two different preparation protocols in patients undergoing SB VCE.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from SB VCE procedures, performed in two tertiary care medical centers in Israel. VCE procedures performed at “Sheba Medical Center” used a 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation (n=360) while VCEs performed at “Rambam Health Care campus” used a clear liquid diet plus 12-h fast protocol (n=500). A dichotomous preparation scale (adequate, inadequate) was used to classify cleansing quality. Data collection included patient and procedural details. The proportion of VCE procedures with adequate bowel preparation and the overall positive SB findings in the two different bowel preparation protocols were evaluated.

Results

SB completion rates were higher in the PEG protocol (96% vs. 83%, P<0.001) and SB passage time was significantly faster in the PEG protocol (mean 217±73 vs. 238±77 min, P<0.001). Bowel preparation quality was similar between groups (8% vs. 7% inadequate preparation, P=0.591). Overall positive SB findings were similar between the two groups (57% clear liquid fasting only vs. 51% PEG protocol, P=0.119).

Conclusion

In this large cohort, a 2-L PEG protocol had similar preparation quality and diagnostic yield compared with clear liquid fasting.

Optimal Bowel Preparation for Video Capsule Endoscopy

During video capsule endoscopy (VCE), several factors, such as air bubbles, food material in the small bowel, and delayed gastric and small bowel transit time, influence diagnostic yield, small bowel visualization quality, and cecal completion rate. Therefore, bowel preparation before VCE is as essential as bowel preparation before colonoscopy. To date, there have been many comparative studies, consensus, and guidelines regarding different kinds of bowel cleansing agents in bowel preparation for small bowel VCE. Presently, polyethylene glycol- (PEG-) based regimens are given primary recommendation. Sodium picosulphate-based regimens are secondarily recommended, as their cleansing efficacy is less than that of PEG-based regimens. Sodium phosphate as well as complementary simethicone and prokinetics use are considered. In this paper, we reviewed previous studies regarding bowel preparation for small bowel VCE and suggested optimal bowel preparation of VCE.

A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Timing of Preparation for Capsule Enteroscopy

Background/Aims

Intestinal lavage (IL) administration immediately before capsule enteroscopy (CE) is superior to lavage the day before the procedure. We aimed to determine the effect of IL timing on CE diagnostic yield.

Methods

Patients referred for CE were randomized prospectively into two equal groups according to the timing of IL with 2 L of polyethylene glycol solution. Group A and B underwent IL over 2 hours beginning 14 and 4 hours, respectively, before the scheduled CE. The primary outcome measure was preparation quality, measured with a predetermined validated grading scale.

Results

A total of 34 patients were randomized. The frequency of mucosal abnormalities (77% vs. 82%, p=not significant [NS]) and diagnostic yield (47% vs. 53%, p=NS) were similar between the two groups. Moreover, no significant association between the quality of small bowel preparation and the timing at which the purgative for IL was administered was observed (overall fluid transparency, p=0.936; overall mucosal invisibility, p=0.091).

Conclusions

Day-before IL is equivalent to same-day IL in terms of overall preparation quality, proportion of complete studies to cecum, small bowel transit time, frequency of identified mucosal abnormalities, and overall diagnostic yield.

Lubiprostone decreases the small bowel transit time by capsule endoscopy: an exploratory, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled 3-way crossover study

The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of lubiprostone for bowel preparation and as a propulsive agent in small bowel endoscopy. Six healthy male volunteers participated in this randomized, 3-way crossover study. The subjects received a 24 μg tablet of lubiprostone 60 minutes prior to the capsule ingestion for capsule endoscopy (CE) and a placebo tablet 30 minutes before the capsule ingestion (L-P regimen), a placebo tablet 60 minutes prior to CE and a 24 μg tablet of lubiprostone 30 minutes prior to CE (P-L regimen), or a placebo tablet 60 minutes prior to r CE and a placebo tablet again 30 minutes prior to CE (P-P regimen). The quality of the capsule endoscopic images and the amount of water in the small bowel were assessed on 5-point scale. The median SBTT was 178.5 (117-407) minutes in the P-P regimen, 122.5 (27-282) minutes in the L-P regimen, and 110.5 (11-331) minutes in the P-L regimen (P = 0.042). This study showed that the use of lubiprostone significantly decreased the SBTT. We also confirmed that lubiprostone was effective for inducing water secretion into the small bowel during CE.

Coffee enema for preparation for small bowel video capsule endoscopy: a pilot study

Coffee enemas are believed to cause dilatation of bile ducts and excretion of bile through the colon wall. Proponents of coffee enemas claim that the cafestol palmitate in coffee enhances the activity of glutathione S-transferase, an enzyme that stimulates bile excretion. During video capsule endoscopy (VCE), excreted bile is one of the causes of poor preparation of the small bowel. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effect of coffee enema for preparation of the small bowel during VCE. In this pilot study, 17 of 34 patients were assigned to the coffee enema plus polyethylene glycol (PEG) 2 L ingestion group, whereas the 17 remaining control patients received 2 L of PEG only. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated in the two patient groups. Bowel preparations in the proximal segments of small bowel were not differ between two groups. In the mid and distal segments of the small intestine, bowel preparations tend to be better in patients who received coffee enemas plus PEG than in patients who received PEG only. The coffee enema group did not experience any complications or side effects. Coffee enemas may be a feasible option, and there were no clinically significant adverse events related to coffee enemas. More prospective randomized studies are warranted to improve small bowel preparation for VCE.

The effect of chewing gum on small-bowel transit time in capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 1 in 6 capsule endoscopies (CEs) does not visualize the entire small bowel at completion of the examination because of limited battery life.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether chewing gum can reduce the small-bowel transit time and increase CE completion rates.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

A tertiary university-affiliated hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients 19 years of age and older undergoing outpatient small-bowel CE from October 2010 to July 2012 were assessed for eligibility. Those with previous gastric or small-bowel surgery or ileostomy, dysphagia prohibiting capsule ingestion, diabetes mellitus with evidence of end-organ damage, use of narcotics or prokinetics within 5 days before the procedure, clinical hyper-/hypothyroidism, and symptoms suggestive of acute bowel obstruction were excluded.

INTERVENTION

Gum chewing for at least 20 minutes every 2 hours starting at the time of capsule ingestion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Small-bowel transit time, gastric transit time, and completion rate were measured.

RESULTS

Chewing gum did not have any significant effect on gastric transit time (rate ratio 1.06; 95% CI, 0.73-1.55; P = .75), small-bowel transit time (rate ratio 0.91; 95% CI, 0.62-1.35; P = .65), or completion rate (91.67% chewing gum vs 88.71% control, P = .58) of CE.

LIMITATION

Single-center study involving relatively healthy subjects. Procedures were done on an outpatient basis so participants were not monitored for adherence to protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Chewing gum does not speed up capsule transit or increase completion rate of CE in patients without risk factors for incomplete studies. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01241825.).

First clinical trial of a newly developed capsule endoscope with panoramic side view for small bowel: a pilot study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Capsule endoscopy is the first-line diagnostic technique for the small bowel. However, the inability to visualize the duodenal papilla is an inherent limitation of this method. In the present study, we evaluated feasibility of a newly developed CapsoCam SV1 capsule.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective dual center study of a newly developed video capsule CapsoCam SV1 from Capsovision, CA, providing panoramic 360° imaging. A high frequency of 20 frames occurs per second for the first 2 h and thereafter 12 frames/s, with a battery life of 15 h. We evaluated feasibility and completeness of small bowel examination together with secondary endpoints of duodenal papilla detection in 33 patients. Patients swallowed the capsules following colonoscopy or were prepared with 2 L of polyethylene glycol solution prior to the examination. All patients swallowed 20 mg of metoclopramide and 160 mg of simethicone 30 min before ingestion of the capsule.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of the 33 patients' data could be evaluated. Small bowel examination was complete in all procedures. Mean time to pass the small bowel was 258 ± 136 min. Average small bowel cleanliness was 3.3 ± 0.5. In 71% of the patients, we identified the duodenal papilla. No adverse reaction in relation to the capsule examination was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

CapsoCam SV1 is a safe and efficient tool in small bowel examination. The duodenal papilla as the only landmark in small bowel is detected in more than 70% of the patients.

Do prokinetics influence the completion rate in small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of purging for bowel cleansing prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has now been established in clinical practice. Despite that, the number of incomplete SBCEs is still around 15-20%. To date, the use of prokinetics in SBCE - aiming to improve completion rate (CR) - remains a contentious issue resulting in lack of consensus among capsule experts.

METHODS

Extensive medical literature searches were conducted (to November 2012), using suitable MeSH terms and keywords, in search of studies that compared capsule ingestion with prokinetic agents vs. controls or placebo. We examined the effects of prokinetic administration on SBCE CR (primary end point), as well as on the following secondary end points: diagnostic yield (DY), gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT) by meta-analysis of all relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 17 eligible studies (14 prospective, 3 retrospective) were identified, including 1028 individuals who ingested the capsule with no prokinetic vs. 876 who received a prokinetic. Overall, there was a higher CR in patients who ingested the capsule with prokinetics vs. controls (OR [95% CI]: 1.96 [1.38-2.78]). Of the two most readily available prokinetics, metoclopramide was associated with superior SBCE CR vs. control (OR [95% CI]: 2.8 [1.35-3.21]), while erythromycin showed no benefit (OR [95% CI]: 1.36 [0.61-3.03]). Where prokinetics were used alone, neither metoclopramide nor erythromycin showed any benefit on CR. There was no benefit of prokinetics (over controls) on DY. However, metoclopramide had a significant effect on GTT and SBTT.

LIMITATIONS

The majority of the included studies were heterogeneous, and the effect of prokinetics on image quality and mucosal visualization was not examined.

CONCLUSION

Our pooled data shows that the use of prokinetics for capsule ingestion improves CR in SBCE. This effect appears to be particularly evident with metoclopramide, when used concurrently with purging and/or use of real-time monitoring. In a small number of studies, erythromycin showed - through its gastrokinetic effect - marginal benefit. No prokinetic has a beneficial effect on SBCE DY.

Consensus guidelines for the use of bowel preparation prior to colonic diagnostic procedures: colonoscopy and small bowel video capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonic diagnostic procedures is essential to ensure adequate visualisation.

SCOPE

This consensus aims to provide guidance as to the appropriate use of bowel preparation for a range of defined clinical circumstances. A consensus group from across Europe was convened and met to discuss appropriate bowel preparation. The use of polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium picosulphate and sodium phosphate (NaP), together with other agents, prokinetics and simethicone, in colonoscopy and small bowel video capsule endoscopy were considered. A systematic review of the literature was carried out and additional unpublished data was obtained from the members of the consensus group where required. Recommendations were graded according to the level of evidence.

FINDINGS

PEG-based regimens are recommended first line for both procedures, since their use is supported by good efficacy and safety data. Sodium-picosulphate-based regimens are recommended second line as their cleansing efficacy appears less than PEG-based regimens. NaP is not recommended for bowel cleansing due to the potential for renal damage and other adverse events. However, the use of NaP is acceptable in patients in whom PEG or sodium picosulphate is ineffective or not tolerated. NaP should not be used in patients with chronic kidney disease, pre-existing electrolyte disturbances, congestive heart failure, cirrhosis or a history of hypertension. The timing of the dose, dietary restrictions, use in special patient groups and recording of the quality of bowel preparation are also considered for patients undergoing colonoscopy. During the development of the guidelines the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) issued guidance on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The ESGE guidelines and these consensus guidelines share many recommendations; differences between the guidelines are reviewed.

CONCLUSION

The use of bowel preparation should be tailored to the individual patient and their specific clinical circumstances.

Guidelines for Bowel Preparation before Video Capsule Endoscopy

The preparation for video capsule endoscopy (VCE) of the bowel suggested by manufacturers of capsule endoscopy systems consists only of a clear liquid diet and an 8-hour fast. While there is evidence for a benefit from bowel preparation for VCE, so far there is no domestic consensus on the preparation regimen in Korea. Therefore, we performed this study to recommend guidelines for bowel preparation before VCE. The guidelines on VCE were developed by the Korean Gut Image Study Group, part of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Four key questions were selected. According to our guidelines, bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution enhances small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ) and diagnostic yield (DY), but it has no effect on cecal completion rate (CR). Bowel preparation with 2 L of PEG solution is similar to that with 4 L of PEG in terms of the SBVQ, DY, and CR of VCE. Bowel preparation with fasting or PEG solution combined with simethicone enhances the SBVQ, but it does not affect the CR of VCE. Bowel preparation with prokinetics does not enhance the SBVQ, DY, or CR of VCE.

Video capsule endoscopy of the small bowel

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) was introduced 13 years ago by Given Imaging (Yokneam, Israel). It has become one of the most important investigational tools of the small bowel. The capsule is swallowed with water after a 12 h fast, propelled via peristalsis through the gastrointestinal tract and excreted naturally. A nonvideo patency capsule was developed to confirm functional patency of the gastrointestinal tract.

RECENT FINDINGS

Four additional companies have introduced competitive small bowel video capsules, some of which are Food and Drug Admistration (FDA) approved. Due to the easiness of the procedure, SBCE has become a first-line tool to detect small bowel abnormalities. The main indications for SBCE include obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, suspected Crohn's disease, small bowel tumors and practically any abnormal small bowel imaging. New indications are emerging like small bowel motility and monitoring of drug therapy and mucosal healing. The present review will describe the available capsules in the market, the procedure itself, present indications and future expectations. It will focus on the PillCam SB of Given Imaging as it is the one on which most of the literature is written.

SUMMARY

Over the past 10 years, SBCE has become a routine, first-line investigational tool of many small bowel pathologies.

Ensure preparation and capsule endoscopy: A two-center prospective study

AIM: To compare small bowel (SB) cleanliness and capsule endoscopy (CE) image quality following Ensure^®, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and standard preparations.

METHODS: A preparation protocol for CE that is both efficacious and acceptable to patients remains elusive. Considering the physiological function of the SB as a site for the digestion and absorption of food and not as a stool reservoir, preparation consisting of a liquid, fiber-free formula ingested one day before a CE study might have an advantage over other kinds of preparations. We conducted a prospective, blind-to-preparation, two-center study that compared four types of preparations. The participants’ demographic and clinical data were collected. Gastric and SB transit times were calculated. The presence of bile in the duodenum was scored by a single, blinded-to-preparation gastroenterologist expert in CE, as was cleanliness within the proximal, middle and distal part of the SB. A four-point scale was used (grade 1 = no bile or residue, grade 4 ≥ 90% of lumen full of bile or residual material).

RESULTS: The 198 consecutive patients who were referred to CE studies due to routine medical reasons were divided into four groups. They all observed a 12-h overnight fast before undergoing CE. Throughout the 24 h preceding the fast, control group 1 (n = 45 patients) ate light unrestricted meals, control group 2 (n = 81) also ate light meals but free of fruits and vegetables, the PEG group (n = 50) ate unrestricted light meals and ingested the PEG preparation, and the Ensure group (n = 22) ingested only the Ensure formula. Preparation with Ensure improved the visualization of duodenal mucosa (a score of 1.76) by decreasing the bile content compared to preparation with PEG (a score of 2.9) (P = 0.053). Overall, as expected, there was less residue and stool in the proximal part of the SB than in the middle and distal parts in all groups. The total score of cleanliness throughout the length of the SB showed some benefit for Ensure (a score of 1.8) over control group 2 (a score of 2) (P = 0.06). The cleanliness grading of the proximal and distal parts of the SB was similar in all four groups (P = 0.6 for both). The cleanliness in the middle part of the SB in the PEG (a score of 1.8) and Ensure groups (a score of 1.7) was equally better than that of control group 2 (a score of 2.1) (P = 0.057 and P = 0.07, respectively). All 50 PEG patients had diarrhea as an anticipated side effect, compared with only one patient in the Ensure group.

CONCLUSION: Preparation with Ensure, a liquid, fiber-free formula has advantages over standard and PEG preparations, with significantly fewer side effects than PEG.

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

AIM: To evaluate small bowel cleansing quality, diagnostic yield and transit time, comparing three cleansing protocols prior to capsule endoscopy.

METHODS: Sixty patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to one of the following cleansing protocols: patients in Group A underwent a 24 h liquid diet and overnight fasting; patients in Group B followed protocol A and subsequently were administered 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) the evening before the procedure; patients in Group C followed protocol B and were additionally administered 100 mg of simethicone 30 min prior to capsule ingestion. Small bowel cleansing was independently assessed by two experienced endoscopists and classified as poor, fair, good or excellent according to the proportion of small bowel mucosa under perfect conditions for visualization. When there was no agreement between the two endoscopists, the images were reviewed and discussed until a consensus was reached. The preparation was considered acceptable if > 50% or adequate if > 75% of the mucosa was in perfect cleansing condition. The amount of bubbles was assessed independently and it was considered significant if it prevented a correct interpretation of the images. Positive endoscopic findings, gastric emptying time (GET) and small bowel transit time (SBTT) were recorded for each examination.

RESULTS: There was a trend favoring Group B in achieving an acceptable (including fair, good or excellent) level of cleansing (Group A: 65%; Group B: 83.3%; Group C: 68.4%) [P = not significant (NS)] and favoring Group C in attaining an excellent level of cleansing (Group A: 10%; Group B: 16.7%; Group C: 21.1%) (P = NS). The number of patients with an adequate cleansing of the small bowel, corresponding to an excellent or good classification, was 5 (25%) in Group A, 5 (27.8%) in Group B and 4 (21.1%) in Group C (P = 0.892). Conversely, 7 patients (35%) in Group A, 3 patients (16.7%) in Group B and 6 patients (31.6%) in Group C were considered to have poor small bowel cleansing (P = 0.417), with significant fluid or debris such that the examination was unreliable. The proportion of patients with a significant amount of bubbles was 50% in Group A, 27.8% in Group B and 15.8% in Group C (P = 0.065). This was significantly lower in Group C when compared to Group A (P = 0.026). The mean GET was 27.8 min for Group A, 27.2 min for Group B and 40.7 min for Group C (P = 0.381). The mean SBTT was 256.4 min for Group A, 256.1 min for Group B and 258.1 min for Group C (P = 0.998). Regarding to the rate of complete examinations, the capsule reached the cecum in 20 patients (100%) in Group A, 16 patients (88.9%) in Group B and 17 patients (89.5%) in Group C (P = 0.312). A definite diagnosis based on relevant small bowel endoscopic lesions was established in 60% of the patients in Group A (12 patients), 44.4% in Group B (8 patients) and 57.8% in Group C (11 patients) (P = 0.587).

CONCLUSION: Preparation with 2 L of PEG before small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) may improve small bowel cleansing and the quality of visualization. Simethicone may further reduce intraluminal bubbles. No significant differences were found regarding GET, SBTT and the proportion of complete exploration or diagnostic yield among the three different cleansing protocols.

Meta-analysis: efficacy of small bowel preparation for small bowel video capsule endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear whether small bowel visibility in video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is enhanced by the use of bowel preparation in addition to pre-procedural fasting. The objective of this study was to clarify this issue by means of a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of laxative bowel preparation with fasting alone were identified using a literature search. Categorical measures of treatment efficacy were extracted from qualifying studies and pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Primary analysis compared any bowel preparation with fasting alone; subsidiary analyses assessed diagnostic yield and results for each regimen.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified, using either polyethylene glycol (PEG) or sodium phosphate (NaP) based regimens. No qualifying studies were identified using other laxatives. Study quality was sufficiently high to warrant meta-analysis. Use of any form of bowel preparation yielded significantly better visibility than fasting alone (OR = 2.31; 95% CI = 1.46-3.63; p < 0.0001). Similar results were seen for diagnostic yield (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.24-2.84; p = 0.023). When sub-analysed according to the treatment used, PEG-based regimens showed benefit (OR = 3.11; 95% CI = 1.96-4.94; p < 0.0001), while NaP-based regimens yielded no significant difference from fasting alone (OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.59-2.96; p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The study did not consider results from retrospective studies, nor those which did not give a categorical measure of efficacy. The impact of prokinetic and other adjunctive treatments was not considered. The results are only relevant to the most commonly used video capsule, as data for newer alternative devices have not yet been published.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this analysis, the use of bowel preparation alongside fasting is recommended for VCE. PEG-based regimens offer a clear advantage in these patients, while the currently available evidence base does not support the use of NaP. For VCE, lower volume PEG appears to be as efficacious as higher volumes traditionally used for colonoscopy preparation.

Video capsule endoscopy in celiac disease

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) provides a safe, non-invasive way to visualize the small intestine and is helpful in celiac disease patients in select situations. VCE can be performed in patients who are unable or unwilling to undergo conventional endoscopy, those with positive celiac serology with normal duodenal biopsies, and also in those who develop alarm symptoms. VCE has limitations including subjective interpretation. Techniques are being developed to standardize assessment of VCE images in patients with known or suspected celiac disease. Pilot studies using computer-based quantification methods have shown promise in examining the 3-dimensional mucosal structure and motility.

Inpatient capsule endoscopy leads to frequent incomplete small bowel examinations

AIM: To examine the predictive factors of capsule endoscopy (CE) completion rate (CECR) including the effect of inpatient and outpatient status.

METHODS: We identified 355 consecutive patients who completed CE at Rush University Medical Center between March 2003 and October 2005. Subjects for CE had either nothing by mouth or clear liquids for the afternoon and evening of the day before the procedure. CE exams were reviewed by two physicians who were unaware of the study hypotheses. After retrospective analysis, 21 cases were excluded due to capsule malfunction, prior gastric surgery, endoscopic capsule placement or insufficient data. Of the remaining 334 exams [264 out-patient (OP), 70 in-patient (IP)], CE indications, findings, location of the patients [IP vs OP and intensive care unit (ICU) vs general medical floor (GMF)] and gastrointestinal transit times were analyzed. Statistical analysis was completed using SPSS version 17 (Chicago, IL). Chi-square, t test or fisher exact-tests were used as appropriate. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with incomplete CE exams.

RESULTS: The mean age for the entire study population was 54.7 years. Sixty-one percent of the study population was female, and gender was not different between IPs vs OPs (P = 0.07). The overall incomplete CECR was 14% in our study. Overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGB) was a significantly more common indication for the IP CE (P = 0.0001), while abdominal pain and assessment of IBD were more frequent indications for the OP CE exams (P = 0.002 and P = 0.01, respectively). Occult OGB was the most common indication and arteriovenous malformations were the most common finding both in the IPs and OPs. The capsule did not enter the small bowel (SB) in 6/70 IPs and 8/264 OPs (P = 0.04). The capsule never reached the cecum in 31.4% (22/70) of IP vs 9.5% (25/ 264) of OP examinations (P < 0.001). The mean gastric transit time (GTT) was delayed in IPs compared to OPs, 98.5 ± 139.5 min vs 60.4 ± 92.6 min (P = 0.008). Minimal SB transit time was significantly prolonged in the IP compared to the OP setting [IP = 275.1 ± 111.6 min vs OP = 244.0 ± 104.3 min (P = 0.037)]. CECR was also significantly higher in the subgroup of patients with OGB who had OP vs IP exams (95% vs 80% respectively, P = 0.001). The proportion of patients with incomplete exams was higher in the ICU (n = 7/13, 54%) as compared to the GMF (n = 15/57, 26%) (P = 0.05). There was only a single permanent SB retention case which was secondary to a previously unknown SB stricture, and the remaining incomplete SB exams were due to slow transit. Medications which affect gastrointestinal system motility were tested both individually and also in aggregate in univariate analysis in hospitalized patients (ICU and GMF) and were not predictive of incomplete capsule passage (P > 0.05). Patient location (IP vs OP) and GTT were independent predictors of incomplete CE exams (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Incomplete CE is a multifactorial problem. Patient location and related factors such as severity of illness and sedentary status may contribute to incomplete exams.

Relationship between gastric transit time and complete examination rate of the capsule endoscopy examinations

AIM: To investigate the right timing for intervention when capsule endoscope transits for a relatively long time in the stomach.

METHODS: The following items were analyzed in 109 patients who underwent capsule endoscopy (CE) examinations: the relationship between gastric transit time (GTT) and complete examination rate (CER); the correlation between GTT and small bowel transit time (SBTT); the difference in GTT between groups of complete and incomplete examinations; and the risk of incomplete examination in patients with strictures of the small intestine.

RESULTS: No difference was found in CER among groups with GTT ≤ 30 min, 30-60 min, 60-90 min, or > 90 min (P = 0.971). Injection of metoclopramide in patients with longer GTT resulted in shorter SBTT compared to their counterparts with shorter GTT (t = -2.027, P = 0.046). No difference was found in GTT between groups of complete and incomplete examinations [45.6 min ± 35.8 min (n = 85) vs 42.0 min ± 36.4 min (n = 24), P = 0.665]. The risk of incomplete examination in patients with strictures of the small intestine was 6.588-fold higher than those without strictures (OR = 6.588, 95% CI = 1.866-23.258, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION: Too early delivery of capsule endoscope in the duodenum might not improve CER. This procedure should be considered only if the retention of CE in the stomach exceeds 90 min, and it is better to be completed within 30 min.

Effects of the oral administration of mosapride citrate on capsule endoscopy completion rate

Background/Aims

In capsule endoscopy (CE), the capsule does not always reach the cecum within its battery life, which may reduce its diagnostic yield. We evaluated the effect of mosapride citrate, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-4 agonist that increases gastrointestinal motility, on CE completion.

Methods

In a retrospective study, we performed univariate and multivariate analyses for 232 CE procedures performed at our hospital. To identify factors that affect CE completion, the following data were systematically collected: gender, age, gastric transit time (GTT), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration, previous abdominal surgery, hospitalization, use of a polyethylene glycol solution, use of mosapride citrate (10 mg), body mass index (BMI), and total recording time.

Results

The univariate analysis showed that oral mosapride citrate, GTT, and BMI were associated with improved CE completion. Multivariate analyses showed that oral mosapride citrate (odds ratio [OR], 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 3.91) and GTT (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.87) were significant factors for improving the CE completion. Oral mosapride citrate significantly shortened the GTT and small bowel transit time (SBTT).

Conclusions

Oral mosapride citrate reduced the GTT and SBTT during CE and improved the CE completion rate.

Prospective controlled study on the effects of polyethylene glycol in capsule endoscopy

AIM: To prospectively confirm whether a small amount of polyethylene glycol (PEG) ingested after swallowing endoscopy capsule improves image quality and completion rate.

METHODS: Forty-four consecutive patients referred to us for capsule endoscopy (CE) were randomized to two groups. All patients were restricted to clear fluids for 12 h before the examination. Patients in group A (22 cases) received no additional preparation, while those in group B (20 cases) ingested 500 mL of PEG within a 2 h period starting 30 min after swallowing the capsule. Clear fluids and meals were allowed 2 h and 4 h after capsule ingestion, respectively. Image quality was assessed as the percentage of visualized bowel surface area as follows: 1: < 25%; 2: 25%-49%; 3: 50%-74%; 4: 75%-89%; 5: > 90%. The small bowel record was divided into five segments by time, and the score for each segment was evaluated. All CE examinations were performed with the Pillcam SB capsule endoscopy system (Given Imaging Co. Ltd., Yoqnem).

RESULTS: This study ended in December 2009, because sample size was considered large enough. A total of 44 patients were enrolled. Two patients in group B were excluded from the analysis because small bowel images could not be obtained from these patients; one had a full stomach, while the other presented with a massive gastric bleed. Thus, 22 patients from group A and 20 patients from group B completed the study. There was no significant difference in age (P = 0.22), sex (P = 0.31), and indication for CE. No significant adverse events occurred in any of the study patients. In group A, image quality deteriorated as the capsule progressed distally. However, in group B, image quality was maintained to the distal small bowel. In each of the five segments, the visibility score was significantly higher in group B than in group A (segment 1: 4.3 ± 0.7 vs 4.7 ± 0.5, P = 0.03; segment 2: 4.2 ± 0.9 vs 4.8 ± 0.4, P = 0.01; segment 3: 4.0 ± 1.0 vs 4.6 ± 0.7, P = 0.04; segment 4: 3.6 ± 1.1 vs 4.5 ± 0.6, P = 0.003; segment 5: 2.7 ± 1.0 vs 4.4 ± 0.8, P = 0.00004). Thus, the use of PEG during CE examination significantly improved image quality in all time segments, and this effect was more pronounced in the distal ileum. The completion rate to the cecum was not significantly different between groups A and B (81.8% vs 85.0%, P = 0.89). There was no difference in the gastric transit time between groups (36.2 ± 35.0 min vs 54.0 ± 56.6 min, P = 0.23), but the small bowel transit time was significantly longer in group A than in group B (246.0 ± 107.0 min vs 171.0 ± 104.0 min, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION: The ingestion of a small amount of PEG after the swallowing of an endoscopy capsule significantly improved CE image quality, but did not enhance the completion rate to the cecum.

Advances in small bowel imaging

The small intestine has been difficult to examine by traditional endoscopic and radiologic techniques. Within the past 10 years, advances have led to an explosion of technologies that facilitate examination of the entire small intestine. Wireless video capsule endoscopy, deep enteroscopy using balloon-assisted or spiral techniques, computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) enterography have facilitated the diagnosis, monitoring, and management of patients with small intestinal diseases. These technologies are complementary, each with its advantages and limitations. Capsule endoscopy provides a detailed view of the mucosal surface and has excellent patient acceptance, but does not allow therapeutics. Deep enteroscopy allows careful inspection of the mucosa and therapeutics, but is time consuming and invasive. Enterography (CT or MR) allows examination of the small bowel wall and surrounding structures. The initial best test for detecting small intestinal disease depends on clinical presentation and an astute differential diagnosis.

Evaluation of different bowel preparations for small bowel capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

To obtain an adequate view of the whole small intestine during capsule endoscopy (CE) a clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is recommended. However, intestinal content can hamper vision in spite of these measures. Our aim was to evaluate tolerance and degree of intestinal cleanliness during CE following three types of bowel preparation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Two-hundred ninety-one patients underwent one of the following preparations: 4 L of clear liquids (CL) (group A; 92 patients); 90 mL of aqueous sodium phosphate (group B; 89 patients); or 4 L of a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (group C; 92 patients). The degree of cleanliness of the small bowel was classified by blinded examiners according to four categories (excellent, good, fair or poor). The degree of patient satisfaction, gastric and small bowel transit times, and diagnostic yield were measured.

RESULTS

The degree of cleanliness did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.496). Interobserver concordance was fair (k = 0.38). No significant differences were detected between the diagnostic yields of the CE (P = 0.601). Gastric transit time was 35.7 ± 3.7 min (group A), 46.1 ± 8.6 min (group B) and 34.6 ± 5.0 min (group C) (P = 0.417). Small-intestinal transit time was 276.9 ± 10.7 min (group A), 249.7 ± 13.1 min (group B) and 245.6 ± 11.6 min (group C) (P = 0.120). CL was the best tolerated preparation. Compliance with the bowel preparation regimen was lowest in group C (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

A clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is sufficient to achieve an adequate level of cleanliness and is better tolerated by patients than other forms of preparation.

Capsule retentions and incomplete capsule endoscopy examinations: an analysis of 2300 examinations

Aim. To evaluate capsule endoscopy in terms of incomplete examinations and capsule retentions and to find risk factors for these events. Material and Methods. This retrospective and consecutive study includes data from 2300 capsule enteroscopy examinations, performed at four different hospitals in Stockholm, Sweden from 2003 to 2009. Results. The frequency of incomplete examinations was 20%. Older age, male gender, suspected, and known Crohn's disease were risk factors for an incomplete examination. The PillCam capsule had the highest rate of completed examinations. Capsule retention occurred in 1.3% (n = 31). Risk factors for capsule retention were known Crohn's disease and suspected tumor. Complications of capsule retention were acute obstructive symptoms in six patients and one death related to complications after acute surgical capsule retrieval.

CONCLUSION

Capsule endoscopy is considered a safe procedure, although obstructive symptoms and serious complications due to capsule retention can be found in a large series of patients.

Use of an external real-time image viewer coupled with prespecified actions enhanced the complete examinations for capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

  The clinical utility of capsule endoscopy (CE) is often limited by incomplete small-bowel transit. The aim was to determine whether the use of an external real-time viewer could reduce delays caused by delayed gastric emptying of the capsule or delayed intestinal transit and also improve the rate of positive findings.

METHODS

  We compared the proportion of completed exams and positive results among a group of patients studied before introduction of real-time viewer and a group in which capsule transit through the esophagus, stomach, and small bowel was regularly monitored and actions (e.g. administration of water or intravenous metoclopramide) were taken if it was delayed.

RESULTS

  One hundred procedures in the viewer group and 100 control procedures in the age-matched controls were analyzed. In the viewer group, additional water intake (22 cases) and/or administration of metoclopramide (26 cases) were required. Endoscopic-assisted duodenal placement of the capsule was required in three cases. Overall one-third (n=33) of cases required viewer-prompted interventions. The completion rate (86% vs 66%, P=0.002) and the rate of positive findings (80% vs 67%, P=0.04) were significantly higher in the viewer group compared to the no viewer group.

CONCLUSIONS

  Checking the progress of the capsule with the external real-time viewer improved the diagnostic yield and completion rate of CE.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Simethicone for gastrointestinal endoscopic visibility

BACKGROUND

The value of supplemental use of Simethicone in endoscopy including capsule endoscopy (CE), colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy is not addressed and is controversial.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on the use of Simethicone for endoscopy were carried out. The effects of this preparation on the following endpoints were examined: small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), completion rate, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, diagnostic yield, efficacy of bowel preparation, degree of air bubbles and duration time.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were eligible in this meta-analysis; 4 studies comparing purgative or fasting plus Simethicone with purgative or fasting alone for capsule endoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before CE, the SBVQ was significantly better ([odds ratio] OR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.74-4.65, p = 0.00), and the completion rate was comparable (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.44-1.44, p = 0.454). Also, 7 studies comparing purgative plus Simethicone with purgative alone for colonoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before colonoscopy, the efficacy of colon preparation was comparable (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 0.56-7.53, p = 0.27), but the air bubbles were significantly decreased (OR = 39.32, 95% CI: 11.38-135.86, p = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Supplemental use of Simethicone before endoscopy improves the SBVQ, especially for patients who received no purgative, but does not affect the CE completion rate. It decreases air bubbles in the colonic lumen, but does not improve bowel preparation. And its effect on diagnostic yield remains controversial.