Giordano A, González AE, Ceballos FS, Carretero-Ribón C, Aicart-Ramos M, Valenzuela JE, Alonso-Lázaro N, Martín-Lorente JL, Gálvez-Castillo C, Pons-Beltrán V, Fernández-Urién I, González-Suárez B. Oral ingestion versus endoscopic delivery of endoscopic capsule in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery (ORENCES study): A Spanish multicentre observational study.
GASTROENTEROLOGIA Y HEPATOLOGIA 2021;
44:680-686. [PMID:
33259828 DOI:
10.1016/j.gastrohep.2020.11.005]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy is the first-choice technique for investigating the majority of small bowel diseases. Its most common complications are related to incomplete examinations and capsule retention. There is no consensus on how patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery should receive the capsule.
OBJECTIVE
The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of complete small-bowel examinations (completion rate) between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery of the capsule. The secondary endpoint was to compare diagnostic yield and adverse events in the two groups.
METHODS
A retrospective observational study was conducted in nine hospitals in Spain. Demographic data, previous surgery, indication for capsule endoscopy, intestinal transit time, diagnosis, completion rate (percentage of capsules reaching the caecum), diagnostic yield (percentage of results compatible with indication for the exam) and adverse events were collected.
RESULTS
From January 2009 to May 2019 fifty-seven patients were included (39 male, mean age 66±15 years). The most common indications for the exam were "overt" (50.9%) and "occult" (35.1%) small bowel bleeding. Previous Billroth II gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were present in 52.6% and 17.5% of patients respectively. The capsule was swallowed in 34 patients and placed endoscopically in 23 patients. No significant differences were observed between the oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery groups in terms of completion rate (82.4% vs. 78.3%; p=0.742), diagnostic yield (41.2% vs. 52.2%; p=0.432) or small bowel transit time (301 vs. 377min, p=0.118). No capsule retention occurred. Only one severe adverse event (anastomotic perforation) was observed in the endoscopic delivery group.
CONCLUSIONS
In our case series, there were no significant differences between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery in terms of completion rate, diagnostic yield or safety. Being less invasive, oral ingestion of the capsule should be the first-choice method in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery.
Collapse