Dataset Information

Applicability of colon capsule endoscopy as pan-endoscopy: From bowel preparation, transit, and rating times to completion rate and patient acceptance.

ABSTRACT: Background and study aims Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has the potential to explore the entire gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of CCE as pan-endoscopy. Patients and methods Healthy participants received CCE with bowel preparation (bisacodyl, polyethylene electrolyte glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid) and booster regimen (metoclopramide, oral sulfate solution (OSS)). For each segment of the gastrointestinal tract, the following quality parameters were assessed: cleanliness, transit times, reading times, patient acceptance and safety of the procedure. When all gastrointestinal segments had cleansing score good or excellent, cleanliness of the whole gastrointestinal tract was assessed as good. Participants' expected and perceived burden was assessed by questionnaires and participants were asked to grade the procedure (scale 0-10). All serious adverse events (SAEs) were documented. Results A total of 451 CCE procedures were analyzed. A good cleansing score was achieved in the stomach in 69.6%, in the SB in 99.1 % and in the colon in 76.6 %. Cleanliness of the whole gastrointestinal tract was good in 52.8 % of the participants. CCE median transit time of the whole gastrointestinal tract was 583 minutes IQR 303-659). The capsule reached the descending colon in 94.7 %. Median reading time per procedure was 70 minutes (IQR 57-83). Participants graded the procedure with a 7.8. There were no procedure-related SAEs. Conclusions CCE as pan-endoscopy has shown to be a safe procedure with good patient acceptance. When cleanliness of all gastrointestinal segments per patient, completion rate and reading time will be improved, CCE can be applied as a good non-invasive alternative to evaluate the gastrointestinal tract.

SUBMITTER: Vuik FER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8670994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen.This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1st and 2nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution ("diatrizoate solution") (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ? 12 h.Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups.A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.

Project description:Abstract Background Small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) has limited recording time and does not visualize the entire length of the small intestine in approximately 16.5% of the cases. We hypothesize that bacon-chewing is potent stimulus of cephalic response, which may reduce capsule transit times and improve complete examination rate (CER). Aims To determine if sham feeding with bacon-chewing improves small bowel transit time and completion rate in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy. Methods A prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, BC has been recruiting since 01/2015. Inclusion: outpatient CE, age ≥ 19. Exclusion criteria: ongoing use of motility-enhancing or slowing drugs, active bowel obstruction, bowel resection, swallowing disorder, diabetes with end-organ damage, untreated thyroid disorder, and endoscopic placement of capsule camera. Given Imaging PillCam SB3TM (Yoqneam, Israel) were used. Participants were assigned to either bacon or control group via concealed allocation based on unrestricted randomization sequence generated prior to study initiation. All subjects underwent bowel preparation with 2L PEG3350 with electrolytes the day before, and fasted ≥ 2h prior to the procedure. They were allowed to drink clear fluids and resume normal diet 2h and 4h post-capsule ingestion, respectively. Immediately after swallowing the capsule, subjects in the bacon group were asked to chew and spit 10 pieces of bacon, each over 30 seconds at one-minute intervals. This process was repeated an hour after ingesting the capsule. Gastric transit time (GTT), small bowel transit time (SBTT), and CER were compared between the groups. This study was approved by institutional research ethics board and registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02353208). Results Between 01/2015 to 09/2016, 109 CE’s were included in the study, 89 of which were for GI bleeding. CE did not pass the pylorus in four patients in the bacon group during the recording, and were excluded from further transit time analyses. One and two additional CE’s in the control and bacon group, respectively, did not reach cecum during recording and were excluded from SBTT analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in GTT, SBTT, or CER. Conclusions Sham feeding by chewing and spitting bacon does not alter transit times or CER, and therefore should not be used in an attempt to improve CE yield. ResultsControl (n=54)Bacon (n=55)P valueAge (mean ± SD)57.2 ± 15.657.9 ± 17.50.83Female (%)30 (55.6%)30 (54.5%)0.92Charlson Comorbidity Index3.4 ± 2.43.3 ± 2.80.99GTT (minutes)mean ± SDmedian (IQR)41.4 ± 47.224.7 (13.9, 55.7)56.7 ± 126.517.2 (10.3, 68.6)0.20SBTT (minutes)mean ± SDmedian (IQR)230.0 ± 106.2217.6 (157.4, 282.3)223.1 ± 128.5198.5 (119.6, 294.8)0.38CER (%)53 (98.1%)49 (89.1%)0.054 Funding Agencies None

Dataset Information

Applicability of colon capsule endoscopy as pan-endoscopy: From bowel preparation, transit, and rating times to completion rate and patient acceptance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets