Bowel preparation for colon capsule endoscopy examination
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
DISEASE(S): Colorectal Tumor
PROVIDER: 2633895 | ecrin-mdr-crc |
REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR
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.
| S-EPMC5752722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study aims to investigate the effect of the optimized bowel preparation and boost regimens on colon capsule endoscopy procedures, specifically on cleanliness and completion rate.
| 8188 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8589531 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8670994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study is designed to determine the optimal bowel preparation regimen for PillCam COLON 2 Capsule Endoscopy System (CCE) procedures in average risk patients.
Patients will be randomized to receive one of two bowel preparation regimens prior to PillCam CCE.
| 2192859 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy are not yet standardized since they are not well optimized. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel low-volume and sodium phosphate-free bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy. A total of 31 patients were prospectively enrolled. In the novel regimen, on the day prior to examination, a low-fiber diet was permitted, 5 mg mosapride citrate was administered twice (1 h prior to lunch and supper) and 1 l polyethylene glycol was administered in the evening. On the day of the examination, an additional 1 l polyethylene glycol, 5 mg mosapride citrate and 200 mg simethicone were administered before capsule ingestion. Polyethylene glycol booster (0.5 l) was administered twice, at 1 and 4 h following capsule ingestion. Colon cleansing levels, ileocecal valve transit time and completion rate were evaluated. A total of 29 patients were included in the final analysis, 90% of whom achieved adequate preparation of the overall colon. Ileocecal valve transit time was 2.35±0.82 h and completion rate was 79.3%. The results revealed that the novel low-volume and sodium phosphate-free bowel preparation regimen for colon capsule endoscopy was feasible, with adequate colon cleansing and completion rates, and has the potential to be used as an alternative regimen.
| S-EPMC5525907 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCapsule 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.MethodsSingle-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.ResultsFifty 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).ConclusionsCombined 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).
| S-EPMC7217271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim of the registry is to evaluate all colon capsule endoscopies performed in Germany. This is to investigate safety, quality assurance and quality control of colon capsule endoscopy.
| 2169968 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Interventions: Capsule endoscopy will be performed according with standard method:
Small bowel preparation with 2 liters of polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparation. At 5 PM on the evening prior to capsule endoscopy patients will begin drinking an 8-ounce glass of the preparation fluid (in the gallon container) every fifteen minutes until all of the liquid is consumed;
Overnight fast;
Capsule endoscopy (Mirocam) will be swallowed in the day of the exam and pictures will be taken for 12 h and collected in a recorder. The capsule is eliminated in the feces and does not need to be recovered.
The images are read in the appropriate software by an experienced physician.
Primary outcome(s): To access the prevalence of small bowel neoplasias in patients with Lynch syndrome using capsule endoscopy findings.
Patients with relevant findings at capsule endoscopy- tumours or polyps, will be submitted to upper GI endoscopy or double ballon enetroscopy for histological confirmation.[At the time that capsule endoscopy is performed]
Study Design: Purpose: Screening;Duration: Cross-sectional;Selection: Defined population;Timing: Prospective
| 2458177 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Background and aimsRemote endoscopy can improve diagnostic efficiency of gastrointestinal (GI) diseases for patients in remote areas. A novel remote magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) system based on a 5G network was developed for real-time remote GI examinations. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the 5G-based remote MCE for examination of the stomach and small bowel.MethodsThis was a prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study. Consecutive participants enrolled in the First People's Hospital of Yinchuan underwent remote MCE examinations performed by an endoscopist located in Changhai Hospital. Consecutive participants enrolled in Changhai Hospital underwent conventional MCE examinations performed by the same endoscopist. The main outcomes included the complete visualization rate of the stomach and small bowel, safety assessment and network latency time of remote MCE examinations.ResultsFrom March 2021 to June 2021, 20 participants in each group were enrolled. The complete visualization rate of the stomach and small bowel was 100% in both groups (p > 0.999) without any adverse event. The median network latency time of remote MCE group was 19.948 ms. Gastric examination time (8.96 vs. 8.92 min, p = 0.234), maneuverability (15.00 vs. 15.00, p = 0.317), image quality (1.00 vs. 1.00, p > 0.999) and diagnostic yields in the stomach and small bowel (55% vs. 30%, 5% vs. 0%, both p > 0.05) were comparable between remote and conventional MCE groups. All participants in remote MCE group considered remote MCE acceptable and necessary.Conclusions5G-based remote MCE was a feasible and safe method for viewing the stomach and small bowel.
| S-EPMC9892422 | biostudies-literature