Comparison of two schemes of small bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy with polyethylene glycol: a prospective, randomized single-blind study

Kantianis, A.; Karagiannis, Stephanos; Liatsos, Christos; Galanis, Petros; Psilopoulos, Dimitrios; Τέντα, Ρωξάνη; Kalantzis, Nikolaos; Mavrogiannis, Christos

doi:10.1097/meg.0b013e32832b2107

Cited by 45 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…PEG solutions are non-absorbable and osmotically active and have been widely used in capsule endoscopy based on its ability to move through the bowel and potentially distend the lumen, wash out debris and bile, and possibly enhance small bowel transit time. The optimal dose of PEG that needs to be administered before SBCE is not entirely clear but 2 L appears to be sufficient [21][22][23] . A recent study concluded that 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 [24] .…”

Section: C B Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Rosa¹,

Barbosa²,

Magalhães³

et al. 2013

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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). BRIEF ARTICLE

show abstract

Section: C B Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Rosa¹,

Barbosa²,

Magalhães³

et al. 2013

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Positive findings were identified in nine patients from group A (23), nine from group B (20), and 12 from group C (25) ( Table 3). Suspicious findings were noted in four patients from group A, four from group B, and five from group C. The detection rates for definite and suspicious lesions in groups A, B, and C were 56.6, 65, and 68%, respectively, which seems to indicate that the more preparation is carried out, the more lesions can be detected.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Bowel Preparation with Polyethylene Glycol on Quality of Capsule Endoscopy

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In principle, CE is a procedure that can only be performed in the fasting state [10]. In order to improve observational yield, diagnostic yield, and the large bowel arrival rate, a number of studies have been conducted using a variety of preparations (table 4) [5,6,7,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. However, studies evaluating the efficacy of MC as bowel preparation are currently very limited in number [22,24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Magnesium Citrate as Preparation for Capsule Endoscopy: A Randomized, Prospective, Open-Label, Inter-Group Trial

Ninomiya

Yao²,

Matsui³

et al. 2012

Digestion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is effective in the detection of small bowel lesions. Many studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of preparations in improving diagnostic yield, but an effective method has yet to be confirmed. We used magnesium citrate as preparation for CE and evaluated its effectiveness. Methods: 50 patients who underwent CE were randomly allocated to two groups – group A (preparation provided) and group B (no preparation). Group A were administered 34 g of magnesium citrate at 8 p.m. the night before the examination. Group B were not administered a laxative. Results: The cleansing efficacy score was 24.4 ± 4.4 points for group A and 22.9 ± 4.4 points for group B, with no significant difference between groups. No significant difference was seen in the large bowel arrival rate between groups: 14 cases (63.6%) for group A and 16 cases (72.7%) for group B. Conclusion: In this study, superiority was not seen for cleansing efficacy, large bowel arrival rate for the preparation method involving administration of hypertonic MC solution 12 h prior to the procedure.

show abstract

Comparison of two schemes of small bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy with polyethylene glycol: a prospective, randomized single-blind study

Abstract: The two schemes were equal regarding enteric cleansing and completion of the procedure. Therefore, 2 l seems to be an adequate preparation for capsule endoscopy.

Cited by 45 publications

References 20 publications

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Effect of Bowel Preparation with Polyethylene Glycol on Quality of Capsule Endoscopy

Effectiveness of Magnesium Citrate as Preparation for Capsule Endoscopy: A Randomized, Prospective, Open-Label, Inter-Group Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About