Gastric preparation for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy: A prospective, randomized single-blinded controlled trial

Zhu, Shuzhen; Qian, Yang‐Yang; Tang, Xin‐Ying; Zhu, Qianqian; Zhou, Wei; Du, Huiqin; An, Wei; Su, Xiaoju; Zhao, Anjing; Ching, Hey-Long; McAlindon, Mark E.; Li, Zhao‐Shen; Liao, Zhuan

doi:10.1016/j.dld.2017.09.129

Cited by 32 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since MCE cannot perform flushing and suctioning, visualization may be impaired by the presence of bubbles and mucus. The investigators have used detergents in gastric preparation, while the fundus still poor visualized [ 51 , 52 ]. Because battery life is limited, incomplete examination of small bowel and colon could easily occur (12.08% and 19.19%, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse events of video capsule endoscopy over the past two decades: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A full spectrum of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) adverse events over the past two decades has not been evaluated. We aimed to determine pooled rates, predictors and temporal-trend of VCE adverse events over the past two decades. Methods Systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE for English-language publications reporting VCE adverse events (January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2019). Data were extracted independently by two investigators. Pooled VCE adverse event rates were calculated using the random or fixed model as appropriate. Predictors and temporal-trend of each adverse event were performed by meta-regression analyses. Results In total, 402 studies were identified, including 108,079 VCE procedures. Rate of retention, swallow disorder, aspiration, technical failure, and procedural adverse events were 0.73% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–0.89%), 0.75% (95% CI 0.43–1.13%), 0.00% (95% CI 0.00–0.00%), 0.94% (95% CI 0.65–1.28%), 0.67% (95% CI 0.32–1.10%), respectively; incomplete examination rate of esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and colon were 9.05%, 7.69%, 12.08%, 19.19%, respectively. Patency capsule reduced retention rate by 5.04%, whereas known inflammatory bowel disease increased retention rate by 4.29%. Elder was the risk and protective factor for small bowel incomplete examination (0.30%) and swallow disorder (− 0.72%), respectively. Rates of retention and small bowel incomplete examination significantly declined over time (P = .0006 and P < .0001).. Conclusions VCE adverse event rates were generally low, and retention and small bowel incomplete examination rates declined over the past two decades. Patients with known inflammatory bowel disease or elder should be alerted to high risk of retention or small bowel incomplete examination (PROSPERO: CRD42019139595).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse events of video capsule endoscopy over the past two decades: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some UGI videos were obscured by adherent mucus in the proximal stomach. The use of mucolytics such as N-acetylcysteine or pronase has been shown to be of benefit in improving mucosal visibility during gastroscopy[ 37 - 39 ], although this did not translate to the only capsule endoscopy study to date[ 40 ]. Routine use of hyoscine has been advocated to improve visualisation in OGD[ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper gastrointestinal tract capsule endoscopy using a nurse-led protocol: First reported experience

Ching

Healy

Thurston

et al. 2018

WJG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMTo test the feasibility and performance of a novel upper gastrointestinal (GI) capsule endoscope using a nurse-led protocol.METHODSWe conducted a prospective cohort analysis of patients who declined gastroscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, OGD) but who consented to upper GI capsule endoscopy. Patients swallowed the upper GI capsule following ingestion of 1 liter of water (containing simethicone). A series of positional changes were used to exploit the effects of water flow and move the upper GI capsule from one gravity-dependent area to another using a nurse-led protocol. Capsule transit time, video reading time, mucosal visualisation, pathology detection and patient tolerance was evaluated.RESULTSFifty patients were included in the study. The mean capsule transit times in the oesophagus and stomach were 28 s and 68 min respectively. Visualisation of the following major anatomical landmarks was achieved (graded 1-5: Poor to excellent): Oesophagus, 4.8 (± 0.5); gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), 4.8 (± 0.8); cardia, 4.8 (± 0.8); fundus, 3.8 (± 1.2); body, 4.5 (± 1); antrum, 4.5 (± 1); pylorus, 4.7 (± 0.8); duodenal bulb, 4.7 (± 0.7); second part of the duodenum (D2), 4.7 (± 1). The upper GI capsule reached D2 in 64% of patients. The mean video reading time was 48 min with standard playback mode and 20 min using Quickview (P = 0.0001). No pathology was missed using Quickview. Procedural tolerance was excellent. No complications were seen with the upper GI capsule.CONCLUSIONThe upper GI capsule achieved excellent views of the upper GI tract. Future studies should compare the diagnostic accuracy between upper GI capsule and OGD.

show abstract

“…Since MCE cannot perform ushing and suctioning, visualization may be impaired by the presence of bubbles and mucus. The investigators have used detergents in gastric preparation, while the fundus still poor visualized [51,52]. Because battery life is limited, incomplete examination of small bowel and colon could easily occur (12.08% and 19.19%, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse events of video capsule endoscopy over the past two decades: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

Wang

Pan

Liu

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A full spectrum of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) adverse events over the past two decades has not been evaluated. We aimed to determine pooled rates, predictors and temporal-trend of VCE adverse events over the past two decades. Methods: Systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE for English-language publications reporting VCE adverse events (January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2019). Data were extracted independently by two investigators. Pooled VCE adverse event rates were calculated using the random or fixed model as appropriate. Predictors and temporal-trend of each adverse event were performed by meta-regression analyses. Results: In total, 402 studies were identified, including 108,079 VCE procedures. Rate of retention, swallow disorder, aspiration, technical failure, and procedural adverse events were 0.73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59%-0.89%), 0.75% (95% CI, 0.43%-1.13%), 0.00% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.00%), 0.94% (95% CI, 0.65%-1.28%), 0.67% (95% CI, 0.32%-1.10%), respectively; incomplete examination rate of esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and colon were 9.05%, 7.69%, 12.08%, 19.19%, respectively. Patency capsule reduced retention rate by 5.04%, whereas known inflammatory bowel disease increased retention rate by 4.29%. Elder was the risk and protective factor for small bowel incomplete examination (0.30%) and swallow disorder (-0.72%), respectively. Rates of retention and small bowel incomplete examination significantly declined over time (P = .0006 and P < .0001).Conclusions: VCE adverse event rates were generally low, and retention and small bowel incomplete examination rates declined over the past two decades. Patients with known inflammatory bowel disease or elder should be alerted to high risk of retention or small bowel incomplete examination (PROSPERO: CRD42019139595).

show abstract

Gastric preparation for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy: A prospective, randomized single-blinded controlled trial

Abstract: Simethicone swallowed with water prior to MCE produced the optimal gastric mucosal image quality. The addition of pronase had no demonstrable additional benefit.

Cited by 32 publications

References 28 publications

Adverse events of video capsule endoscopy over the past two decades: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

Adverse events of video capsule endoscopy over the past two decades: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

Upper gastrointestinal tract capsule endoscopy using a nurse-led protocol: First reported experience

Adverse events of video capsule endoscopy over the past two decades: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About