Intestinal preparation prior to capsule endoscopy administration

Beltrán, Vicente Pons; Carretero, Cristina; González-Suárez, Begoña; Fernández-Urién, Iñaqui; Muñoz-Navas, Miguel

doi:10.3748/wjg.14.5773

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By using a timer, we recorded the exact time period during which the small intestinal mucosa was not clean. Following a methodology which was similar to that utilized in other publications [2,3] , the quality of small bowel cleansing was assessed according to the proportion of the small bowel mucosa with perfect conditions for visualization, without any liquid, bubbles or debris. We considered it to be excellent if an ideal visualization of the small bowel mucosa was achieved; good if > 75% of the mucosa was in perfect condition, with some fluid or debris which did not seem to interfere with the overall quality of the examination; fair if only 50%-75% of the mucosa was under perfect conditions for observation, with the presence of enough fluid, bubbles or debris to preclude a completely reliable examination; and poor if < 50% of the mucosa could be observed, with the presence of significant amounts of fluid, bubbles or debris such that the examination was unreliable (Figure 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

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: Methodsmentioning

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

“…Al inicio de la utilización de la cápsula la única preparación intestinal consistía en ayuno de 12 h o bien dieta líquida las 24 h previas 13,14 . Actualmente los estudios apoyan la realización de una preparación intestinal con solución evacuante, aunque todavía no está claro qué tipo de preparación es la mejor opción 15---17 .…”

Section: Metodología De Utilizaciónunclassified

Cápsula endoscópica: documento de posicionamiento de la Sociedad Catalana de Digestología

Suárez

Cuscó

Copa

et al. 2011

Gastroenterología y Hepatología

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In some cases, their identification may seem like a coincidence rather than a frequent clinical scenario. However, our results suggest that all images of the colon obtained during SBCE should be read regardless of the cleansing level and the use of prokinetics (24,25) as they may provide relevant information that impact upon patient management.…”

Section: Sbce Has Been Developed To Examine the Sb In A Simple And Nomentioning

confidence: 99%

Colonic lesions in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nowadays, capsule endoscopy is the first-line procedure to assess the small bowel. During small bowel procedures, other segments of the gastrointestinal tract may be visualized. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the incidence of colonic abnormalities in patients undergoing small bowel capsule and its impact on patient management.Patients and methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of data from 526 consecutive capsule endoscopy procedures performed at a single tertiary-care centre between 2008 and 2011. Patients with incomplete procedures were excluded from the analysis. Patient baseline characteristics, colonic lesions, diagnosis and management before and after capsule endoscopy were recorded and a descriptive analysis was performed.Results: Four hundred and sixty four patients were finally included in the analysis. Two hundred and ninety three patients were male (57.3%) and the mean age was 61.3 ± 20.03 years (18-86). Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (59%) and inflammatory bowel disease (19%) were the main indications for the procedure. Colonic abnormalities were detected by capsule endoscopy in 47 (9%) of 464 patients. The most common types of missed lesions were vascular lesions (34%) and colonic ulcers (32%). This information had a clinical or diagnostic impact of 7.55% and a therapeutic impact of 6.03%.Conclusion: All images of the colon should be evaluated during small bowel capsule endoscopy as they may provide relevant information that may result in changes in patient management.

show abstract

Intestinal preparation prior to capsule endoscopy administration

Cited by 14 publications

References 14 publications

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Cápsula endoscópica: documento de posicionamiento de la Sociedad Catalana de Digestología

Colonic lesions in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About