Optimal preparation for video capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study

Tuyl, Sebastiaan A.C. van; Ouden, H den; Stolk, M. F. J.; Kuipers, Ernst J.

doi:10.1055/s-2007-966988

Cited by 81 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another randomized study evaluated 150 patients, concluding that bowel purgatives and prokinetics did not improve completion rates or the quality of visualization and reduce patient acceptability [10] . Conversely, accumulating evidence from other different studies seems to indicate that bowel preparation with purgative agents increases the diagnostic yield of the procedure by improving small bowel mucosal visualization compared with a clear liquid diet or overnight fast [11][12][13][14] . The 2009 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's updated information for SBCE stated that purgative bowel preparation enhances the quality of visualization and the diagnostic yield of SBCE [1] .…”

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

“…Results from studies in adults that assessed the value of bowel preparation are conflicting [138 -140]. One randomized, single-blind study in 90 adult patients showed best mucosal visibility in patients who, prior to SBCE, had ingested 2 L of PEG (72 % visualization) compared with 1 L of PEG (52 % visualization), but either was superior to a clear liquid diet and overnight fast (25 % visualization) [138]. Although mucosal visualization was improved, it did not affect the diagnostic yield.…”

Section: Sbce: Safety and Prior Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of small-bowel endoscopy in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: an international OMED–ECCO consensus

Bourreille¹,

Ignjatovic²,

Aabakken³

et al. 2009

Endoscopy

304

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the same way, Van Tuyl et al [13] compared a clear liquid diet with 1 and 2 L PEG in 90 patients. The PEG solution allowed a significantly better mucosal visualization, although the diagnostic yield was not significantly modified.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Different Bowel Preparations for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Optimal preparation for video capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study

Abstract: One liter of PEG solution improves mucosal visualization without causing discomfort for the patient.

Cited by 81 publications

References 6 publications

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

Role of small-bowel endoscopy in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: an international OMED–ECCO consensus

Evaluation of Different Bowel Preparations for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About