BACKGROUND:Capsule endoscopy (CE) is limited by incomplete small-bowel transit and poor view quality in the distal bowel. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the use of bowel purgatives or prokinetics in CE. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of bowel purgatives and prokinetics in small-bowel CE. DESIGN: Prospective single-blind randomized controlled study. SETTING: Academic endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A total of 150 patients prospectively recruited. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 preparations: "standard" (fluid restriction then nothing by mouth 12 hours before the procedure, water and simethicone at capsule ingestion [S]); "standard" + 10 mg oral metoclopramide before the procedure (M); Citramag + senna bowel-purgative regimen the evening before CE (CS); Citramag + senna + 10 mg metoclopramide before the procedure (CSM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT), completion rates (CR), view quality, and patient acceptability. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: positive findings, diagnostic yield. RESULTS: No significant difference was noted among groups for GTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 17.3, 24.7, and 15.1 minutes vs 16.8 minutes, respectively; P = .62, .18, and .30, respectively), SBTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 260, 241, and 201 vs 278, respectively; P = .91, .81, and .32, respectively), or CRs (85%, 85%, and 88% vs 89% for M, CS, and CSM vs S, respectively; P = .74, .74, and 1.00, respectively). There was no significant difference in view quality among groups (of 44: 38, 37, and 40 vs 37 for M, CS, and CSM, vs S, respectively; P = .18, .62, and .12, respectively). Diagnostic yield was similar among the groups. CS and CSM regimens were significantly less convenient (P < .001), and CS was significantly less comfortable (P = .001) than standard preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel purgatives and prokinetics do not improve CRs or view quality at CE, and bowel purgatives reduce patient acceptability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is limited by incomplete small-bowel transit and poor view quality in the distal bowel. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the use of bowel purgatives or prokinetics in CE. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of bowel purgatives and prokinetics in small-bowel CE. DESIGN: Prospective single-blind randomized controlled study. SETTING: Academic endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A total of 150 patients prospectively recruited. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 preparations: "standard" (fluid restriction then nothing by mouth 12 hours before the procedure, water and simethicone at capsule ingestion [S]); "standard" + 10 mg oral metoclopramide before the procedure (M); Citramag + senna bowel-purgative regimen the evening before CE (CS); Citramag + senna + 10 mg metoclopramide before the procedure (CSM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT), completion rates (CR), view quality, and patient acceptability. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: positive findings, diagnostic yield. RESULTS: No significant difference was noted among groups for GTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 17.3, 24.7, and 15.1 minutes vs 16.8 minutes, respectively; P = .62, .18, and .30, respectively), SBTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 260, 241, and 201 vs 278, respectively; P = .91, .81, and .32, respectively), or CRs (85%, 85%, and 88% vs 89% for M, CS, and CSM vs S, respectively; P = .74, .74, and 1.00, respectively). There was no significant difference in view quality among groups (of 44: 38, 37, and 40 vs 37 for M, CS, and CSM, vs S, respectively; P = .18, .62, and .12, respectively). Diagnostic yield was similar among the groups. CS and CSM regimens were significantly less convenient (P < .001), and CS was significantly less comfortable (P = .001) than standard preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel purgatives and prokinetics do not improve CRs or view quality at CE, and bowel purgatives reduce patient acceptability.
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Deirdre McNamara; Edward J Despott; Samuel Adler; Brooks D Cash; Ignacio Fernández-Urién; Hrvoje Ivekovic; Martin Keuchel; Mark McAlindon; Jean-Christophe Saurin; Simon Panter; Cristina Bellisario; Silvia Minozzi; Carlo Senore; Cathy Bennett; Michael Bretthauer; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Dirk Domagk; Cesare Hassan; Michal F Kaminski; Colin J Rees; Roland Valori; Raf Bisschops; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Bruno Joel Ferreira Rosa; Mara Barbosa; Joana Magalhães; Ana Rebelo; Maria João Moreira; José Cotter Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-02-16
Authors: Cemal Yazici; John Losurdo; Michael D Brown; Scott Oosterveen; Robert Rahimi; Ali Keshavarzian; Leila Bozorgnia; Ece Mutlu Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 5.742