BACKGROUND/AIMS: Studies have investigated the use of different types of radiofrequency capsules for comparison or sequential capsule endoscopy, but none have compared the MiroCam device - which utilizes a novel data transmission technology - with other capsules. This study compared the feasibility of sequential capsule endoscopy using the MiroCam and PillCam SB devices, which employ different transmission technologies. METHODS: Patients with diseases requiring capsule endoscopy were enrolled. After a 12-hour fast, one randomly selected capsule was swallowed. The second capsule was swallowed once fluoroscopy had indicated that the first capsule had migrated below the gastric outlet. RESULTS: The total operating time in 24 patients was 702+/-60 min (mean+/-SD) for the MiroCam and 446+/-28 min for the PillCam SB (p<0.0001). The rate of a complete examination to the cecum was 83.3% for the MiroCam and 58.3% for the PillCam SB (p=0.031). Diagnostic yields for the MiroCam, PillCam SB, and sequential capsule endoscopy were 45.8%, 41.7%, and 50.0%, respectively. The agreement rate between the two capsules was 87.5%, with a kappa value of 0.74. Electrical interference in data transmission between the two capsules was not observed, but temporary visual interferences were observed in seven patients (29.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential capsule endoscopy with the MiroCam and PillCam SB produced slight but nonsignificant increases in the diagnostic yield, and the two capsules did not exhibit electrical interference. A larger trial is necessary for elucidating the usefulness of sequential capsule endoscopy.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Studies have investigated the use of different types of radiofrequency capsules for comparison or sequential capsule endoscopy, but none have compared the MiroCam device - which utilizes a novel data transmission technology - with other capsules. This study compared the feasibility of sequential capsule endoscopy using the MiroCam and PillCam SB devices, which employ different transmission technologies. METHODS:Patients with diseases requiring capsule endoscopy were enrolled. After a 12-hour fast, one randomly selected capsule was swallowed. The second capsule was swallowed once fluoroscopy had indicated that the first capsule had migrated below the gastric outlet. RESULTS: The total operating time in 24 patients was 702+/-60 min (mean+/-SD) for the MiroCam and 446+/-28 min for the PillCam SB (p<0.0001). The rate of a complete examination to the cecum was 83.3% for the MiroCam and 58.3% for the PillCam SB (p=0.031). Diagnostic yields for the MiroCam, PillCam SB, and sequential capsule endoscopy were 45.8%, 41.7%, and 50.0%, respectively. The agreement rate between the two capsules was 87.5%, with a kappa value of 0.74. Electrical interference in data transmission between the two capsules was not observed, but temporary visual interferences were observed in seven patients (29.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential capsule endoscopy with the MiroCam and PillCam SB produced slight but nonsignificant increases in the diagnostic yield, and the two capsules did not exhibit electrical interference. A larger trial is necessary for elucidating the usefulness of sequential capsule endoscopy.
Authors: David R Cave; David E Fleischer; Jonathan A Leighton; Douglas O Faigel; Russell I Heigh; Virender K Sharma; Christopher J Gostout; Elizabeth Rajan; Klaus Mergener; Anne Foley; Michael Lee; Kanishka Bhattacharya Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: E Rondonotti; M Pennazio; E Toth; P Menchen; M E Riccioni; G D De Palma; F Scotto; D De Looze; T Pachofsky; I Tacheci; T Havelund; G Couto; A Trifan; A Kofokotsios; R Cannizzaro; E Perez-Quadrado; R de Franchis Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Seungmin Bang; Jeong Youp Park; Seok Jeong; Young Ho Kim; Han Bo Shim; Tae Song Kim; Don Haeng Lee; Si Young Song Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-07-21 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Hyun Mi Heo; Chan Hyuk Park; Joon Seok Lim; Jin Ha Lee; Bo Kyung Kim; Jae Hee Cheon; Tae Il Kim; Won Ho Kim; Sung Pil Hong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-01-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: George Ou; Neal Shahidi; Cherry Galorport; Oliver Takach; Terry Lee; Robert Enns Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Merajur Rahman; Stuart Akerman; Bethany DeVito; Larry Miller; Meredith Akerman; Keith Sultan Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Gerardo Blanco-Velasco; Rolando Pinho; Omar Michel Solórzano-Pineda; Claudia Martínez-Camacho; Luis Fernando García-Contreras; Enrique Murcio-Pérez; Oscar Victor Hernández-Mondragón Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-06-17
Authors: Gerard Cummins; Benjamin F Cox; Gastone Ciuti; Thineskrishna Anbarasan; Marc P Y Desmulliez; Sandy Cochran; Robert Steele; John N Plevris; Anastasios Koulaouzidis Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Reena Sidhu; Mark E McAlindon; Carolyn Davison; Simon Panter; Olaf Humbla; Martin Keuchel Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 2.260