Satish S C Rao1, Krupa Mysore, Ashok Attaluri, Jessica Valestin. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242-1009, USA. satish-rao@uiowa.edu
Abstract
GOALS: To examine the diagnostic utility of wireless motility capsule (WMC) in patients with suspected gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility. BACKGROUND: Subjects with suspected GI motility disorders undergo invasive and expensive diagnostic tests. In these patients, whether WMC provides clinically useful information is unknown. STUDY: Patients with symptoms of dysmotility and normal endoscopic/radiologic evaluations were assessed with WMC test and conventional motility tests (CMT). Diagnostic utility of WMC was assessed retrospectively by examining device agreement and new information compared with CMT. RESULTS: On the basis of predominant symptom(s), 86 patients were classified into 2 subgroups: lower GI (LGI=50) and upper GI (UGI=36). Clinical suspicion was confirmed in 52% and 66% of patients, respectively, and there was good device agreement between WMC and CMT in 76% and 81% in the LGI and UGI groups, respectively. There was new diagnostic information with the WMC test in 53% of the LGI (P=0.006) and 47% of the UGI group (P=0.001). WMC detected generalized motility disorder in 44 (51%) patients and influenced management in 30% of LGI and 50% of UGI subjects. CONCLUSIONS: WMC confirmed clinical suspicion, provided new diagnostic information, influenced clinical management, and detected many patients with generalized motility disorder. It had good device agreement with conventional tests.
GOALS: To examine the diagnostic utility of wireless motility capsule (WMC) in patients with suspected gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility. BACKGROUND: Subjects with suspected GI motility disorders undergo invasive and expensive diagnostic tests. In these patients, whether WMC provides clinically useful information is unknown. STUDY: Patients with symptoms of dysmotility and normal endoscopic/radiologic evaluations were assessed with WMC test and conventional motility tests (CMT). Diagnostic utility of WMC was assessed retrospectively by examining device agreement and new information compared with CMT. RESULTS: On the basis of predominant symptom(s), 86 patients were classified into 2 subgroups: lower GI (LGI=50) and upper GI (UGI=36). Clinical suspicion was confirmed in 52% and 66% of patients, respectively, and there was good device agreement between WMC and CMT in 76% and 81% in the LGI and UGI groups, respectively. There was new diagnostic information with the WMC test in 53% of the LGI (P=0.006) and 47% of the UGI group (P=0.001). WMC detected generalized motility disorder in 44 (51%) patients and influenced management in 30% of LGI and 50% of UGI subjects. CONCLUSIONS:WMC confirmed clinical suspicion, provided new diagnostic information, influenced clinical management, and detected many patients with generalized motility disorder. It had good device agreement with conventional tests.
Authors: John M Rosen; Jose T Cocjin; Jennifer V Schurman; Jennifer M Colombo; Craig A Friesen Journal: World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-08-06
Authors: W L Hasler; K P May; L A Wilson; M Van Natta; H P Parkman; P J Pasricha; K L Koch; T L Abell; R W McCallum; L A Nguyen; W J Snape; I Sarosiek; J O Clarke; G Farrugia; J Calles-Escandon; M Grover; J Tonascia; L A Lee; L Miriel; F A Hamilton Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: W L Hasler; L A Wilson; H P Parkman; K L Koch; T L Abell; L Nguyen; P J Pasricha; W J Snape; R W McCallum; I Sarosiek; G Farrugia; J Calles; L Lee; J Tonascia; A Unalp-Arida; F Hamilton Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2013-02-17 Impact factor: 3.598
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