BACKGROUND:Video capsule endoscopy is the first-intention examination in patients with obscure GI bleeding. The new MiroCam capsule, when using electric-field propagation for transmission, has been poorly evaluated in a clinical setting, in contrast with the PillCam SB2 capsule. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic concordance (κ value) between PillCam SB2 and MiroCam capsule examinations performed in the same patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, randomized study in 7 endoscopy units. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Eighty-three consecutive patients, ingesting the 2 capsules at a 1-hour interval. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were analyzed (10 technical issues). There were 31 concordant negative cases (42.4%) and 30 concordant positive cases (41.1%). The study showed satisfactory diagnostic concordance between the 2 systems (κ = 0.66). In 12 patients (16.4%), the final diagnosis was different: 9 patients had positive findings on MiroCam examination but no image detected with PillCam SB2, 2 had positive findings on PillCam examination only, and 1 patient had 2 different diagnoses. A positive diagnosis was obtained in 46.6% and 56.2% of patients with PillCam SB2 and MiroCam capsule, respectively, so that the procedures identified 78.6% and 95.2% of positive cases, respectively (P = .02). Small-bowel transit time and capsule reading time were significantly longer in MiroCam procedures. LIMITATIONS: Technical failures possibly related to capsule interference. CONCLUSION: This study shows at least comparable efficiency of the MiroCam compared with the PillCam SB2 capsule system for the diagnosis of obscure GI bleeding.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Video capsule endoscopy is the first-intention examination in patients with obscure GI bleeding. The new MiroCam capsule, when using electric-field propagation for transmission, has been poorly evaluated in a clinical setting, in contrast with the PillCam SB2 capsule. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic concordance (κ value) between PillCam SB2 and MiroCam capsule examinations performed in the same patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, randomized study in 7 endoscopy units. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Eighty-three consecutive patients, ingesting the 2 capsules at a 1-hour interval. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were analyzed (10 technical issues). There were 31 concordant negative cases (42.4%) and 30 concordant positive cases (41.1%). The study showed satisfactory diagnostic concordance between the 2 systems (κ = 0.66). In 12 patients (16.4%), the final diagnosis was different: 9 patients had positive findings on MiroCam examination but no image detected with PillCam SB2, 2 had positive findings on PillCam examination only, and 1 patient had 2 different diagnoses. A positive diagnosis was obtained in 46.6% and 56.2% of patients with PillCam SB2 and MiroCam capsule, respectively, so that the procedures identified 78.6% and 95.2% of positive cases, respectively (P = .02). Small-bowel transit time and capsule reading time were significantly longer in MiroCam procedures. LIMITATIONS: Technical failures possibly related to capsule interference. CONCLUSION: This study shows at least comparable efficiency of the MiroCam compared with the PillCam SB2 capsule system for the diagnosis of obscure GI bleeding.
Authors: Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Cristina Carretero; Erika Borobio; Ana Borda; Emilio Estevez; Sara Galter; Begoña Gonzalez-Suarez; Benito Gonzalez; Marisol Lujan; Jose Luis Martinez; Vanessa Martínez; Pedro Menchén; Javier Navajas; Vicente Pons; Cesar Prieto; Julio Valle Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 5.742
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