BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although capsule endoscopy (CE) is widely used to evaluate small bowel diseases, its diagnostic power has not been firmly established. The aim of this study was to compare the abilities of the "Miro- Cam" and "PillCam SB" to detect Z-line and duodenal papillae. METHODOLOGY: The records of 141 patients who had CE studies between January 2004 and December 2008 were retrospectively reviewed by two gastroenterologists. All patients had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The primary endpoint of the present study was the detection rate of Z-line and duodenal papillae. RESULTS: Among the 141 patients, 84 (60%) received CE using the PillCam SB and 57 (40%) using the MiroCam. There were no statistical differences in the baseline characteristics of the patients between the two groups. The Z-line detection rate was 36.9% with the PillCam SB and 47.7% with the MiroCam (p=0.227). The detection rate of duodenal papillae was 13.1% with the PillCam SB and 29.8% with the MiroCam (p=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: While the devices were similar for visualizing the Z-line, the MiroCam showed a higher diagnostic yield for detecting duodenal papillae than did the PillCam SB. The sensitivities of both for visualizing duodenal papillae were still limited, however.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Although capsule endoscopy (CE) is widely used to evaluate small bowel diseases, its diagnostic power has not been firmly established. The aim of this study was to compare the abilities of the "Miro- Cam" and "PillCam SB" to detect Z-line and duodenal papillae. METHODOLOGY: The records of 141 patients who had CE studies between January 2004 and December 2008 were retrospectively reviewed by two gastroenterologists. All patients had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy. The primary endpoint of the present study was the detection rate of Z-line and duodenal papillae. RESULTS: Among the 141 patients, 84 (60%) received CE using the PillCam SB and 57 (40%) using the MiroCam. There were no statistical differences in the baseline characteristics of the patients between the two groups. The Z-line detection rate was 36.9% with the PillCam SB and 47.7% with the MiroCam (p=0.227). The detection rate of duodenal papillae was 13.1% with the PillCam SB and 29.8% with the MiroCam (p=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: While the devices were similar for visualizing the Z-line, the MiroCam showed a higher diagnostic yield for detecting duodenal papillae than did the PillCam SB. The sensitivities of both for visualizing duodenal papillae were still limited, however.
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