Shu-Guang Zhu1, Yang-Yang Qian1, Xin-Ying Tang1, Qian-Qian Zhu1, Wei Zhou1, Han Du1, Wei An1, Xiao-Ju Su1, An-Jing Zhao1, Hey-Long Ching2, Mark Edward McAlindon2, Zhao-Shen Li3, Zhuan Liao4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, UK. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: zhaoshenli@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: liaozhuan@smmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) is a novel technique for which there is no agreed gastric preparation. We aimed to determine an optimal standardized gastric preparation regimen. METHODS:120 patients referred for MCE were randomly assigned to gastric preparation with either water alone (A), water with simethicone (B) or water, simethicone and pronase (C). Image quality was assessed using cleanliness and visualization scores, higher scores equating to better image quality. RESULTS: The total cleanliness scores were (mean±SD) 15.83±2.41 (A), 21.35±1.23 (B), and 20.82±1.90 (C). The total visualization scores (mean±SD) were 10.75±2.02 (A), 15.20±1.32 (B), and 15.08±1.86 (C). While the image quality of the whole stomach in groups B and C were significantly better than group A (P<0.0001), there was no statistical difference between group B and C (P>0.05). MCE detected positive findings in 21 (52.5%), 27 (67.5%) and 21 (53.8%) patients in group A, B and C respectively, with no significant difference between groups (P>0.5). CONCLUSIONS:Simethicone swallowed with water prior to MCE produced the optimal gastric mucosal image quality. The addition of pronase had no demonstrable additional benefit.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) is a novel technique for which there is no agreed gastric preparation. We aimed to determine an optimal standardized gastric preparation regimen. METHODS: 120 patients referred for MCE were randomly assigned to gastric preparation with either water alone (A), water with simethicone (B) or water, simethicone and pronase (C). Image quality was assessed using cleanliness and visualization scores, higher scores equating to better image quality. RESULTS: The total cleanliness scores were (mean±SD) 15.83±2.41 (A), 21.35±1.23 (B), and 20.82±1.90 (C). The total visualization scores (mean±SD) were 10.75±2.02 (A), 15.20±1.32 (B), and 15.08±1.86 (C). While the image quality of the whole stomach in groups B and C were significantly better than group A (P<0.0001), there was no statistical difference between group B and C (P>0.05). MCE detected positive findings in 21 (52.5%), 27 (67.5%) and 21 (53.8%) patients in group A, B and C respectively, with no significant difference between groups (P>0.5). CONCLUSIONS:Simethicone swallowed with water prior to MCE produced the optimal gastric mucosal image quality. The addition of pronase had no demonstrable additional benefit.
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: Hey-Long Ching; Ailish Healy; Victoria Thurston; Melissa F Hale; Reena Sidhu; Mark E McAlindon Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-07-14 Impact factor: 5.742