David Kastenberg1, Wilmot C Burch2, David P Romeo3, Pankaj K Kashyap4, David C Pound5, Neophytos Papageorgiou6, Ignacio Fernández-Urien Sainz7, Carly E Sokach8, Douglas K Rex9. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, United States. 2. Franklin Gastroenterology, PLLC, Franklin, TN 37067, United States. 3. Dayton Gastroenterology, Inc., Beavercreek, OH 45540, United States. 4. Pinnacle Research Group LLC, Anniston, AL 36207, United States. 5. Indianapolis Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indianapolis, IN 46237, United States. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, American Medical Center, Nicosia 1311, Cyprus. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, Servicio de Digestivo, Hospital de Navarra, Pamplona 31001, Spain. 8. Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, United States. 9. Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis, IN 19107, United States.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1st and 2nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution ("diatrizoate solution") (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ≤ 12 h. RESULTS: Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups. CONCLUSION: A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1st and 2nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution ("diatrizoate solution") (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ≤ 12 h. RESULTS: Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups. CONCLUSION: A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.
Authors: R Eliakim; Z Fireman; I M Gralnek; K Yassin; M Waterman; Y Kopelman; J Lachter; B Koslowsky; S N Adler Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: R Eliakim; K Yassin; Y Niv; Y Metzger; J Lachter; E Gal; B Sapoznikov; F Konikoff; G Leichtmann; Z Fireman; Y Kopelman; S N Adler Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Edwin J Lai; Audrey H Calderwood; Gheorghe Doros; Oren K Fix; Brian C Jacobson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Glen S Markowitz; Samih H Nasr; Philip Klein; Herman Anderson; Jay I Stack; Lloyd Alterman; Barbara Price; Jai Radhakrishnan; Vivette D D'Agati Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.466