Download PDF
Endoscopy 2007; 39(12): 1037-1040
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966988
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Optimal preparation for video capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study

S.  A.  C.  van Tuyl1, 2 , H.  den Ouden1 , M.  F.  J.  Stolk1 , E.  J.  Kuipers3
  • 1Department of Gastroenterology, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
  • 2Current affiliation: Department of Gastroenterology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht/Zeist, The Netherlands
  • 3Department of Gastroenterology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 13 February 2007

accepted after revision 2 September 2007

Publication Date:
10 December 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de A. C. van Tuyl et al., pp. 1037Endoscopy 2007; 39(12): 83-83
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1308885

Background and study aim: Visualization of the small bowel by video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is frequently impaired by intestinal contents. Different bowel preparations have been studied with controversial results. The aim of this study was to determine a satisfactory and tolerable bowel preparation for VCE.

Methods: Ninety patients were randomized to three preparation regimens. Group A underwent VCE after clear liquid diet and overnight fast, while groups B and C received respectively 1 or 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution before VCE. For each VCE five segments of 10 minutes were selected, one at the start of each quartile of the small-intestinal transit time, the fifth being the last 10 minutes of the ileum transit. Mucosal visibility was regarded as good if more than 75 % of the mucosa could be evaluated. All patients answered a questionnaire regarding procedure tolerability.

Results: The use of PEG solution led to a significant improvement in mucosal visualization. Mucosal visibility was good in the terminal ileum in 25 % of patients in group A, 52 % in group B, and 72 % in group C. The diagnostic yield did not change significantly. The use of 2 L of PEG solution was considered more uncomfortable than no PEG solution or 1 L of the same.

Conclusion: One liter of PEG solution improves mucosal visualization without causing discomfort for the patient.

References

  • 1 Delvaux M, Gay G. Capsule endoscopy in 2005: facts and perspectives.  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;  20 23-39
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Leighton J A, Legnani P, Seidman E G. Role of capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: where we are and where we are going.  Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;  13 331-337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Swain P, Adler D, Enns R. Capsule endoscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.  Endoscopy. 2005;  37 655-659
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 van Tuyl S A, van Noorden J T, Kuipers E J, Stolk M F. Results of videocapsule endoscopy in 250 patients with suspected small bowel pathology.  Dig Dis Sci. 2006;  51 900-905
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Costamagna G, Shah S K, Riccioni M E. et al . A prospective trial comparing small bowel radiographs and video capsule endoscopy for suspected small bowel disease.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  123 999-1005
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Golder S K, Schreyer A G, Endlicher E. et al . Comparison of capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance (MR) enteroclysis in suspected small bowel disease.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006;  21 97-104
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 de Leusse A, Vahedi K, Edery J. et al . Capsule endoscopy or push enteroscopy for first-line exploration of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.  Gastroenterology. 2007;  132 855-862
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Hara A K, Leighton J A, Sharma V K. et al . Imaging of small bowel disease: comparison of capsule endoscopy, standard endoscopy, barium examination, and CT.  Radiographics. 2005;  25 697-711
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ben-Soussan E, Savoye G, Antonietti M. et al . Factors that affect gastric passage of video capsule.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 785-790
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Ben-Soussan E, Savoye G, Antonietti M. et al . Is a 2-liter PEG preparation useful before capsule endoscopy?.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;  39 381-384
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Dai N, Gubler C, Hengstler P. et al . Improved capsule endoscopy after bowel preparation.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 28-31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Fireman Z, Kopelman Y, Fish L. et al . Effect of oral purgatives on gastric and small bowel transit time in capsule endoscopy.  Isr Med Assoc J. 2004;  6 521-523
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Niv Y, Niv G, Wiser K, Demarco D C. Capsule endoscopy - comparison of two strategies of bowel preparation.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;  22 957-962
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Selby W. Complete small-bowel transit in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy: determining factors and improvement with metoclopramide.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 80-85
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Viazis N, Sgouros S, Papaxoinis K. et al . Bowel preparation increases the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 534-538
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Villa F, Signorelli C, Rondonotti E, de Franchis R. Preparations and prokinetics.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am. 2006;  16 211-220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

M. F. J. Stolk, MD, PhD

Department of Gastroenterology

St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein

PO Box 2500

3430 EM Nieuwegein

The Netherlands

Email: m.stolk@antonius.net