Endoscopy 2020; 52(S 01): S274
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1704865
ESGE Days 2020 ePoster presentations
Thursday, April 23, 2020 09:00 – 17:00 Stomach and small intestine ePoster area
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

IMPROVING QUALITY IN COLON CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY; EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT BOWEL PREPARATION REGIMENS

M Syafiq Ismail
1   Tallaght University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Dublin, Ireland
2   Trinity Academic Gastroenterology Group, Tallaght University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
,
S Semenov
1   Tallaght University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Dublin, Ireland
2   Trinity Academic Gastroenterology Group, Tallaght University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
,
S Sihag
1   Tallaght University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Dublin, Ireland
,
N Breslin
1   Tallaght University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Dublin, Ireland
,
A O’Connor
1   Tallaght University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Dublin, Ireland
,
B Ryan
1   Tallaght University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Dublin, Ireland
,
D McNamara
1   Tallaght University Hospital, Gastroenterology, Dublin, Ireland
2   Trinity Academic Gastroenterology Group, Tallaght University Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 April 2020 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims In selected patients, Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) has been recommended by ESGE as an alternative to colonoscopy. The effect of different bowel preparation regimens on Completion Rate (CR) and Bowel Cleansing (BC) is inconclusive.

We aimed to assess the effect of changing from a 4 L-PEG (KleanPrep) to a 2 L-PEG + ascorbic acid (MoviPrep) bowel preparation on CR and BC.

Methods In order to eliminate selection bias, 50 sequential patients who underwent CCE, pre and post change from 4 L-PEG to 2 L-PEG bowel preparation regimen were included in the study. Both groups used a Phosphosoda (NaP) and Gastrograffin booster protocol. Patients’ demographics, indications, BC score, CR and findings were recorded. BC was divided into excellent, adequate or inadequate. Completion was defined as passage of CCE beyond the dentate line. Chi squared test was used to compare proportions and p value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results Demographics were similar between the 4 L-PEG vs 2 L-PEG groups – mean age 50.1 (24–80) vs 44.6 (16–77); 48% (n = 24) vs 36% (n = 18) males respectively. Chronic diarrhoea was the most common indication for CCE in both groups (28%, n = 14 in both). For CR, there was a statistically significant difference favouring 2 L-PEG over 4 L-PEG; 72% (n = 36) vs 54% (n = 27), p = 0.03. For BC, there were no significant difference between excellent, adequate and inadequate views between the two groups; excellent 22% (n = 11) vs 24% (n = 12), p = 0.8, adequate 66% (n = 33) vs 62% (n = 31), p = 0.7, inadequate 12% (n = 6) vs 14% (n = 7),p = 0.8. Positive findings were similar between groups 50% (n = 25) and 56% (n = 28)), p = 0.5.

Conclusions Reduced volume bowel preparation using a PEG solution which includes ascorbic acid (MoviPrep) improved CCE performance in our patient cohort. Completion rates overall remain suboptimal at 72%. Other potential cofounders in improving CR including changing booster regimen should also be analysed.