Magnetic Steering of Capsule Endoscopy Improves Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Completion Rate
- 10 Downloads
Capsule endoscopy is currently available as a noninvasive and effective diagnostic modality to identify small bowel abnormalities, with a completion rate to the cecum between 75.1 and 95.6%. A novel magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE) system could facilitate passage of the capsule through the pylorus, thereby reducing the gastric transit time (GTT).
We performed this study to determine whether magnetic steering could improve the capsule endoscopy completion rate (CECR) compared to standard protocol.
Patients referred for MCE in our center from June 2017 to November 2017 were prospectively enrolled. Magnetic steering of the capsule through the pylorus was performed after standard gastric examination. CECR, GTT, pyloric transit time (PTT), and rapid gastric transit (GTT ≤ 30 min) rate were compared with a historical control group enrolled from January 2017 to May 2017.
CECR was significantly higher in the intervention group (n = 107) than control group (n = 120) (100% vs. 94.2%, P = 0.02), with a significantly shorter GTT (22.2 vs. 84.5 min, P < 0.001) and PTT (4.4 vs. 56.7 min, P < 0.001). Rapid gastric transit rate in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group (58.9% vs. 15.0%, P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in the diagnostic yields between the two groups.
Magnetic steering of capsule endoscopy improves small bowel CECR by reducing GTT, adding further support to MCE as a practical tool for noninvasive examination of both the stomach and small bowel.
Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03482661.
KeywordsMagnetic steering Capsule endoscopy Small bowel Completion rate
ZL was involved in study concept and design; YYL and JP contributed to registration of the study; YYL, JP, and YZC conducted the study; YYL, XJ, WBZ, YYQ, WZ, and XL contributed to acquisition of data; YYL, JP, and YZC analyzed and interpreted data; JP and YZC drafted the manuscript; YYL contributed to statistical analysis; ZL and ZSL critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content; and ZL and JP contributed to the funding. All authors had access to the study data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
This study is supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (to Z. Liao, No. 81422010); Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of China (to Z. Liao, No. 201271); the Shuguang Program of Shanghai Education Development Foundation and Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (to Z. Liao, No. 15SG33); the Chang Jiang Scholars Program of Ministry of Education (to Z. Liao, No. Q2015190); and Shanghai Sailing Program (to J. Pan, No. 18YF1422800), China. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 2.Kopylov U, Yung DE, Engel T, et al. Diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy versus magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel contrast ultrasound in the evaluation of small bowel Crohn’s disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis Off J Italian Soc Gastroenterol Italian Assoc Study Liver. 2017;49:854–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2017.04.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Pennazio M, Spada C, Eliakim R, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47:352–376. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391855.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Liao Z, Hou X, Lin-Hu EQ, et al. Accuracy of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy, compared with conventional gastroscopy, in detection of gastric diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2016;14:1266.e1–1273.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Zhu SG, Qian YY, Tang XY, et al. Gastric preparation for magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized single-blinded controlled trial. Dig Liver Dis Off J Italian Soc Gastroenterol Italian Assoc Study Liver. 2018;50:42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2017.09.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Girelli CM, Soncini M, Rondonotti E. Implications of small-bowel transit time in the detection rate of capsule endoscopy: a multivariable multicenter study of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:697–702. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i4.697.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Lim YJ, Lee OY, Jeen YT, et al. Indications for detection, completion, and retention rates of small bowel capsule endoscopy based on the 10-year data from the korean capsule endoscopy registry. Clin Endosc. 2015;48:399–404. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2015.48.5.399.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Moroz V, Wilson JS, Kearns P, Wheatley K. Comparison of anticipated and actual control group outcomes in randomised trials in paediatric oncology provides evidence that historically controlled studies are biased in favour of the novel treatment. Trials. 2014;15:481. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-481.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar