Loading…
Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy
AIM:To evaluate small bowel cleansing quality,diagnostic yield and transit time,comparing three cleansing protocols prior to capsule endoscopy.METHODS:Sixty patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to one of the following cleansing protocols:patients in Group A underwent a 24 h liquid die...
Saved in:
Published in: | World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy 2013-02, Vol.5 (2), p.67-73 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | AIM:To evaluate small bowel cleansing quality,diagnostic yield and transit time,comparing three cleansing protocols prior to capsule endoscopy.METHODS:Sixty patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to one of the following cleansing protocols:patients in Group A underwent a 24 h liquid diet and overnight fasting;patients in Group B followed protocol A and subsequently were administered 2 L of polyethylene glycol(PEG) the evening before the procedure;patients in Group C followed protocol B and were additionally administered 100 mg of simethicone 30 min prior to capsule ingestion.Small bowel cleansing was independently assessed by two experienced endoscopists and classified as poor,fair,good or excellent according to the proportion of small bowel mucosa under perfect conditions for visualization.When there was no agreement between the two endoscopists,the images were reviewed and discussed until a consensus was reached.The preparation was considered acceptable if > 50% or adequate if > 75% of the mucosa was in perfect cleansing condition.The amount of bubbles was assessed independently and it was considered significant if it prevented a correct interpretation of the images.Positive endoscopic findings,gastric emptying time(GET) and small bowel transit time(SBTT) were recorded for each examination.RESULTS:There was a trend favoring Group B in achieving an acceptable(including fair,good or excellent) level of cleansing(Group A:65%;Group B:83.3%;Group C:68.4%) [P = not significant(NS)] and favoring Group C in attaining an excellent level of cleansing(Group A:10%;Group B:16.7%;Group C:21.1%)(P = NS).The number of patients with an adequate cleansing of the small bowel,corresponding to an excellent or good classification,was 5(25%) in Group A,5(27.8%) in Group B and 4(21.1%) in Group C(P = 0.892).Conversely,7 patients(35%) in Group A,3 patients(16.7%) in Group B and 6 patients(31.6%) in Group C were considered to have poor small bowel cleansing(P = 0.417),with significant fluid or debris such that the examination was unreliable.The proportion of patients with a significant amount of bubbles was 50% in Group A,27.8% in Group B and 15.8% in Group C(P = 0.065).This was significantly lower in Group C when compared to Group A(P = 0.026).The mean GET was 27.8 min for Group A,27.2 min for Group B and 40.7 min for Group C(P = 0.381).The mean SBTT was 256.4 min for Group A,256.1 min for Group B and 258.1 min for Group C(P = 0.998).Regarding to the rate of c |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1948-5190 1948-5190 |
DOI: | 10.4253/wjge.v5.i2.67 |