For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
9
views
38
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      297
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Lubiprostone improves visualization of small bowel for capsule endoscopy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled 2-way crossover study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and study aims

           Lubiprostone has been reported to be an anti-constipation drug. The aim of the study was to investigate the usefulness of lubiprostone both for bowel preparation and as a propulsive agent in small bowel endoscopy.

          Patients and methods

           This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover study of subjects who volunteered to undergo capsule endoscopy (CE). A total of 20 subjects (16 male and 4 female volunteers) were randomly assigned to receive a 24-μg tablet of lubiprostone 120 minutes prior to capsule ingestion for CE (L regimen), or a placebo tablet 120 minutes prior to capsule ingestion for CE (P regimen). Main outcome was gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT). Secondary outcome was adequacy of small-bowel cleansing and the fluid score in the small bowel. The quality of the capsule endoscopic images and fluid in the small bowel were assessed on 5-point scale.

          Results

           The capsule passed into the small bowel in all cases. Median GTT was 57.3 (3 – 221) minutes for the P regimen and 61.3 (10 – 218) minutes for the L regimen ( P  = 0.836). Median SBTT was 245.0 (164 – 353) minutes for the P regimen and 228.05 (116 – 502) minutes for the L regimen ( P  = 0.501). The image quality score in the small bowel was 3.05 ± 1.08 for the P regimen and 3.80 ± 0.49 for the L regimen ( P  < 0.001). The fluid score in the small bowel was 2.04 ± 1.58 for the P regimen and 2.72 ± 1.43 for the L regimen ( P  < 0.001). There was a significant difference between the 2 regimens with regard to image quality. The fluid score was more plentiful for the L regimen than for the P regimen. There were no cases of capsule retention or serious adverse events in this study.

          Conclusion

           Our study showed that use of lubiprostone prior to CE significantly improved visualization of the small bowel during CE as a result of inducing fluid secretion into the small bowel.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A prospective trial comparing small bowel radiographs and video capsule endoscopy for suspected small bowel disease.

          F Foschia, A Vecchioli Scaldazza, Maria Riccioni … (2002)
          This study was undertaken to prospectively compare the clinical outcomes of small bowel radiographs with the wireless capsule endoscopy. Twenty-two patients were selected consecutively because of suspected small bowel disease. Two patients were excluded owing to ileal stenosis. Thus, the results of barium follow-through and the Given M2A wireless video capsule (Given Imaging Ltd., Yoqneam, Israel) endoscopy were compared in 20 patients (13 men; mean age, 52.5 yr; range, 29-78 yr). Barium follow-through was normal in 17 patients and showed ileal nodularity in 3 patients. Capsule endoscopy was normal in 3 patients and showed positive findings in the remaining 17 patients. The barium study was considered diagnostic in 4 (20%) patients. The capsule endoscopy was considered diagnostic in 9 (45%) patients, suspicious in 8 (40%) patients, and failed in 3 (15%) patients. For obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, the diagnostic potential of barium follow-through was much worse as compared with the capsule endoscopy (5% vs. 31%, P < 0.05). Capsule endoscopy was well tolerated and better accepted by patients when compared with the most recently performed endoscopic procedure. The video capsule endoscope was found to be superior to small bowel radiograph for evaluation of small bowel diseases. However, this novel wireless endoscope system needs further assessment because of limitations such as difficulties in interpretation of potentially nonspecific findings.
          Article 0 comments Cited 87 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding: Results of a pilot study.

            Blair Lewis, Paul Swain (2002)
            A video capsule has been developed to acquire photographic images of the small intestine during normal peristaltic motion. Patients between 21 and 80 years of age referred for enteroscopy because of obscure GI bleeding were offered entry into a trial in which they would undergo both capsule endoscopy and subsequent push enteroscopy. Results of capsule examinations were compared with push enteroscopy findings. Capsule endoscopy was performed with the Given M2A video capsule system. Twenty-one patients (12 women, 9 men, average age 61 years) were enrolled, all of whom completed the study. A bleeding site was found in 11 of 20 patients during capsule endoscopy. No additional intestinal diagnoses were made by enteroscopy. The yield of push enteroscopy in the evaluation of obscure bleeding was 30% (6/20), the yield of capsule endoscopy 55% (11/20). This difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0625). Capsule endoscopy found a distal source of bleeding in 5 of 14 patients who had normal push enteroscopic examinations. Patients preferred capsule endoscopy to enteroscopy. This pilot study demonstrates that capsule endoscopy provides excellent visualization of the small intestine, is well tolerated by patients, and is safe. Capsule endoscopy identified small intestinal bleeding sites beyond the range of push enteroscopy.
            Article 0 comments Cited 60 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Complications, limitations, and failures of capsule endoscopy: a review of 733 cases.

              Roberto De Masi, Marco Pennazio, Juan Manuel Herrerías … (2005)
              Although a variety of technical and clinical problems of capsule endoscopy have been reported, their incidence and clinical importance are unknown. The objective was to evaluate the incidence and the type of such events. This was a retrospective analysis of 733 consecutive examinations at 4 large referral centers. The main outcome measurements were that the problems were classified as "technical," i.e., related to the functioning of the equipment, and "clinical," i.e., related to patient characteristics. For each type of event, the causes and the impact on the ability to reach a diagnosis were examined. A total of 183 problems were recorded in 174 patients (23.7%): one problem occurred in 165 patients, two in 9 patients. In 8.46% of patients, technical limitations or failures, or clinical complications prevented or hampered diagnosis. Technical problems (e.g., gaps in the recordings, short duration of capsule batteries, failure of downloading) occurred in the early phase of capsule use in 8.6% of examinations and prevented or hampered diagnosis in 2.9%. Clinical problems (difficulty/inability to swallow the capsule, incomplete small-bowel examination) occurred in 16.4% of examinations and hampered or prevented diagnosis in 6.4%. Capsule retention that required surgical or endoscopic retrieval occurred in 1.9% of cases. Technical problems were rare and hampered or prevented the diagnosis in a very small number of cases. The majority of clinical failures were related to an incomplete small-bowel examination.
              Article 0 comments Cited 57 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Endosc Int Open
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Endosc Int Open
                Journal ID (doi): 10.1055/s-00025476
                Title: Endoscopy International Open
                Publisher: © Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Stuttgart · New York )
                ISSN (Print): 2364-3722
                ISSN (Electronic): 2196-9736
                Publication date (Print): June 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): 31 May 2017
                Volume: 5
                Issue: 6
                Pages: E424-E429
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine
                [2 ]Office of Postgraduate Medical Education, Yokohama City University Hospital
                [3 ]Department of General Medicine, Yokohama City University School of Medicine
                Author notes
                Corresponding author Masahiko Inamori, M.D., Ph. D. Office of Postgraduate Medical Education Yokohama City University Hospital 3-9 FukuuraKanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004Japan+81-45-784-3546 inamorim@ 123456med.yokohama-cu.ac.jp
                Article
                DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-105487
                PMC ID: 5451284
                SO-VID: 15141e03-c9fa-4d04-a949-632c63126e45
                Copyright © © Thieme Medical Publishers
                History
                Date received : 30 May 2016
                Date accepted : 06 February 2017
                Categories
                Subject: Original article

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article