For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
10
views
40
references
 Top references
cited by
5
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      197
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Optimal Bowel Preparation for Video Capsule Endoscopy

      review-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

          During video capsule endoscopy (VCE), several factors, such as air bubbles, food material in the small bowel, and delayed gastric and small bowel transit time, influence diagnostic yield, small bowel visualization quality, and cecal completion rate. Therefore, bowel preparation before VCE is as essential as bowel preparation before colonoscopy. To date, there have been many comparative studies, consensus, and guidelines regarding different kinds of bowel cleansing agents in bowel preparation for small bowel VCE. Presently, polyethylene glycol- (PEG-) based regimens are given primary recommendation. Sodium picosulphate-based regimens are secondarily recommended, as their cleansing efficacy is less than that of PEG-based regimens. Sodium phosphate as well as complementary simethicone and prokinetics use are considered. In this paper, we reviewed previous studies regarding bowel preparation for small bowel VCE and suggested optimal bowel preparation of VCE.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

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

          European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE): recommendations (2009) on clinical use of video capsule endoscopy to investigate small-bowel, esophageal and colonic diseases.

          Yaron Niv, Pedro J. Rey, C Spada … (2010)
          These recommendations on video capsule endoscopy, an emerging technology with an impact on the practice of endoscopy, were developed by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guidelines Committee. The first draft of each section was prepared by one or two members of the writing team, who were selected as experts on the content of that section on the basis of their published work. They used evidence-based methodology, performing MEDLINE and PubMed literature searches to identify relevant clinical studies. Abstracts from scientific meetings were included only if there was no published full paper on a particular topic. If there was disagreement, the first author of the Guideline made the final decision. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of the supporting evidence. The draft guideline was critically reviewed by all authors and submitted to the ESGE councillors for their critical review before approval of the final document. The ESGE Guidelines Committee acknowledges that this document is based on a critical review of the data available at the time of preparation and that further studies may be needed to clarify some aspects. Moreover, this Guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document should be regarded as supplying recommendations only to gastroenterologists in providing care to their patients. It is not a set of rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care, or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. These recommendations must be interpreted according to the clinician's knowledge, expertise, and clinical judgment in the management of individual patients and, if necessary, a course of action that varies from recommendations must be undertaken. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart. New York.
          Article 0 comments Cited 70 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a ten-point contemporary review.

            Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Emanuele Rondonotti, Alexandros Karargyris (2013)
            The introduction of capsule endoscopy (CE) in clinical practice increased the interest for the study of the small-bowel. Consequently, in about 10 years, an impressive quantity of literature on indications, diagnostic yield (DY), safety profile and technical evolution of CE has been published as well as several reviews. At present time, there are 5 small-bowel capsule enteroscopy (SBCE) models in the worldwide market. Head-to-head trials have showed in the great majority of studies comparable results in terms of DY, image quality and completion rate. CE meta-analyses formed the basis of national/international guidelines; these guidelines place CE in a prime position for the diagnostic work-up of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, known and/or suspected Crohn's disease and possible small-bowel neoplasia. A 2-L polyethylene glycol-based purge, administered the day before the procedure, is the most widely practiced preparation regimen. Whether this regimen can be further improved (i.e., by further decreasing its volume, changing the timing of administration, coupling it with prokinetics and/or other factors) or if it can really affect the DY, is still under discussion. Faecal calprotectin has been used in SBCE studies in two settings: in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, to evaluate the type and extent of mucosal damage and, more importantly from a clinical point of view, in patients with known or suspected Crohn's disease for assessment of inflammation activity. Although there is still a lot of debate around the exact reasons of SBCE poor performance in various small-bowel segments, it is worth to remember that the capsule progress is non-steerable, hence more rapid in the proximal than in lower segments of the small-bowel. Capsule aspiration, a relatively unexpected complication, has been reported with increasing frequency. This is probably related with the increase in the mean age of patients undergoing CE. CE video review is a time-consuming procedure. Therefore, several attempts have been made to develop technical software features, in order to make CE video analysis easier and shorter (without jeopardizing its accuracy). Suspected Blood Indicator, QuickView and Fujinon Intelligent Chromo Endoscopy are some of the software tools that have been checked in various clinical studies to date.
            Article 0 comments Cited 36 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Simethicone for gastrointestinal endoscopic visibility.

              Cun Liao, Liucheng Wu, Feng Gao … (2011)
              The value of supplemental use of Simethicone in endoscopy including capsule endoscopy (CE), colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy is not addressed and is controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on the use of Simethicone for endoscopy were carried out. The effects of this preparation on the following endpoints were examined: small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), completion rate, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, diagnostic yield, efficacy of bowel preparation, degree of air bubbles and duration time. A total of 13 studies were eligible in this meta-analysis; 4 studies comparing purgative or fasting plus Simethicone with purgative or fasting alone for capsule endoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before CE, the SBVQ was significantly better ([odds ratio] OR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.74-4.65, p = 0.00), and the completion rate was comparable (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.44-1.44, p = 0.454). Also, 7 studies comparing purgative plus Simethicone with purgative alone for colonoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before colonoscopy, the efficacy of colon preparation was comparable (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 0.56-7.53, p = 0.27), but the air bubbles were significantly decreased (OR = 39.32, 95% CI: 11.38-135.86, p = 0.00). Supplemental use of Simethicone before endoscopy improves the SBVQ, especially for patients who received no purgative, but does not affect the CE completion rate. It decreases air bubbles in the colonic lumen, but does not improve bowel preparation. And its effect on diagnostic yield remains controversial.
              Article 0 comments Cited 34 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Gastroenterol Res Pract
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Gastroenterol Res Pract
                Journal ID (publisher-id): GRP
                Title: Gastroenterology Research and Practice
                Publisher: Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                ISSN (Print): 1687-6121
                ISSN (Electronic): 1687-630X
                Publication date (Print): 2016
                Publication date (Electronic): 31 December 2015
                Volume: 2016
                Electronic Location Identifier: 6802810
                Affiliations
                1Department of Internal Medicine, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, Republic of Korea
                2Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                3Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Anastasios Koulaouzidis

                Article
                DOI: 10.1155/2016/6802810
                PMC ID: 4736012
                PubMed ID: 26880894
                SO-VID: c243ff4f-1b7c-4b49-ab73-3c9b01242a4f
                Copyright © Copyright © 2016 Hyun Joo Song et al.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 30 June 2015
                Date accepted : 22 October 2015
                Categories
                Subject: Review Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Gastroenterology & Hepatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content197

                See all similar

                Cited by5

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors422

                See all reference authors