Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
Clinical utility of purgative bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy: a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lamba Mehul, Ryan Kimberley, Hwang Jason, Grimpen Florian, Lim Gary, Cornelius Dale, Moss Alan, Lim Eu Jin, Brown Gregor, Nguyen Nam, Tippett Marcus, Taylor Andrew, Appleyard Mark
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimal bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy (CE) is currently unknown. In this multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial, we assessed clinical effectiveness of 2 types of purgative regimen and a control arm of clear fluid only.
METHODS: Patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding were randomized into 3 arms: arm A, clear fluids only for 18 hours before CE and simethicone 200 mg in 150 mL water immediately before CE; arm B, same as A + 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) 12 hours before CE; and arm C, same as A + 1 L PEG + sodium ascorbate 3 hours before CE. To assess diagnostic yield, lesions were classified either as highly relevant (P2) or less relevant (P0 or P1) lesions. Small-bowel visualization quality (SBVQ) was assessed using the Brotz score. Patient tolerability was assessed using the visual analog scale (0-10, with lower scores indicating better tolerability).
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients completed the study. The mean age was 58.7 years (95% confidence interval, 29.3-87.9), and 47.2% were men. There was no significant difference in diagnosis of P2 lesions in arms A, B, and C (48.7%, 48.0%, and 45.9%, respectively; P = .94). Overall SBVQ and distal SBVQ were similar across the 3 arms (P = .94 and P = .68, respectively). Patients reported better tolerability in arm A (mean score, 1.5) compared with arms B and C (mean score, 3.5 and 2.6, respectively; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a purgative bowel preparation before CE does not improve diagnostic yield or small-bowel visualization and is associated with lower patient tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: ACTRN 12614000883617.).
METHODS: Patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding were randomized into 3 arms: arm A, clear fluids only for 18 hours before CE and simethicone 200 mg in 150 mL water immediately before CE; arm B, same as A + 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) 12 hours before CE; and arm C, same as A + 1 L PEG + sodium ascorbate 3 hours before CE. To assess diagnostic yield, lesions were classified either as highly relevant (P2) or less relevant (P0 or P1) lesions. Small-bowel visualization quality (SBVQ) was assessed using the Brotz score. Patient tolerability was assessed using the visual analog scale (0-10, with lower scores indicating better tolerability).
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients completed the study. The mean age was 58.7 years (95% confidence interval, 29.3-87.9), and 47.2% were men. There was no significant difference in diagnosis of P2 lesions in arms A, B, and C (48.7%, 48.0%, and 45.9%, respectively; P = .94). Overall SBVQ and distal SBVQ were similar across the 3 arms (P = .94 and P = .68, respectively). Patients reported better tolerability in arm A (mean score, 1.5) compared with arms B and C (mean score, 3.5 and 2.6, respectively; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a purgative bowel preparation before CE does not improve diagnostic yield or small-bowel visualization and is associated with lower patient tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: ACTRN 12614000883617.).