TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol on quality of capsule endoscopy
AU - Park, Sung Chul
AU - Keum, Bora
AU - Seo, Yeon Seok
AU - Kim, Yong Sik
AU - Jeen, Yoon Tae
AU - Chun, Hoon Jai
AU - Um, Soon Ho
AU - Kim, Chang Duck
AU - Ryu, Ho Sang
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by a Korea University
PY - 2011/6
Y1 - 2011/6
N2 - Background and Aims: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has the problem that lumen visualization is impaired by bubbles, bile, and debris. The benefits of bowel preparation are still controversial and the best method remains to be determined. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the method of bowel preparation on the quality of visualization and on transit time. Methods: The study sample consisted of 68 patients for CE. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups. In group A (n = 23), patients fasted for 12 h before CE. In groups B (n = 20) and C (n = 25), patients received 2 and 4 l of polyethylene glycol (PEG), respectively. Small bowel images were evaluated by use of a cleansing score system. Representative frames were serially selected at 5-min intervals and scored by assessment of two properties (proportion of luminal visibility and extent of obscuration). Results: The median scores of image quality in groups A, B, and C were 2.26, 2.43, and 2.55 respectively, (P = 0.034). Cecal completion rates, gastric transit time, and small bowel transit time were no different among the three groups. Detection of lesions in groups A, B, and C was 56.5, 65.0, and 68.0%, respectively. Conclusions: Bowel preparation with PEG resulted in better image quality than fasting alone. No significant difference was observed between 2 and 4 l. PEG 2 l rather than 4 l may be a useful method of preparation for CE.
AB - Background and Aims: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has the problem that lumen visualization is impaired by bubbles, bile, and debris. The benefits of bowel preparation are still controversial and the best method remains to be determined. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the method of bowel preparation on the quality of visualization and on transit time. Methods: The study sample consisted of 68 patients for CE. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups. In group A (n = 23), patients fasted for 12 h before CE. In groups B (n = 20) and C (n = 25), patients received 2 and 4 l of polyethylene glycol (PEG), respectively. Small bowel images were evaluated by use of a cleansing score system. Representative frames were serially selected at 5-min intervals and scored by assessment of two properties (proportion of luminal visibility and extent of obscuration). Results: The median scores of image quality in groups A, B, and C were 2.26, 2.43, and 2.55 respectively, (P = 0.034). Cecal completion rates, gastric transit time, and small bowel transit time were no different among the three groups. Detection of lesions in groups A, B, and C was 56.5, 65.0, and 68.0%, respectively. Conclusions: Bowel preparation with PEG resulted in better image quality than fasting alone. No significant difference was observed between 2 and 4 l. PEG 2 l rather than 4 l may be a useful method of preparation for CE.
KW - Bowel preparation
KW - Capsule endoscopy
KW - Cleansing score system
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959703953&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10620-010-1500-2
DO - 10.1007/s10620-010-1500-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 21161380
AN - SCOPUS:79959703953
SN - 0002-9211
VL - 56
SP - 1769
EP - 1775
JO - American Journal of Digestive Diseases
JF - American Journal of Digestive Diseases
IS - 6
ER -