The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/1/18 |
| _version_ | 1797626026911596544 |
|---|---|
| author | Benedicte Schelde-Olesen Artur Nemeth Gabriele Wurm Johansson Ulrik Deding Thomas Bjørsum-Meyer Henrik Thorlacius Gunnar Baatrup Anastasios Koulaouzidis Ervin Toth |
| author_facet | Benedicte Schelde-Olesen Artur Nemeth Gabriele Wurm Johansson Ulrik Deding Thomas Bjørsum-Meyer Henrik Thorlacius Gunnar Baatrup Anastasios Koulaouzidis Ervin Toth |
| author_sort | Benedicte Schelde-Olesen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a very low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative to a conventional high-volume laxative. We carried out a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study including patients referred for CCE. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis, with eighty-three patients in each group. We found a CR and ACR of 77% and 67% in the high-volume group and 72% and 75% in the very low-volume group, respectively. In the high-volume group, 54% had complete transit and adequate cleansing, whereas this was the case for 63% in the very low-volume group. No statistically significant difference in CR, ACR, or a combination of the two was found. A very low-volume bowel preparation regimen was non-inferior to a high-volume regimen before CCE in terms of CR and ACR. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T10:04:46Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-43cead2c9cd3441e833dd4f8966447b5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T10:04:46Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj.art-43cead2c9cd3441e833dd4f8966447b52023-11-16T15:07:43ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182022-12-011311810.3390/diagnostics13010018The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule EndoscopyBenedicte Schelde-Olesen0Artur Nemeth1Gabriele Wurm Johansson2Ulrik Deding3Thomas Bjørsum-Meyer4Henrik Thorlacius5Gunnar Baatrup6Anastasios Koulaouzidis7Ervin Toth8Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, 5700 Svendborg, DenmarkDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, 205 02 Malmö, SwedenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, 205 02 Malmö, SwedenDepartment of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, 5700 Svendborg, DenmarkDepartment of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, 5700 Svendborg, DenmarkDepartment of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, 205 02 Malmö, SwedenDepartment of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, 5700 Svendborg, DenmarkDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark (SDU), 5230 Odense, DenmarkDepartment of Gastroenterology, Skåne University Hospital, 205 02 Malmö, SwedenColon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a very low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative to a conventional high-volume laxative. We carried out a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study including patients referred for CCE. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis, with eighty-three patients in each group. We found a CR and ACR of 77% and 67% in the high-volume group and 72% and 75% in the very low-volume group, respectively. In the high-volume group, 54% had complete transit and adequate cleansing, whereas this was the case for 63% in the very low-volume group. No statistically significant difference in CR, ACR, or a combination of the two was found. A very low-volume bowel preparation regimen was non-inferior to a high-volume regimen before CCE in terms of CR and ACR.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/1/18capsule endoscopybowel preparationbowel cleansing qualitycompletion rate |
| spellingShingle | Benedicte Schelde-Olesen Artur Nemeth Gabriele Wurm Johansson Ulrik Deding Thomas Bjørsum-Meyer Henrik Thorlacius Gunnar Baatrup Anastasios Koulaouzidis Ervin Toth The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy Diagnostics capsule endoscopy bowel preparation bowel cleansing quality completion rate |
| title | The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy |
| title_full | The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy |
| title_fullStr | The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy |
| title_short | The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy |
| title_sort | effectiveness of a very low volume compared to high volume laxative in colon capsule endoscopy |
| topic | capsule endoscopy bowel preparation bowel cleansing quality completion rate |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/1/18 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT benedictescheldeolesen theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT arturnemeth theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT gabrielewurmjohansson theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT ulrikdeding theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT thomasbjørsummeyer theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT henrikthorlacius theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT gunnarbaatrup theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT anastasioskoulaouzidis theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT ervintoth theeffectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT benedictescheldeolesen effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT arturnemeth effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT gabrielewurmjohansson effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT ulrikdeding effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT thomasbjørsummeyer effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT henrikthorlacius effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT gunnarbaatrup effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT anastasioskoulaouzidis effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy AT ervintoth effectivenessofaverylowvolumecomparedtohighvolumelaxativeincoloncapsuleendoscopy |