A Pilot Study of Sequential Capsule Endoscopy Using MiroCam and PillCam SB Devices with Different Transmission Technologies.
- Author:
Hee Man KIM
1
;
Yoon Jae KIM
;
Hong Jeong KIM
;
Semi PARK
;
Jeong Youp PARK
;
Sung Kwan SHIN
;
Jae Hee CHEON
;
Sang Kil LEE
;
Yong Chan LEE
;
Seung Woo PARK
;
Seungmin BANG
;
Si Young SONG
Author Information
1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Yonsei Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. sysong@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Capsule endoscopy;
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage;
Feasibility study;
Diagnosis
- MeSH:
Capsule Endoscopy;
Capsules;
Cecum;
Feasibility Studies;
Fluoroscopy;
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Pilot Projects
- From:Gut and Liver
2010;4(2):192-200
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Studies have investigated the use of different types of radiofrequency capsules for comparison or sequential capsule endoscopy, but none have compared the MiroCam device - which utilizes a novel data transmission technology - with other capsules. This study compared the feasibility of sequential capsule endoscopy using the MiroCam and PillCam SB devices, which employ different transmission technologies. METHODS: Patients with diseases requiring capsule endoscopy were enrolled. After a 12-hour fast, one randomly selected capsule was swallowed. The second capsule was swallowed once fluoroscopy had indicated that the first capsule had migrated below the gastric outlet. RESULTS: The total operating time in 24 patients was 702+/-60 min (mean+/-SD) for the MiroCam and 446+/-28 min for the PillCam SB (p<0.0001). The rate of a complete examination to the cecum was 83.3% for the MiroCam and 58.3% for the PillCam SB (p=0.031). Diagnostic yields for the MiroCam, PillCam SB, and sequential capsule endoscopy were 45.8%, 41.7%, and 50.0%, respectively. The agreement rate between the two capsules was 87.5%, with a kappa value of 0.74. Electrical interference in data transmission between the two capsules was not observed, but temporary visual interferences were observed in seven patients (29.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential capsule endoscopy with the MiroCam and PillCam SB produced slight but nonsignificant increases in the diagnostic yield, and the two capsules did not exhibit electrical interference. A larger trial is necessary for elucidating the usefulness of sequential capsule endoscopy.
