BACKGROUND Capsule endoscopy(CE) allows for a non-invasive small bowel evaluation for a wide range of gastrointestinal(GI) symptoms and diseases. Capsule technology has been rapidly advancing over recent years, often ...BACKGROUND Capsule endoscopy(CE) allows for a non-invasive small bowel evaluation for a wide range of gastrointestinal(GI) symptoms and diseases. Capsule technology has been rapidly advancing over recent years, often improving image frequency and quality. The Pillcam~? SB3(SB3) capsule is one such technology that offers an adaptive frame rate advantage over the previous versions of the capsule the Pillcam~? SB2(SB2). Some have proposed that this improvement in capsule technology may lead to increased diagnostic yields; however, real world clinical data is currently lacking.AIM To evaluate the clinically relevant findings of SB3 and SB2 capsules in a population of United States veterans.METHODS A retrospective analysis of 260 consecutive CE studies was performed including130 SB3 and 130 SB2 capsule studies. Recorded variables included: age, gender,type of capsule, body mass index, exam completion, inpatient status, opioid use,diabetes, quality of preparation, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time,indication, finding, and if the exam resulted in a change in clinical management.The primary outcome measured was the detection of clinically relevant findings between SB3 and SB2 capsules.RESULTS Mean age of the study population was 67.1 ± 10.4 years and 94.2% of patients were male. Of these 28.1% were on opioid users. The most common indications for capsule procedure were occult GI bleeding(74.6%) and overt GI bleeding(14.6%). Rates of incomplete exam were similar between SB3 and SB2 groups(16.9% vs 9.2%, P = 0.066). The overall rate of clinically relevant finding was48.9% in our study. No significant difference was observed in SB3 vs SB2 capsules for clinically relevant findings(46.2% vs 51.5%, P = 0.385) or change in clinical management(40.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.135).CONCLUSION Our study found no significant difference in clinically relevant findings between SB3 and SB2 capsules.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Capsule endoscopy(CE) allows for a non-invasive small bowel evaluation for a wide range of gastrointestinal(GI) symptoms and diseases. Capsule technology has been rapidly advancing over recent years, often improving image frequency and quality. The Pillcam~? SB3(SB3) capsule is one such technology that offers an adaptive frame rate advantage over the previous versions of the capsule the Pillcam~? SB2(SB2). Some have proposed that this improvement in capsule technology may lead to increased diagnostic yields; however, real world clinical data is currently lacking.AIM To evaluate the clinically relevant findings of SB3 and SB2 capsules in a population of United States veterans.METHODS A retrospective analysis of 260 consecutive CE studies was performed including130 SB3 and 130 SB2 capsule studies. Recorded variables included: age, gender,type of capsule, body mass index, exam completion, inpatient status, opioid use,diabetes, quality of preparation, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time,indication, finding, and if the exam resulted in a change in clinical management.The primary outcome measured was the detection of clinically relevant findings between SB3 and SB2 capsules.RESULTS Mean age of the study population was 67.1 ± 10.4 years and 94.2% of patients were male. Of these 28.1% were on opioid users. The most common indications for capsule procedure were occult GI bleeding(74.6%) and overt GI bleeding(14.6%). Rates of incomplete exam were similar between SB3 and SB2 groups(16.9% vs 9.2%, P = 0.066). The overall rate of clinically relevant finding was48.9% in our study. No significant difference was observed in SB3 vs SB2 capsules for clinically relevant findings(46.2% vs 51.5%, P = 0.385) or change in clinical management(40.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.135).CONCLUSION Our study found no significant difference in clinically relevant findings between SB3 and SB2 capsules.
