Brechmann T, Schmiegel W, Klute L, Rösch T, Pox C
Internal Medicine - Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Universitätsklinik Bergmannsheil GmbH, Bochum, Germany.
Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Z Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb;54(2):146-51. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-106595. Epub 2016 Feb 8.
Due to limited acceptance of colonoscopy as diagnostic and screening test alternatives are warranted. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been shown to be a possible filter test, but because of logistical issues a second bowel preparation is usually required, if consecutive colonoscopy is needed. We therefore evaluated the feasibility of a single bowel preparation for both overnight CCE and (therapeutical) colonoscopy thereafter.
Patients from two university hospitals referred to undergo colonoscopy were prospectively included in a dual centre feasibility study. A polyethylene glycol (PEG) based bowel preparation-schedule with ingestion of a colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) at 10pm and subsequent colonoscopy at about 12am on the next day was investigated. The first generation PillCam colon capsule was used with 4 different preparation protocols containing several prokinetics in different compositions (i. e. metoclopramide, erythromycin, sennosoides). The main endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed both CCE and colonoscopy; secondary endpoints were capsule transit times, amount of colon seen on CCE, bowel cleanliness, sensitivity and specifity of CCE and patients' acceptance.
50 patients between 18 and 75 years were included. The sequence of overnight colon capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy was successfully completed in all but one (one refused colonoscopy). The capsule was excreted during recording time in 86 % of examinations, visualization of the complete colon was possible in 60 %, but adequate colon preparation was achieved in only 45 % irrespective of the regimen used. The preparation regimen consisting of a PEG-solution, erythromycin as prokinetic drug followed by PEG-solution as boost showed the largest proportion of adequate preparations. Overall sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps of any size were 65 % and 76 %, respectively. 26 of 30 patients (86.7 %) returned the subjective assessment questionnaire. 23 patients (88 %) reported mild to no discomfort or embarrassment during CCE, whereas 15 patients (58 %) did during the preparation procedure. Drinking the purgative solution was the most inconvenient step in 84 % of cases, drinking the boosts during CCE the second inconvenient step (60 %).
Overnight CCE-procedure followed by direct capsule-reading is feasible and safe and might avoid repetitive bowel preparation for subsequent colonoscopy. The bowel preparation needs to be improved.
由于结肠镜检查的接受度有限,因此需要有其他诊断和筛查测试方法。结肠胶囊内镜检查(CCE)已被证明是一种可能的筛选测试,但由于后勤问题,如果需要连续进行结肠镜检查,通常需要进行第二次肠道准备。因此,我们评估了单次肠道准备用于夜间CCE及随后的(治疗性)结肠镜检查的可行性。
来自两家大学医院的拟接受结肠镜检查的患者被前瞻性纳入一项双中心可行性研究。研究了一种基于聚乙二醇(PEG)的肠道准备方案,即晚上10点摄入结肠胶囊内镜(CCE),第二天凌晨12点左右进行结肠镜检查。使用第一代PillCam结肠胶囊,采用4种不同的准备方案,这些方案含有不同成分的多种促动力药(即胃复安、红霉素、番泻叶苷)。主要终点是完成CCE和结肠镜检查的患者比例;次要终点包括胶囊通过时间、CCE观察到的结肠范围、肠道清洁度、CCE的敏感性和特异性以及患者的接受度。
纳入了50名年龄在18至75岁之间的患者。除1名患者(1名拒绝结肠镜检查)外,所有患者均成功完成了夜间结肠胶囊内镜检查和结肠镜检查的顺序。在86%的检查中,胶囊在记录时间内排出,60%的患者可以观察到整个结肠,但无论采用何种方案,只有45%的患者实现了充分的肠道准备。由PEG溶液、作为促动力药物的红霉素随后再用PEG溶液加强组成的准备方案显示出充分准备的比例最高。CCE对任何大小息肉的总体敏感性和特异性分别为65%和76%。30名患者中有26名(86.7%)返回了主观评估问卷。23名患者(88%)报告在CCE期间有轻度不适或无不适或尴尬,而15名患者(58%)在准备过程中有不适。在84%的病例中,饮用泻药溶液是最不方便的步骤,在CCE期间饮用加强液是第二不方便的步骤(60%)。
夜间CCE程序后直接读取胶囊是可行且安全的,可能避免后续结肠镜检查的重复肠道准备。肠道准备需要改进。