Prospective, randomized comparison of two small-bowel capsule endoscopy systems in patients with obscure GI bleeding

BackgroundVideo capsule endoscopy is the first-intention examination in patients with obscure GI bleeding. The new MiroCam capsule, when using electric-field propagation for transmission, has been poorly evaluated in a clinical setting, in contrast with the PillCam SB2 capsule.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic concordance (κ value) between PillCam SB2 and MiroCam capsule examinations performed in the same patients.Design and SettingProspective, randomized study in 7 endoscopy units.Patients and InterventionEighty-three consecutive patients, ingesting the 2 capsules at a 1-hour interval.ResultsSeventy-three patients were analyzed (10 technical issues). There were 31 concordant negative cases (42.4%) and 30 concordant positive cases (41.1%). The study showed satisfactory diagnostic concordance between the 2 systems (κ = 0.66). In 12 patients (16.4%), the final diagnosis was different: 9 patients had positive findings on MiroCam examination but no image detected with PillCam SB2, 2 had positive findings on PillCam examination only, and 1 patient had 2 different diagnoses. A positive diagnosis was obtained in 46.6% and 56.2% of patients with PillCam SB2 and MiroCam capsule, respectively, so that the procedures identified 78.6% and 95.2% of positive cases, respectively (P = .02). Small-bowel transit time and capsule reading time were significantly longer in MiroCam procedures.LimitationsTechnical failures possibly related to capsule interference.ConclusionThis study shows at least comparable efficiency of the MiroCam compared with the PillCam SB2 capsule system for the diagnosis of obscure GI bleeding.