کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
3308113 1210396 2009 9 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Are bowel purgatives and prokinetics useful for small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled study
موضوعات مرتبط
علوم پزشکی و سلامت پزشکی و دندانپزشکی بیماری‌های گوارشی
پیش نمایش صفحه اول مقاله
Are bowel purgatives and prokinetics useful for small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled study
چکیده انگلیسی

BackgroundCapsule endoscopy (CE) is limited by incomplete small-bowel transit and poor view quality in the distal bowel. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the use of bowel purgatives or prokinetics in CE.ObjectiveTo evaluate the usefulness of bowel purgatives and prokinetics in small-bowel CE.DesignProspective single-blind randomized controlled study.SettingAcademic endoscopy unit.PatientsA total of 150 patients prospectively recruited.InterventionPatients were randomized to 1 of 4 preparations: “standard” (fluid restriction then nothing by mouth 12 hours before the procedure, water and simethicone at capsule ingestion [S]); “standard” + 10 mg oral metoclopramide before the procedure (M); Citramag + senna bowel-purgative regimen the evening before CE (CS); Citramag + senna + 10 mg metoclopramide before the procedure (CSM).Main Outcome MeasurementsGastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT), completion rates (CR), view quality, and patient acceptability. Secondary outcome measures: positive findings, diagnostic yield.ResultsNo significant difference was noted among groups for GTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 17.3, 24.7, and 15.1 minutes vs 16.8 minutes, respectively; P = .62, .18, and .30, respectively), SBTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 260, 241, and 201 vs 278, respectively; P = .91, .81, and .32, respectively), or CRs (85%, 85%, and 88% vs 89% for M, CS, and CSM vs S, respectively; P = .74, .74, and 1.00, respectively). There was no significant difference in view quality among groups (of 44: 38, 37, and 40 vs 37 for M, CS, and CSM, vs S, respectively; P = .18, .62, and .12, respectively). Diagnostic yield was similar among the groups. CS and CSM regimens were significantly less convenient (P < .001), and CS was significantly less comfortable (P = .001) than standard preparation.ConclusionsBowel purgatives and prokinetics do not improve CRs or view quality at CE, and bowel purgatives reduce patient acceptability.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy - Volume 69, Issue 6, May 2009, Pages 1120–1128
نویسندگان
, , , , , ,