Booster medication to achieve capsule excretion in colon capsule endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of three regimens

Abstract

Background and study aims To achieve a complete colon capsule endoscopy, the entire colon must be visualized, clean and filled with clear fluids. The primary aim was to compare three booster regimens in colon capsule endoscopy in achieving capsule excretion within recording time. Secondary aims were quality of bowel cleansing and completion rate (both adequate cleansing and capsule excretion).

Patients and methods Patients scheduled for follow-up colonoscopy due to previous neoplastic findings or familial history of colorectal cancer aged 18 to 70 years were eligible. Bowel preparation was 2-L split doses of polyethylene glycol. Patients were randomized to three booster regimens of either polyethylene glycol (Group A), sulfate-based solution (Group B) or polyethylene glycol with iodine oral contrast (Group C).

Results One hundred eighty participants were included and randomized into three groups of 60. Capsule excretion was 70 % (95 % CI: 58 – 80) in Group A, 73 % (95 % CI: 61 – 83) in Group B and in 68 % (95 % CI: 56 – 79) in Group C, no statistically significant differences. Bowel cleansing grade was statistically significant better in Group B compared to Group A (P = 0.03), but there were no statistically significant differences between Groups C and A (P = 0.40). Complete examination rate was 65 % (95 % CI: 53 – 77), 72 % (95 % CI: 61 – 83) and 62 % (95 % CI: 50 – 74) in Group A, B and C respectively, not statistically significant different.

Conclusions Sulfate-based solution resulted in statistically significant better bowel cleansing compared to polyethylene glycol. Overall the excretion and completion rate was suboptimal. Achieving a high completion rate using patient-tolerable and low-risk compounds is still a challenge.

• References

• 1 Kobaek-Larsen M, Kroijer R, Dyrvig AK. et al. Back-to-back colon capsule endoscopy and optical colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening individuals. Colorectal Dis 2018; 20: 479-485
• 2 Spada C, Pasha SF, Gross SA. et al. Accuracy of First- and Second-Generation Colon Capsules in Endoscopic Detection of Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1533-1543
• 3 Rex DK, Adler SN, Aisenberg J. et al. Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy in detecting colorectal polyps in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 948-957
• 4 Arguelles-Arias F, San-Juan-Acosta M, Belda A. et al. Preparations for colon capsule endoscopy. Prospective and randomized comparative study between two preparations for colon capsule endoscopy: PEG 2 liters + ascorbic acid versus PEG 4 liters. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2014; 106: 312-317
• 5 Saito Y, Saito S, Oka S. et al. Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of colon capsule endoscopy in the detection of lesions of the colon: prospective, multicenter, open study. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 861-869
• 6 Adler SN, Hassan C, Metzger Y. et al. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy is feasible in the out-of-clinic setting. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 570-575
• 7 Holleran G, Leen R, O'Morain C. et al. Colon capsule endoscopy as possible filter test for colonoscopy selection in a screening population with positive fecal immunology. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 473-478
• 8 Spada C, Hassan C, Barbaro B. et al. Colon capsule versus CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy: a prospective, comparative trial. Gut 2015; 64: 272-281
• 9 Nastou D, Palmer H, Lewandowski JL. et al. Sa1099 Colon capsule transit times and image quality in patients prepared with polyethylene glycol+ascorbate (PEG+A) and booster of either PEG+A or gastrografin and low dose sodium phosphate (NaP). Gastroenterology 148: 223
• 10 Spada C, Hassan C, Munoz-Navas M. et al. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 581-589
• 11 Togashi K, Fujita T, Utano K. et al. Gastrografin as an alternative booster to sodium phosphate in colon capsule endoscopy: safety and efficacy pilot study. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: 659-661
• 12 Hagel AF, Gabele E, Raithel M. et al. Colon capsule endoscopy: detection of colonic polyps compared with conventional colonoscopy and visualization of extracolonic pathologies. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 28: 77-82
• 13 Farnbacher MJ, Krause HH, Hagel AF. et al. QuickView video preview software of colon capsule endoscopy: reliability in presenting colorectal polyps as compared to normal mode reading. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 339-346
• 14 Adrian-de-Ganzo Z, Alarcon-Fernandez O, Ramos L. et al. Uptake of colon capsule endoscopy vs colonoscopy for screening relatives of patients with colorectal cancer. clin gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 2293-2301
• 15 Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y. et al. Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 1026-1031
• 16 Negreanu L, Babiuc R, Bengus A. et al. PillCam Colon 2 capsule in patients unable or unwilling to undergo colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 5: 559-567
• 17 Rondonotti E, Borghi C, Mandelli G. et al. Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy and computed tomographic colonography in individuals with positive results from the fecal occult blood test. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1303-1310
• 18 Morgan DR, Malik PR, Romeo DP. et al. Initial US evaluation of second-generation capsule colonoscopy for detecting colon polyps. BMJ open gastroenterol 2016; 3
• 19 Pandis N, Chung B, Scherer RW. et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials. BMJ 2017; 357: j2835
• 20 Leighton JA, Rex DK. A grading scale to evaluate colon cleansing for the PillCam COLON capsule: a reliability study. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 123-127