Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(06): E735-E744
DOI: 10.1055/a-1790-5996
Original article

Comparison of patient tolerance and acceptability of magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy and flexible endoscopy in the investigation of dyspepsia

Foong Way David Tai
1   Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, United Kingdom
2   Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
,
Hey Long Ching
1   Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, United Kingdom
2   Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
,
Marion Sloan
3   Sloan Medical Centre, Sheffield, United Kingdom
,
Reena Sidhu
1   Academic Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, United Kingdom
2   Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
,
Mark McAlindon
2   Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
› Author AffiliationsSupported by: BMA Foundation for Medical Research

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Interventional, parallel assignment, non-randomized, prospective at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03420729
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Oropharyngeal intubation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is uncomfortable, associated with aerosol generation and transmission of airborne microbes. Less-invasive alternatives may be better tolerated. In this study, patient tolerance and acceptability of EGD and transnasal endoscopy (TNE) have been compared with magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy (MACE).

Patients and methods A comparison of MACE with EGD and TNE in the investigation of dyspepsia was performed. Factors affecting patient tolerance and acceptability were examined using the Endoscopy Concerns Scale (ECS) and Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q).

Results Patients were significantly more distressed (scoring least to most distress: 1–10) by gagging (6 vs 1), choking (5 vs 1), bloating (2 vs 1), instrumentation (4 vs 1), discomfort during (5 vs 1) and after (2 vs 1) EGD compared to MACE (all P < 0.0001). Patients were more distressed by instrumentation (5 vs 1) and discomfort during (5 vs 1) TNE compared to MACE (P = 0.001). Patients were more accepting of MACE than EGD and TNE with a UPC-Q score (scoring least to most acceptable: 0–100) lower for EGD (50 vs 98, P < 0.0001) and TNE (75 vs 88, P = 0.007) than MACE, and a post-procedure ECS score (scoring most to least acceptable: 10–100) higher for EGD (34 vs 11, P < 0.0001) and TNE (25 vs 10.5, P = 0.001) than MACE. MACE would be preferred by 83 % and 64 % of patients even if EGD or TNE respectively was subsequently recommended to obtain biopsies in half of examinations.

Conclusions Gagging and choking during instrumentation, the main causes of patient distress during EGD, occurred less during TNE but tolerance, acceptability and patient experience favored MACE.



Publication History

Received: 27 May 2021

Accepted after revision: 03 January 2022

Article published online:
10 June 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Pohl H, Robertson D, Welch HG. Repeated upper endoscopy in the Medicare population: a retrospective analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160: 154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA, Early DS. et al. Adverse events of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 707-718
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Levy I, Gralnek IM. Complications of diagnostic colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, and enteroscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30: 705-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Macdonald S, Macleod U, Campbell NC. et al. Systematic review of factors influencing patient and practitioner delay in diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal cancer. In Br J Cancer 2006: 1272-1280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gralnek IM, Hassan C, Beilenhoff U. et al. ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and the COVID-19 pandemic. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 483-490
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sami SS, Subramanian V, Ortiz-Fernández-Sordo J. et al. Performance characteristics of unsedated ultrathin video endoscopy in the assessment of the upper gastrointestinal tract: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 782-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Denzer UW, Rösch T, Hoytat B. et al. Magnetically guided capsule versus conventional gastroscopy for upper abdominal complaints: a prospective blinded study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 49: 101-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Liao Z, Hou X, Lin-Hu EQ. et al. Accuracy of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy, compared with conventional gastroscopy, in detection of gastric diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1266-1273.e1261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ching HL, Hale MF, Kurien M. et al. Diagnostic yield of magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy versus gastroscopy in recurrent and refractory iron deficiency anemia. Endoscopy 2018; 51: 409-418
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ching HL, Hale MF, Sidhu R. et al. Magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy in suspected acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy in detecting focal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 430-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brown S, Bevan R, Rubin G. et al. Patient-derived measures of gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1130-1140 .e1131–1139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bjertnaes O, Iversen HH, Holmboe O. et al. The Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire: reliability and validity of a one-page questionnaire following surveys in three patient populations. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2016; 7: 55-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Condon A, Graff L, Elliot L. et al. Acceptance of colonoscopy requires more than test tolerance. Can J Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 NICE. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management Clinical guideline [CG184]. 2014.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zhao AJ, Qian YY, Sun H. et al. Screening for gastric cancer with magnetically controlled capsule gastroscopy in asymptomatic individuals. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 466-474.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Matos S, Sharma A, Crosby D. Objective assessment of aerosolization during transnasal endoscopy: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1177/01945998211050632.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pan J, Li Z, Liao Z. Noncontact endoscopy for infection-free gastric examination during the COVID-19 pandemic. VideogastrointestinalE 2020; 5: 402-403.e1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Shariff MK, Bird-Lieberman EL, OʼDonovan M. et al. Randomized crossover study comparing efficacy of transnasal endoscopy with that of standard endoscopy to detect Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 954-961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Choe WH, Kim JH, Ko SY. et al. Comparison of transnasal small-caliber vs. peroral conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy for evaluating varices in unsedated cirrhotic patients. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 649-656
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Menon S, Trudgill N. How commonly is upper gastrointestinal cancer missed at endoscopy?. A meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2014; 2: E46-E50
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Zaman A, Katon RM. Push enteroscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding yields a high incidence of proximal lesions within reach of a standard endoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 47: 372-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sidhu R, Sanders DS, Kapur K. et al. Capsule endoscopy changes patient management in routine clinical practice. Dig Dis Sci 2007; 52: 1382-1386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Teh JL, Tan JR, Lau LJ. et al. Longer examination time improves detection of gastric cancer during diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 480-487.e482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Neilson LJ, Patterson J, Wagner Cv. et al. Patient experience of gastrointestinal endoscopy: informing the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™. Frontline Gastroenterol 2020; 11: 209-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Black N, Jenkinson C. Measuring patientsʼ experiences and outcomes. BMJ 2009; 339: b2495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Tierney M, Bevan R, Rees CJ. et al. What do patients want from their endoscopy experience? The importance of measuring and understanding patient attitudes to their care. Frontline Gastroenterol 2016; 7: 191-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rey JF, Ogata H, Hosoe N. et al. Blinded nonrandomized comparative study of gastric examination with a magnetically guided capsule endoscope and standard videoendoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 373-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Beg S, Card T, Warburton S. et al. Diagnosis of Barrettʼs esophagus and esophageal varices using a magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy system. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 4: 773-781.e1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chak A, Alashkar BM, Isenberg GA. et al. Comparative acceptability of transnasal esophagoscopy and esophageal capsule esophagoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial in veterans. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 774-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kravitz RL. Measuring patientsʼ expectations and requests. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 881-888
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McQuaid KR, Laine L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 910-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Vargo JJ, Niklewski PJ, Williams JL. et al. Patient safety during sedation by anesthesia professionals during routine upper endoscopy and colonoscopy: an analysis of 1.38 million procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 101-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wang P, Xu T, Ngamruengphong S. et al. Rates of infection after colonoscopy and osophagogastroduodenoscopy in ambulatory surgery centres in the USA. Gut 2018; 67: 1626-1636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ford AC, Marwaha A, Lim A. et al. What is the prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in subjects with dyspepsia? Systematic review and meta-analysis.. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 830-837 , 837.e831–832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Yung DE, Plevris JN, Koulaouzidis A. Short article: Aspiration of capsule endoscopes: a comprehensive review of the existing literature. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 29: 428-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tanuma T, Morita Y, Doyama H. Current status of transnasal endoscopy worldwide using ultrathin videoscope for upper gastrointestinal tract. Dig Endosc 2016; 28: 25-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ai ZL, Lan CH, Fan LL. et al. Unsedated transnasal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has favorable diagnostic effectiveness, cardiopulmonary safety, and patient satisfaction compared with conventional or sedated endoscopy. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 3565-3572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ching H-L, Hale MF, Sidhu R. et al. Reassessing the value of gastroscopy for the investigation of dyspepsia. Frontline Gastroenterol 2018; 9: 62-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar