Endoscopy 2019; 51(04): S30
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681258
ESGE Days 2019 oral presentations
Friday, April 5, 2019 11:00 – 13:00: Capsule – enteroscopy Club B
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

COMPARISON OF THE DIAGNOSTIC YIELD OF “PILLCAM SB3” AND “OMOM” CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY IN SMALL BOWEL BLEEDING

G Blanco-Velasco
1  Endoscopy, CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico
,
OM Solorzano-Pineda
1  Endoscopy, CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico
,
R Zamarripa-Mottu
1  Endoscopy, CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico
,
D Espinosa-Saavedra
1  Endoscopy, CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico
,
OV Hernandez-Mondragon
1  Endoscopy, CMN Siglo XXI, IMSS, Mexico City, Mexico
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 March 2019 (online)

 

Aims:

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of small bowel bleeding (SBB). The CE Pillcam SB3 has a diagnostic yield above 80% for SBB. CE OMOM offers an adequate diagnostic yield with a lower price.

The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of the Pillcam SB3 and OMOM CE in SBB.

Methods:

This is a prospective, comparative, observational, randomized and blinded study. Patients with suspected SBB were included. All the patients were given randomly both CE (OMOM Smart Capsule 2 and Pillcam SB3) with a difference of 24 hours between them and were read by two endoscopists. Saurin's classification was used to divide the findings into P2, P1 and P0. The diagnostic yield and functionality between the two CEs were analyzed.

Results:

We included 20 patients with SBB, 45% female and 65.5 years old. Small bowel complete visualization was achieved in 18 SB3 and in 19 OMOM (p = 0.548). The median intestinal transit time was 355 with SB3 and 240 with OMOM (p = 0.445). The battery time was significantly longer with SB3 (821 vs. 703 minutes, p < 0.001) and the download time was shorter with the OMOM (31 vs. 117 minutes, p < 0.001). Both CEs presented a failure. The cause of the bleeding was identified in 18 SB3 (90%) and 16 OMOM CE (80%) (p = 0.331). P2 lesions were observed in 12 SB3 (60%) and 11 OMOM (p = 0.749). P1 lesions were identified in 3 patients with both capsules and extraintestinal lesions were found in 3 patients with SB3 and in 2 with OMOM (p = 0.633).

Conclusions:

No significant differences were found between the two CEs for the identification of the P2 lesions. Significant differences were observed in the battery life and the download time of both ECs.