Capsule Enteroscopy Using the Mirocam® versus OMOM® Systems: A Matched Case–Control Study
Author:
Estevinho Maria Manuela12, Pinho Rolando1, Rodrigues Adélia1, Ponte Ana1, Correia João1ORCID, Mesquita Pedro1, Freitas Teresa1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Gastroenterology, Vila Nova de Gaia Espinho Hospital Center, 4434-502 Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal 2. Unit of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Department of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
Abstract
Although several devices are available for small bowel capsule endoscopy, few studies have compared their visualization quality and diagnostic yield, despite users reporting subjective differences between them. This study aims to compare two widely used systems (Mirocam® MC1600 and OMOM® HD). Patients who underwent OMOM® HD capsule enteroscopy between August 2022 and February 2023 were prospectively included consecutively (cases). Controls were retrospectively selected from a database of patients who underwent Mirocam® MC1600 enteroscopy between March 2018 and July 2022 in a 1:1 ratio. Controls were matched for potential confounders (age, sex, indication, hospitalization, comorbidities, and opioid prescription). The small bowel cleanliness (global and divided by tertiles), the diagnostic yield (positive findings) and the transit times (TT) were compared. Overall, 214 patients were included (107:107). Global bowel preparation was similar between the OMOM® and Mirocam® groups. However, the average scores for each tertile were significantly higher when the OMOM® HD capsule was used (p < 0.05). Small bowel TT was shorter for OMOM® HD (265 ± 118 versus 307 ± 87 min, p = 0.020), while the diagnostic yield (55.0%) and relative distribution of lesions were similar. This study suggests that capsule characteristics, namely resolution, and illumination, systematically interfere with the perception of preparation quality. However, this did not affect the diagnostic yield.
Subject
Paleontology,Space and Planetary Science,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference32 articles.
1. Cortegoso Valdivia, P., Skonieczna-Żydecka, K., Elosua, A., Sciberras, M., Piccirelli, S., Rullan, M., Tabone, T., Gawel, K., Stachowski, A., and Lemiński, A. (2022). Indications, Detection, Completion and Retention Rates of Capsule Endoscopy in Two Decades of Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics, 12. 2. Assessment of the Role of a Second Evaluation of Capsule Endoscopy Recordings to Improve Diagnostic Yield and Patient Management;Pinho;GE Port. J. Gastroenterol.,2021 3. (2022). Capsule Endoscopy Market Share, Size, Trends, Industry Analysis Report—Segment Forecast, 2022–2030, Polaris Market Research. ID: 5598579. 4. Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy and Device-Assisted Enteroscopy for Diagnosis and Treatment of Small-Bowel Disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—Update 2022;Pennazio;Endoscopy,2023 5. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Yields of Early Capsule Endoscopy and Device-Assisted Enteroscopy in the Setting of Overt GI Bleeding: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis;Estevinho;Gastrointest. Endosc.,2022
|
|