Open Access
Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(02): E228-E232
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-110770
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Video capsule endoscopy completion and total transit times are similar with oral or endoscopic delivery

Peter P. Stanich
1   Section of Capsule Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States
,
John Guido
2   Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States
,
Bryan Kleinman
2   Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States
3   Division of Gastroenterology; Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Kavita Betkerur
4   College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
5   Department of Internal Medicine, UC Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, United States
,
Kyle M. Porter
6   Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
,
Marty M. Meyer
1   Section of Capsule Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 14 July 2015

accepted after revision 23 November 2015

Publication Date:
15 January 2016 (online)

Preview

Background and study aims: Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is limited by incomplete procedures. There are also contraindications to the standard ingestion of the capsule that require endoscopic placement. Our aim was to compare the study completion rate of VCE after oral ingestion and endoscopic deployment.

Patients and methods: We performed a review of all VCE from April 2010 through March 2013. Inpatient and outpatient cohorts grouped by the method of capsule delivery were formed and compared. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was utilized adjusting for variables with a P value ≤ 0.1 in group comparisons. Log-rank analysis was used to compare transit times.

Results: A total of 687 VCE were performed, including 316 inpatient (36 endoscopic deployment, 280 oral ingestion) and 371 outpatient (20 endoscopic deployment, 351 oral ingestion). For VCE on hospitalized patients, the completion rates were similar after endoscopic deployment and oral ingestion (72 % vs 73 %, P = 0.94). The completion rates were also similar for ambulatory patients (90 % vs 87 %, P = 0.69). There remained no difference after multivariable modeling for inpatients (P = 0.71) and outpatients (P = 0.46). Total transit times were not significantly different.

Conclusions: VCE completion rates and total transit times are similar after oral or endoscopic deployment for both hospitalized and ambulatory patients. Endoscopic placement is effective in patients with contraindications to standard oral ingestion, but should otherwise be avoided to limit unnecessary procedural risks and costs.