Endoscopy 2021; 53(S 01): S194
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724786
Abstracts | ESGE Days
ESGE Days 2021 Digital poster exhibition

Bowel Preparations Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy – a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

T Bjoersum-Meyer
1   Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
K Skonieczna-Zydecka
2   Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
,
P Cortegoso Valdivia
3   University Hospital of Parma, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
,
I Stenfors
4   Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmo, Sweden
,
I Lutakov
5   University Hospital “Tsaritsa Yoanna - ISUL”, Medical University Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
,
E Rondonotti
6   Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy
,
M Pennazio
7   City of Health and Science University Hospital, Turin, Italy
,
W Marlicz
2   Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
,
G Baatrup
1   Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
A Koulaouzidis
8   The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
,
E Toth
4   Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmo, Sweden
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
 

Aims Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to colonoscopy in certain clinical settings. High completion rates (CR) and adequate colon cleanliness rates (ACR) are prerequisites if CCE is to be implemented as an equivalent diagnostic tool. To address this, we conducted a systematic review investigating the efficacy of different bowel preparation regimens on CR and ACR in CCE.

Methods We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR and ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. The initial search yielded 571 hits. We subjected 104 full-text articles to review and 46 studies were included in the meta-analysis.

Results Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 (RCTs) (n = 1,214) were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764-0.828). Sodium Phosphate (NaP) was the most frequently used booster with a CR of 0.830 (N=24, 95 % CI, 0.781-0.871) The highest CR was observed for NaP + Gastrografin booster (N=2, CR=0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820 - 0.976). Overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735-0.797) with the highest observed for Polyethylene glycol (PEG) + Magnesium citrate (N=4, ER=0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896 -0.979). ACR for PEG was 0.790 (N=37, 95 % CI, 0.750-0.826).

Conclusions In the largest meta-analysis on CCE we found that both CR and ACR are suboptimal. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commenly used. We were not able to show any superiority concerning CR and ACR for any of the abundant laxatives or boosters at a level of statistical significance. Well-designed studies focusing on CR and ACR should be performed in order to find the optimal preparation regimen.

Citation: Bjoersum-Meyer T, Skonieczna-Zydecka K, Cortegoso Valdivia P etal. eP292 BOWEL PREPARATIONS REGIMENS FOR COLON CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY – A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS. Endoscopy 2021; 53: S194.



Publication History

Article published online:
19 March 2021

© 2021. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany