Download PDF
Endoscopy 2018; 50(07): 671-683
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-125207
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials challenging the usefulness of purgative preparation before small-bowel video capsule endoscopy

Paraskevas Gkolfakis
Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, “Attikon” University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Georgios Tziatzios
Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, “Attikon” University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
George D. Dimitriadis
Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, “Attikon” University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
,
Konstantinos Triantafyllou
Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine – Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, “Attikon” University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 19 September 2017

accepted after revision 03 December 2017

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The usefulness of purgative preparation before small-bowel video capsule endoscopy is controversial. We aimed to examine the effect of purgative preparation on small-bowel video capsule endoscopy outcomes.

Methods We performed literature searches in MEDLINE and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of purgative preparation (polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, others) vs. clear-liquid diet/fasting in patients undergoing small-bowel capsule endoscopy. Meta-analysis outcomes included the examination’s diagnostic yield, small-bowel mucosal visualization quality, the examination’s completion rate, and gastric and small-bowel transit times. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a fixed- or random-effect model, as appropriate, and is shown as the risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).

Results We identified 12 eligible trials with 17 sets of data including 1221 subjects. Significant heterogeneity was detected with no evidence of publication bias. As compared with clear-liquid diet, purgative bowel preparation did not increase capsule endoscopy diagnostic yield (RR 1.17 [95 %CI 0.97 to 1.40]; P = 0.11). Neither the small-bowel mucosal visualization quality (RR 1.14 [95 %CI 0.96 to 1.35]; P = 0.15) nor completion rate for the examination (RR 0.99 [95 %CI 0.95 to 1.04]; P = 0.76) significantly improved after purgative preparation. Purgatives also had no effect on video capsule endoscopy gastric and small-bowel transit times.

Conclusions Our analysis challenges the usefulness of purgative preparation for improving the diagnostic yield of small-bowel video capsule endoscopy and the quality of small-bowel mucosal visualization.

Appendix e1 – e3, Table e2, Figs. e5 – e7

 

  • References

  • 1 Niv Y. Efficiency of bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy examination: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 1313-1317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rokkas T, Papaxoinis K, Triantafyllou K. et al. Does purgative preparation influence the diagnostic yield of small bowel video capsule endoscopy?: A meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 219-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Belsey J, Crosta C, Epstein O. et al. Meta-analysis: efficacy of small bowel preparation for small bowel video capsule endoscopy. Curr Med Res Opin 2012; 28: 1883-1890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kotwal VS, Attar BM, Gupta S. et al. Should bowel preparation, antifoaming agents, or prokinetics be used before video capsule endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 137-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wu S, Gao YJ, Ge ZZ. Optimal use of polyethylene glycol for preparation of small bowel video capsule endoscopy: a network meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2017; 33: 1149-1154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Yung DE, Rondonotti E, Sykes C. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Is bowel preparation still necessary in small bowel capsule endoscopy?. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 11: 979-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1006-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5: 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hookey L, Louw J, Wiepjes M. et al. Lack of benefit of active preparation compared with a clear fluid-only diet in small-bowel visualization for video capsule endoscopy: results of a randomized, blinded, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 187-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Park SC, Keum B, Seo YS. et al. Effect of bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol on quality of capsule endoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 1769-1775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pons Beltran V, Gonzalez Suarez B, Gonzalez Asanza C. et al. Evaluation of different bowel preparations for small bowel capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2900-2905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rosa BJ, Barbosa M, Magalhaes J. et al. Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 5: 67-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 van Tuyl SA, den Ouden H, Stolk MF. et al. Optimal preparation for video capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 1037-1040
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Viazis N, Sgouros S, Papaxoinis K. et al. Bowel preparation increases the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 534-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wei W, Ge ZZ, Lu H. et al. Purgative bowel cleansing combined with simethicone improves capsule endoscopy imaging. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 77-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wi JH, Moon JS, Choi MG. et al. Bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Gut Liver 2009; 3: 180-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ninomiya K, Yao K, Matsui T. et al. Effectiveness of magnesium citrate as preparation for capsule endoscopy: a randomized, prospective, open-label, inter-group trial. Digestion 2012; 86: 27-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Franke A, Hummel F, Knebel P. et al. Prospective evaluation of small bowel preparation with bisacodyl and sodium phosphate for capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 2061-2064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lapalus MG, Ben Soussan E, Saurin JC. et al. Capsule endoscopy and bowel preparation with oral sodium phosphate: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 1091-1096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Postgate A, Tekkis P, Patterson N. et al. Are bowel purgatives and prokinetics useful for small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1120-1128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Triantafyllou K, Gkolfakis P, Viazis N. et al. A 13-year time trend analysis of 3724 small bowel video capsule endoscopies and a forecast model during the financial crisis in Greece. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 29: 185-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ou G, Shahidi N, Galorport C. et al. Effect of longer battery life on small bowel capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 2677-2682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rahman M, Akerman S, DeVito B. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic yield and outcomes between standard 8 h capsule endoscopy and the new 12 h capsule endoscopy for investigating small bowel pathology. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 5542-5547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Saurin JC, Delvaux M, Gaudin JL. et al. Diagnostic value of endoscopic capsule in patients with obscure digestive bleeding: blinded comparison with video push-enteroscopy. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 576-584
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar