Background and study aims: The MiroCam is a new video capsule device offering a higher frame rate and a longer
battery life-expectancy. We aimed to quantify its clinical impact and performed a
randomized head-to-head comparison with the EndoCapsule device with respect to the
rate of complete small-bowel examinations, diagnostic yield in the small bowel, and
capsule transit time.
Patients and methods: Patients referred for video capsule endoscopy because of obscure gastrointestinal
bleeding, chronic diarrhea, and anemia of unknown origin were randomly assigned to
swallow either the MiroCam first, followed by the EndoCapsule 2 hours later, or vice
versa. All videos were analyzed by two independent investigators.
Results: A total of 50 patients (median age 61, range 21 – 84) were included. Complete small-bowel
examination was achieved in 48 /50 patients using the MiroCam and 45 /50 using the
EndoCapsule (96 % vs. 90 %, odds ratio [OR] 2.67, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.49 – 14.45;
P = 0.38). There was diagnostic yield in the small bowel for 25 /50 patients using
the MiroCam and 24 /50 using the EndoCapsule (50 % vs. 48 %, OR 1.08, 95 %CI 0.49 – 2.37;
P > 0.99). However, the findings were concordant in 68 % only (kappa = 0.50). The combined
diagnostic yield was 58 %. Even solitary findings had a relevant clinical impact during
a 6-month follow-up.
Conclusion: In this direct comparison the MiroCam and EndoCapsule devices were not statistically
different with regard to their rates of complete small-bowel examinations or diagnostic
yield. Their moderate concordance, mainly caused by missed pathological findings,
which affected both devices, needs consideration in clinical practice.
