Oral ingestion versus endoscopic delivery of endoscopic capsule in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery (ORENCES study): A Spanish multicentre observational study
Antonio Giordano 1 , Alfonso Elosua González 2 , Francisco Sánchez Ceballos 3 , Cristina Carretero-Ribón 4 , Marta Aicart-Ramos 5 , Juan Egea Valenzuela 6 , Noelia Alonso-Lázaro 7 , José Luis Martín-Lorente 8 , Consuelo Gálvez-Castillo 9 , Vicente Pons-Beltrán 10 , Ignacio Fernández-Urién 11 , Begoña González-Suárez 12 , SEED Group of Capsule Endoscopy and Enteroscopy
Background: Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy is the first-choice technique for investigating the majority of small bowel diseases. Its most common complications are related to incomplete examinations and capsule retention. There is no consensus on how patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery should receive the capsule.
Objective: The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of complete small-bowel examinations (completion rate) between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery of the capsule. The secondary endpoint was to compare diagnostic yield and adverse events in the two groups.
Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted in nine hospitals in Spain. Demographic data, previous surgery, indication for capsule endoscopy, intestinal transit time, diagnosis, completion rate (percentage of capsules reaching the caecum), diagnostic yield (percentage of results compatible with indication for the exam) and adverse events were collected.
Results: From January 2009 to May 2019 fifty-seven patients were included (39 male, mean age 66±15 years). The most common indications for the exam were "overt" (50.9%) and "occult" (35.1%) small bowel bleeding. Previous Billroth II gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were present in 52.6% and 17.5% of patients respectively. The capsule was swallowed in 34 patients and placed endoscopically in 23 patients.
No significant differences were observed between the oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery groups in terms of completion rate (82.4% vs. 78.3%; p=0.742), diagnostic yield (41.2% vs. 52.2%; p=0.432) or small bowel transit time (301 vs. 377min, p=0.118). No capsule retention occurred. Only one severe adverse event (anastomotic perforation) was observed in the endoscopic delivery group.
Conclusions: In our case series, there were no significant differences between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery in terms of completion rate, diagnostic yield or safety. Being less invasive, oral ingestion of the capsule should be the first-choice method in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery.
CITATION Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Dec;44(10):680-686. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2020.11.005. Epub 2020 Nov 28.