-
Bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy: standard regimen with 2 L polyethylene glycol versus 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate
-
Riccardo Caccia, Alessandro Rimondi, Luca Elli, Matilde Topa, Flaminia Cavallaro, Carmine Gentile, Lucia Scaramella, Nicoletta Nandi, Reena Sidhu, Pinhas Eidler, Maurizio Vecchi, Gian Eugenio Tontini
-
Clin Endosc 2025;58(2):285-290. Published online January 2, 2025
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.097
-
-
 Graphical Abstract
 Abstract
 PDF PubReader ePub
 - Background
/Aims: Optimization of bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is debated. Guidelines recommend 2 L of iso-osmolar polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve SBCE visibility. We compared the efficacy of the standard 2 L PEG solution with a 1 L PEG plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation, which has already been established for large-bowel preparation.
Methods
Between October 2020 and February 2022, patients undergoing SBCE were assigned to receive 2 L PEG or 1 L PEG-ASC bowel preparation on an even- or odd-day basis. Bowel cleanliness was evaluated using the small bowel mucosal visibility scoring system (SBMVSS).
Results
Following propensity score matching using a random forest method, two comparable populations of patients treated with 2 L PEG (n=74, male 41%, 53±17 years) and 1 L PEG-ASC (n=74, male 42%, 55±21 years) were obtained from the original cohort of 221 consecutive SBCE patients. Our results showed a trend towards more frequent adequate mucosal visibility with 1 L PEG-ASC compared to 2 L PEG (small bowel mucosal visibility ≥2 in all three small bowel tertiles, p=0.07), as per the SBMVSS score. No significant differences were observed in the diagnostic yield (p=1.00), visibility score=9 (p=0.85), SBCE completeness (p=0.33), or adequate mucosal visibility in each tertile (p=0.61, p=0.74, and p=0.70 for the first, second, and third tertiles, respectively).
Conclusions
Our study suggests the non-inferiority of the 1 L PEG-ASC solution over the standard 2 L PEG for SBCE preparation.
-
Effect of antithrombotic therapies on small bowel bleeding: an European multicenter retrospective study
-
Lucia Scaramella, Stefania Chetcuti Zammit, Reena Sidhu, Maurizio Vecchi, Gian Eugenio Tontini, Nicoletta Nandi, Matilde Topa, Luca Elli
-
Clin Endosc 2025;58(1):102-111. Published online December 2, 2024
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.073
-
-
Graphical Abstract
Abstract
PDF
 Supplementary MaterialPubReaderePub
 - Background
/Aims: Small bowel bleeding (SBB) is the main indication for videocapsule endoscopy (VCE); the diagnostic yield (DY) could be influenced by antithrombotic therapies. We explored the effects of these therapies on SBB.
Methods
Consecutive patients from two centers (Milan, Italy and Sheffield, UK) who underwent VCE between March 2001 and July 2020 were considered. Demographic data, clinical parameters, drug therapy, and technical characteristics of the procedure were collected. VCE findings and DY were evaluated.
Results
In total, 957 patients (1,052 VCEs) underwent VCE for SBB (DY 50.6%, no retention); 27 patients (27 VCEs) received direct oral anticoagulants, 87 (88 VCEs) received other anticoagulants, 115 (135 VCEs) received antiplatelet therapy, 198 (218 VCEs) received monotherapy, and 31 (32 VCEs) received combined therapy. There were no differences in the completion rate, findings, and DYs between each subgroup or between monotherapy and combined therapy. The overt bleeding rate was similar in all groups, even when comparing antithrombotic users versus those not on therapy (p=0.59) or monotherapy versus combined therapy (p=0.34).
Conclusions
VCE is safe and has a high clinical impact on SBB. Antithrombotic therapies did not affect DY or overt bleeding rate and, consequently, can be considered safe in terms of SBB risk.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - Do all antithrombotic agents have a similar impact on small bowel bleeding?
Chung Hyun Tae, Ki-Nam Shim
Clinical Endoscopy.2025; 58(1): 80. CrossRef
-
1,062
View
-
120
Download
-
1
Crossref
|
KSGE
