4.5 Review

Capsule Retention in Crohn's Disease: A Meta-analysis

Journal

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 33-42

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izz083

Keywords

Crohn's disease; capsule endoscopy; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Medtronic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The main factor that limits wider utilization of capsule endoscopy (CE) in Crohn's disease (CD) is the potential risk of retention. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate capsule retention rates in adult and pediatric CD and determine if retention risk is reduced in established CD (ECD) with patency capsule (PC) or magnetic resonance/computed tomography (MR/CT) enterography. Methods Studies of CD patients undergoing CE that reported retention were identified. Pooled estimates for retention rates and relative risk in ECD to suspected CD (SCD) were calculated. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided; statistical significance was set at a P value of <0.05. Results In the overall CD cohort, retention rates were 3.32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.62%-4.2%): 4.63% (95% CI, 3.42%-6.25%) and 2.35% (95% CI, 1.31%-4.19%) in ECD and SCD, respectively. Retention rates were 3.49% (95% CI, 2.73%-4.46%) and 1.64% (95% CI, 0.68%-3.89%) in adult and pediatric CD, respectively. Retention risk in adult ECD was 3.4 times higher than SCD, but there was no difference in retention risk in pediatric ECD compared with SCD. Retention rates in ECD were decreased after patency capsule (2.88%; 95% CI, 1.74%-4.74%) and MR/CT enterography (2.32%; 95% CI, 0.87%-6.03%). Conclusions In comparison with older literature, this meta-analysis demonstrates lower CE retention rates in SCD and ECD. Retention rates in pediatric CD were lower than in adult CD. Retention rates in adult ECD were higher than SCD, but there were no differences between pediatric ECD and SCD. Retention rates in ECD were lower after negative PC or MR/CT enterography.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available