4.3 Article

Efficacy and safety of a capsule endoscope delivery device in children

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 12, Pages 1502-1507

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001513

Keywords

capsule endoscope delivery device; children; small bowel capsule endoscope

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives This multicenter, cross-sectional study aimed to elucidate the efficacy and safety of the AdvanCE capsule endoscope delivery device for children in Japan. Methods The present study analyzed 183 cases of small bowel capsule endoscope (SBCE) insertion performed using the AdvanCE in 154 patients aged less than 18 years at participating institutions between 2013 and 2017. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify factors contributing to the completion rate for the entire small intestine examination, small intestine transit time, adverse events and technical issues. Results The commonest reason for using the AdvanCE was the patient's inability to swallow the SBCE, which was attributed to young age. SBCE was successfully delivered into the stomach or duodenum in 180 cases and was placed in the duodenum in 90% patients. In 89% patients, the entire small intestine was completely examined, and in 63% patients, findings leading to a new diagnosis or involving changing or maintaining the treatment strategy were obtained. No severe adverse events were observed; however, mild adverse events were observed in 35% patients. No factors considerably contributed to the completion rate for the entire small intestine examination or small intestine transit time and onset of technical issues. The factors that contributed to mild adverse events included intravenous anesthesia, technical issue, and absence of prior insertion of a patency capsule using the AdvanCE. Conclusion The AdvanCE is well tolerated and effective for children. Copyright (C) 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available