4.2 Article

The Relationship between Physical Activity Level and Completion Rate of Small Bowel Examination in Patients Undergoing Capsule Endoscopy

期刊

INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 9, 页码 997-1001

出版社

JAPAN SOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.51.6581

关键词

capsule endoscopy; completion rate; physical activity; bed rest; multivariate logistic regression analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Capsule endoscopy (CE) allows direct examination of the small bowel in a safe, noninvasive and well-tolerated manner. Nonetheless, experience indicates failure to reach the cecum in 20-30% of patients within the 8 hour battery life. Attempts to improve the completion rate (CR) as defined by reaching the cecum have been unsuccessful. This study was to investigate the relationship between patients' physical activity and CR. Methods Between January 2009 and January 2010, 76 patients (44 men, 32 women; median age 64.5 yr) underwent CE for the diagnosis of small intestinal disorders. Indications for CE were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding/anemia (62 cases), others (14 cases). Patients were divided into an outpatient group (n=23), mild bed rest group (n=35) and strict bed rest group (n=18). Results For all patients, the average gastric transit time was 65.5 minutes, small bowel transit time was 301.4 minutes and the CR was 86.8%. However, the CR was 100% (23/23) in the outpatient group, an 85.7% (30/35) in the mild bed rest group, and 72.2% (13/18) in the strict bed rest group. The CR increased with physical activity of patients by Cochran-Armitage Trend Test (p=0.009). In multivariate logistic regression analyses, low physical activity was a significant risk factor for failure to reach the cecum during CE examination; adjusted OR: 3.39, 95% CI: 1.01-11.42 (p=0.048). Conclusion Our observations suggested that increasing physical activity would increase the likelihood of a complete bowel examination by CE. Further, for CE, inconvenient bowel preparations like the use of polyethylene glycol may be avoided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据