Capsule Enteroscopy Using the Mirocam® versus OMOM® Systems: A Matched Case-Control Study

Although several devices are available for small bowel capsule endoscopy, few studies have compared their visualization quality and diagnostic yield, despite users reporting subjective differences between them. This study aims to compare two widely used systems (Mirocam (R) MC1600 and OMOM (R) HD). Patients who underwent OMOM (R) HD capsule enteroscopy between August 2022 and February 2023 were prospectively included consecutively (cases). Controls were retrospectively selected from a database of patients who underwent Mirocam (R) MC1600 enteroscopy between March 2018 and July 2022 in a 1:1 ratio. Controls were matched for potential confounders (age, sex, indication, hospitalization, comorbidities, and opioid prescription). The small bowel cleanliness (global and divided by tertiles), the diagnostic yield (positive findings) and the transit times (TT) were compared. Overall, 214 patients were included (107:107). Global bowel preparation was similar between the OMOM (R) and Mirocam (R) groups. However, the average scores for each tertile were significantly higher when the OMOM (R) HD capsule was used (p < 0.05). Small bowel TT was shorter for OMOM (R) HD (265 +/- 118 versus 307 +/- 87 min, p = 0.020), while the diagnostic yield (55.0%) and relative distribution of lesions were similar. This study suggests that capsule characteristics, namely resolution, and illumination, systematically interfere with the perception of preparation quality. However, this did not affect the diagnostic yield.

Automated summary

Although users have reported subjective differences between capsule endoscopy devices, there is limited research comparing their visualization quality and diagnostic yield. This study compared two widely used systems (Mirocam (R) MC1600 and OMOM (R) HD) and found differences in small bowel cleanliness and diagnostic yield.