ABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Bariatric Surgery/standards , Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Preoperative Care , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Risk Factors , SpainABSTRACT
Bariatric endoscopy (BE) encompasses a number of techniques -some consolidated, some under development- aiming to contribute to the management of obese patients and their associated metabolic diseases as a complement to dietary and lifestyle changes. To date different intragastric balloon models, suture systems, aspiration methods, substance injections and both gastric and duodenal malabsorptive devices have been developed, as well as endoscopic procedures for the revision of bariatric surgery. Their ongoing evolution conditions a gradual increase in the quantity and quality of scientific evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Despite this, scientific evidence remains inadequate to establish strong grades of recommendation allowing a unified perspective on prophylaxis in BE. This dearth of data conditions leads, in daily practice, to frequently extrapolate the measures that are used in bariatric surgery (BS) and/or in general therapeutic endoscopy. In this respect, this special article is intended to reach a consensus on the most common prophylactic measures we should apply in BE. The methodological design of this document was developed while attempting to comply with the following 5 phases: Phase 1: delimitation and scope of objectives, according to the GRADE Clinical Guidelines. Phase 2: setup of the Clinical Guide-developing Group: national experts, members of the Grupo Español de Endoscopia Bariátrica (GETTEMO, SEED), SEPD, and SECO, selecting 2 authors for each section. Phase 3: clinical question form (PICO): patients, intervention, comparison, outcomes. Phase 4: literature assessment and synthesis. Search for evidence and elaboration of recommendations. Based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification, most evidence in this article will correspond to level 5 (expert opinions without explicit critical appraisal) and grade of recommendation C (favorable yet inconclusive recommendation) or D (inconclusive or inconsistent studies). Phase 5: External review by experts. We hope that these basic preventive measures will be of interest for daily practice, and may help prevent medical and/or legal conflicts for the benefit of patients, physicians, and BE in general.
Subject(s)
Bariatric Surgery , Gastric Balloon , Endoscopy , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Obesity/prevention & controlSubject(s)
Capsule Endoscopy , Digestive System Diseases/diagnosis , Algorithms , Animals , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects , Capsule Endoscopy/economics , Capsule Endoscopy/instrumentation , Capsule Endoscopy/methods , Celiac Disease/diagnosis , Contraindications , Diagnostic Imaging/economics , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Endoscopy, Digestive System/economics , Equipment Design , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Humans , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/diagnosis , Learning CurveABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To obtain an adequate view of the whole small intestine during capsule endoscopy (CE) a clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is recommended. However, intestinal content can hamper vision in spite of these measures. Our aim was to evaluate tolerance and degree of intestinal cleanliness during CE following three types of bowel preparation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Two-hundred ninety-one patients underwent one of the following preparations: 4 L of clear liquids (CL) (group A; 92 patients); 90 mL of aqueous sodium phosphate (group B; 89 patients); or 4 L of a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (group C; 92 patients). The degree of cleanliness of the small bowel was classified by blinded examiners according to four categories (excellent, good, fair or poor). The degree of patient satisfaction, gastric and small bowel transit times, and diagnostic yield were measured. RESULTS: The degree of cleanliness did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.496). Interobserver concordance was fair (k = 0.38). No significant differences were detected between the diagnostic yields of the CE (P = 0.601). Gastric transit time was 35.7 ± 3.7 min (group A), 46.1 ± 8.6 min (group B) and 34.6 ± 5.0 min (group C) (P = 0.417). Small-intestinal transit time was 276.9 ± 10.7 min (group A), 249.7 ± 13.1 min (group B) and 245.6 ± 11.6 min (group C) (P = 0.120). CL was the best tolerated preparation. Compliance with the bowel preparation regimen was lowest in group C (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: A clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is sufficient to achieve an adequate level of cleanliness and is better tolerated by patients than other forms of preparation.
