Retention of the capsule endoscope: a single-center experience of 1000 capsule endoscopy procedures.

BACKGROUND: Retention of the video capsule is the most significant complication associated with capsule endoscopy (CE). There are limited data on incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of capsule retention. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the incidence of capsule retention and to investigate the causes and clinical outcomes of capsule retention. SETTING: Single tertiary referral medical center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent CE for suspected small bowel disease from June 2002 to March 2006. METHODS: Retrospective case series. RESULTS: Capsule retention occurred in 1.4% of our patients (14/1000). Eleven patients failed to pass the capsule because of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) enteropathy (diaphragm disease). One patient had capsule retention from an obstructing carcinoid tumor. Metastatic ovarian cancer with invasion of the ileum was the cause of retention in another patient. One patient who did not have surgical removal of the capsule because of loss of follow-up had retention caused by a small-bowel tumor suspicious for carcinoid tumor on CT enterography. All patients remained "asymptomatic" from the retained capsules. Thirteen patients underwent elective partial small-bowel resection and capsule removal. No deaths were associated with these surgeries. Eleven patients recovered promptly, whereas 2 patients had mild postoperative ileus. LIMITATION: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: Retention of the capsule endoscope appears to be infrequent. The most common cause is diaphragm disease resulting from NSAIDs in this study population. In most cases, capsule retention is asymptomatic, and it usually leads to surgical removal, which appears safe and also identifies and treats the underlying small-bowel condition.

A prospective study of the utility of abdominal radiographs after capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis of capsule retention.

BACKGROUND: Capsule retention is a rare but serious complication of capsule endoscopy (CE). The utility of routine abdominal radiographs after CE for the diagnosis of capsule retention is not established. OBJECTIVE: To establish the utility of abdominal radiographs in the diagnosis of capsule retention in patients undergoing CE. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing CE. SETTING: Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Arizona, a multispecialty academic medical center. INTERVENTION: Abdominal radiographs were performed on days 3, 7, and 14 after CE. If the patient visualized passage of the capsule, the subsequent abdominal radiograph was cancelled. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASUREMENTS: Capsule retention, defined as the capsule endoscope seen on the day-14 abdominal radiograph. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients (46% men; mean age 65 years, range 20-88 years) underwent CE, which was performed for obscure GI bleeding in 86%, for suspected Crohn's disease in 5%, and for other indications in 9%. Thirty-four patients (30%) reported spontaneous passage of the capsule by day 3 and an additional 2 patients by day 7. Of the 81 reporting nonpassage by day 3, 66 (82%) underwent abdominal radiographs. Abdominal radiographs in 14 of 66 patients (21%), 3 of 12 (25%), and 2 of 3 (66%) showed a retained capsule on day 3, 7, and 14, respectively. Three patients (2.6%) were diagnosed with capsule retention. Two had serial abdominal radiographs: capsule retention was detected on the day-14 radiographs, and both underwent surgery. Histopathology revealed diaphragm disease of the small intestine in both patients. One patient who did not have serial abdominal radiographs had a small-bowel tumor as the cause of his capsule retention. In all 3 patients, the colon was not visualized on CE. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule retention is a rare but serious complication of CE. Most patients do not visualize capsule passage. For patients who do not visualize capsule passage and, in whom the colon is not visualized on the video imaging, an abdominal radiograph on day 14 will help identify those with capsule retention.

Safety of wireless capsule endoscopy in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators.

OBJECTIVES: Wireless video capsule endoscopy (CE) is a new technology that allows visualization of the entire small intestinal mucosa. It is indicated for the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) and other disorders of the small intestine. Studies to date suggest that CE is safe and associated with few adverse events. A concern, which has not been studied, is the potential effect of CE on implanted cardiac devices such as implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) and other electromedical devices. We previously found CE to be safe in patients with cardiac pacemakers. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of CE in patients with ICDs who were being evaluated for OGIB. In addition, a secondary aim of the study was to determine whether ICDs had any effect on the images captured by CE. METHODS: Patients referred for the evaluation of OGIB and who also had an ICD were enrolled into the study after informed consent. Five consecutive patients (four females and one male; mean age: 72 yr; range: 60-81 yr) with ICDs were studied. All patients had transvenous endocardial ICDs located in the chest. Prior to CE, patients had a baseline electrocardiogram (ECG) and ICD interrogation. Thereafter, CE was performed in a hospital setting with telemetry monitoring performed simultaneously. A post-procedure ICD interrogation was carried out to evaluate changes in programmed parameters. A cardiologist and ICD nurse specialist together reviewed both the telemetry monitor and the post-procedure ICD interrogation on each patient. When CE studies were reviewed, observations pertaining to technical difficulties and interference with video imaging were documented. RESULTS: No arrhythmia or other adverse cardiac events were noted during capsule transmission. No interference by the ICD on the CE video images was seen. CONCLUSIONS: CE was performed safely in these five patients with ICDs, and was not associated with any adverse cardiac events. ICDs also do not appear to interfere with video capsule imaging.