Cost comparison of oral, transnasal and magnet assisted capsule endoscopy in the examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract in patients with dyspepsia.

Introduction: Conventional oral upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy can obe uncomfortable. By comparison, transnasal endoscopy (TNE) and magnet assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) have superior tolerability. A cost comparison of competing upper GI endoscopic modalities have yet to be performed. Methods: We performed a cost comparison study of oral, TNE and MACE by a combination of activity-based costing and averaging of fixed costs over 24 481 upper GI endoscopies performed for dyspepsia over a 10-year period. Results: On average, 9.4 procedures were performed daily. TNE was cheapest at €125.90 per procedure, costing 30% less than oral endoscopy at €184.10 and threefold cheaper than MACE at €407.10. Flexible endoscope reprocessing cost €53.80. TNE was cheaper than oral endoscopy as sedation was not required. Oral endoscopies have a further rate of infectious complications, estimated to cost €16.20 per oral procedure in inpatient admissions. Oral and TNE equipment are more expensive to purchase and maintain than MACE costing €79 330 and €81 819, respectively compared with MACE at €15 420 per annum. However, capsule endoscopes cost significantly more per procedure at €369.00 than the consumables for flexible endoscopy (per oral €12.30, TNE €5.30). Conclusions: TNE cost less to perform than conventional per oral endoscopy. The cost of capsule endoscopes will need to be reduced significantly if routine use is to be expected.

Premature dissolution of the Agile patency device: implications for capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The main risk of capsule endoscopy is retention of the capsule behind a stricture. Passage of an intact Agile patency device (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) through the small bowel is widely used to ensure luminal patency, although capsule retention has occurred in patients who have had a reassuring patency study. The device is designed to remain intact for at least 30 hours postingestion, such that loss of signal from the radiofrequency identification tag contained within, or absence of the device on radiological imaging, implies unimpeded intestinal transit. AIM: To identify the rate of premature dissolution (<30 hours postingestion) of the Agile patency device. METHODS: Outcomes of all consecutive patients having an Agile patency device were analysed. RESULTS: Premature dissolution of the patency device occurred in 5 of 307 patients, an incidence of 1.3%. This was recognised by the detection of a persistent radiofrequency signal after radiological imaging had failed to identify the patency device, prompting a careful search for the radiofrequency tag on the CT scout film. The tag was difficult to detect because of an oblique lie making it appear smaller than its 13×3 mm size and confusion with intra-abdominal or other metallic fragments. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of radiological evidence of an intact Agile patency device, premature dissolution should be suspected in patients registering a persistent radiofrequency signal and confirmed by identifying the radiofrequency identification tag. Failure to do so might result in false reassurance that capsule endoscopy could be performed without risk of retention.

Diagnostic yield of magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy versus gastroscopy in recurrent and refractory iron deficiency anemia.

BACKGROUND: Small-bowel capsule endoscopy is advocated and repeat upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be considered for evaluation of recurrent or refractory iron deficiency anemia (IDA). A new device that allows magnetic steering of the capsule around the stomach (magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy [MACE]), followed by passive small-bowel examination might satisfy both requirements in a single procedure. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, MACE and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were performed in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. Comparisons of total (upper GI and small bowel) and upper GI diagnostic yields, gastric mucosal visibility, and patient comfort scores were the primary end points. RESULTS: 49 patients were recruited (median age 64 years; 39 % male). Combined upper and small-bowel examination using the new capsule yielded more pathology than EGD alone (113 vs. 52; P < 0.001). In upper GI examination (proximal to the second part of the duodenum, D2), MACE identified more total lesions than EGD (88 vs. 52; P < 0.001). There was also a difference if only IDA-associated lesions (esophagitis, altered/fresh blood, angioectasia, ulcers, and villous atrophy) were included (20 vs. 10; P = 0.04). Pathology distal to D2 was identified in 17 patients (34.7 %). Median scores (0 - 10 for none - extreme) for pain (0 vs. 2), discomfort (0 vs. 3), and distress (0 vs. 4) were lower for MACE than for EGD (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Combined examination of the upper GI tract and small bowel using the MACE capsule detected more pathology than EGD alone in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. MACE also had a higher diagnostic yield than EGD in the upper GI tract and was better tolerated by patients.

Upper gastrointestinal tract capsule endoscopy using a nurse-led protocol: First reported experience.

AIM: To test the feasibility and performance of a novel upper gastrointestinal (GI) capsule endoscope using a nurse-led protocol. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort analysis of patients who declined gastroscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, OGD) but who consented to upper GI capsule endoscopy. Patients swallowed the upper GI capsule following ingestion of 1 liter of water (containing simethicone). A series of positional changes were used to exploit the effects of water flow and move the upper GI capsule from one gravity-dependent area to another using a nurse-led protocol. Capsule transit time, video reading time, mucosal visualisation, pathology detection and patient tolerance was evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study. The mean capsule transit times in the oesophagus and stomach were 28 s and 68 min respectively. Visualisation of the following major anatomical landmarks was achieved (graded 1-5: Poor to excellent): Oesophagus, 4.8 (± 0.5); gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), 4.8 (± 0.8); cardia, 4.8 (± 0.8); fundus, 3.8 (± 1.2); body, 4.5 (± 1); antrum, 4.5 (± 1); pylorus, 4.7 (± 0.8); duodenal bulb, 4.7 (± 0.7); second part of the duodenum (D2), 4.7 (± 1). The upper GI capsule reached D2 in 64% of patients. The mean video reading time was 48 min with standard playback mode and 20 min using Quickview (P = 0.0001). No pathology was missed using Quickview. Procedural tolerance was excellent. No complications were seen with the upper GI capsule. CONCLUSION: The upper GI capsule achieved excellent views of the upper GI tract. Future studies should compare the diagnostic accuracy between upper GI capsule and OGD.