Effect of chewing gum in bowel preparation for patients undergoing small bowel and colon capsule endoscopy: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Quality of bowel preparation and successful transit are critical factors for complete small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to assess the impact of chewing gum as part of the bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate in both SBCE and CCE. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase. Data were extracted upon quality assessment of included studies. Two reviewers conducted the screening process according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Eighty-four studies met the search criteria and four randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, these were assessed for bias using Minors. Pooled completion rate of SBCE studies was defined as the primary outcome. Results Three randomized controlled trials were SBCE studies and one was a CCE study. The pooled completion rate (91%) was not significantly higher in SBCE patients who were given chewing gum after capsule ingestion compared to those who were not (85%). Variance information was not reported in all studies, and therefore, pooled transit time estimates could not be calculated. Conclusions Chewing gum has a good safety profile but has only been used as a booster in one CCE study and a few SBCE studies. More prospective randomized controlled trials, therefore, are needed to investigate the efficacy of chewing gum for achieving complete capsule examination.

Colon capsule endoscopy following incomplete colonoscopy in routine clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was introduced in our department on two indications; following incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to CT colonography, and in patients with a history of incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to anesthesia-assisted (AA) colonoscopy. We aimed to compare the quality of CCE, defined by completion rate and polyp detection rate (PDR), with that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy, respectively. METHODS: Patients referred for CCE from May 2020 until November 2021 were consecutively included in this prospective cohort study. Demographics, indication and CCE outcomes were registered from the electronic patient record. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to CT colonography were compared with those of a historical cohort undergoing CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy were compared with those of a time true parallel cohort undergoing AA colonoscopy. RESULTS: In 65 patients undergoing CCE, 36 (57%) were referred as an alternative to CT colonography. The completion rate in this group was 44% compared to 96% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 75% in CCE compared to 20% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The remaining 27 (43%) of the sample were referred for CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy. The completion rate in this group was 33% compared to 100% in AA colonoscopy (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 78% in CCE compared to 35% in AA colonoscopy (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The completion rate of CCE following incomplete colonoscopy is inferior to that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy. The PDR of CCE was high, indicating an acceptable sensitivity in complete investigations, but in our settings the completion rate of CCE on this indication is unacceptably low. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04307901 (ClinicalTrials.gov, March 13, 2020).

Castor Oil in Bowel Preparation Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Completing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations rely on successful transit and acceptable bowel preparation quality. We investigated the effect of adding castor oil to the CCE bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate using a meta-analysis of existing literature. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates for excretion rate and acceptable bowel preparation rate were calculated. We identified 72 studies matching our search criteria, and six were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the studies had control groups, although two used historical cohorts. The pooled excretion rate (92%) was significantly higher in patients who received castor oil than in those who did not (73%). No significant difference in acceptable colonic cleanliness was observed. Castor oil has been used in a few studies as a booster for CCE. This meta-analysis shows the potential for this medication to improve excretion rates, and castor oil could be actively considered in conjunction with other emerging laxative regimens in CCE. Still, prospective randomized trials with appropriate control groups should be conducted before any conclusions can be drawn. Prospero ID: CRD42022338939.