Capsule Endoscopy in Patients with Implantable Electromedical Devices is Safe.

Background and Study Aims. The presence of an implantable electromechanical cardiac device (IED) has long been considered a relative contraindication to the performance of video capsule endoscopy (CE). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of CE in patients with IEDs. A secondary purpose was to determine whether IEDs have any impact on images captured by CE. Patients and Methods. A retrospective chart review of all patients who had a capsule endoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, AZ, USA, or Rochester, MN, USA, (January 2002 to June 2010) was performed to identify CE studies done on patients with IEDs. One hundred and eighteen capsule studies performed in 108 patients with IEDs were identified and reviewed for demographic data, method of preparation, and study data. Results. The most common indications for CE were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (77%), anemia (14%), abdominal pain (5%), celiac disease (2%), diarrhea (1%), and Crohn's disease (1%). Postprocedure assessments did not reveal any detectable alteration on the function of the IED. One patient with an ICD had a 25-minute loss of capsule imaging due to recorder defect. Two patients with LVADs had interference with capsule image acquisition. Conclusions. CE did not interfere with IED function, including PM, ICD, and/or LVAD and thus appears safe. Additionally, PM and ICD do not appear to interfere with image acquisition but LVAD may interfere with capsule images and require that capsule leads be positioned as far away as possible from the IED to assure reliable image acquisition.

Performance of the patency capsule compared with nonenteroclysis radiologic examinations in patients with known or suspected intestinal strictures.

BACKGROUND: The patency capsule (PC) is used before capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients with known or suspected small-bowel (SB) strictures or obstruction (SBO) to avoid CE retention. False-positive PC examination results can occur in patients with delayed transit without obstruction, precluding the use of CE. Radiological tests are another option to evaluate the presence of SBO before CE. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of the PC and radiological examinations to detect clinically significant SB strictures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the PC, and radiological tests for detecting significant strictures. RESULTS: Forty-two patients underwent a PC study and radiological examinations. Both of the examinations showed similar sensitivity (57% vs 71%; P = 1.00) and specificity (86% vs 97%; P = .22). The receiver-operating characteristic curves evaluating combined sensitivity and specificity were also similar in both the PC and radiological examinations (0.71 vs 0.84, respectively; P = .46). Pooling results from both the PC and radiological tests had the highest sensitivity and NPV (100%, 100%). False-positive results occurred in 5 PC examinations and 1 radiological examination. The PC examination had 3 false-negative results (9%), whereas radiological tests had 2 (6%). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: The NPV for the PC and radiological tests were not significantly different, suggesting that if findings on either test are negative before CE, the patient will most likely pass the capsule without incident. Radiological tests can be used to minimize PC study false-positive results by confirming or excluding the presence of a significant stricture suspected by the PC and to localize the PC if passage is delayed.

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.

A single-center experience of 260 consecutive patients undergoing capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has revolutionized the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) but published literature is limited to small series with heterogeneous indications. The aim of this study was to determine the findings and the diagnostic yield of CE in a large series of patients with overt and occult OGIB. METHODS: Data on 260 patients who underwent CE for overt (N = 126) or occult (N = 134) OGIB were obtained by retrospective chart review and review of an internal database of CE patients and findings. RESULTS: Visualization of the entire small bowel was achieved in 74%. The majority of exams (66%) were rated as having a good or excellent prep. Clinically significant positive findings occurred in 53%. The yield of CE in the obscure-overt group was greater than in the obscure-occult group (60%vs 46%, P= 0.03). Small bowel angioectasias were the most common finding, comprising over 60% of clinically significant lesions. The mean follow-up was 9.6 months, and there were significant reductions in hospitalizations, additional tests/procedures, and units of blood transfused after CE. Both before and after CE, patients in the overt group had more significant GI bleeding than patients in the occult group. Complications occurred in five (1.9%) cases: nonnatural excretion (four) and CE impaction at cricopharyngeus (one). CONCLUSIONS: The yield of clinically important findings on CE in patients with OGIB is 53% and is greater in patients with obscure-overt than obscure-occult GI bleeding. Angioectasias account for the majority of significant lesions in both groups. Compared with pre-CE, patients had clinical improvement post-CE in medical interventions for OGIB. Complications of CE occur in less than 2% of cases.

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.

Safety of capsule endoscopy in patients with pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy, a new technology, allows visualization of the entire small intestinal mucosa. The main indication for capsule endoscopy at present is the evaluation of GI bleeding of obscure origin. Studies to date suggest that capsule endoscopy is safe and is associated with few adverse events. One concern, which has not been studied, is the potential effect of the capsule on cardiac pacemakers and other electromedical devices. The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the safety of capsule endoscopy in patients with cardiac pacemakers who are being evaluated for GI bleeding of obscure origin and to determine whether pacemakers have any effect on the images captured by the capsule endoscope. METHODS: Patients with cardiac pacemakers referred for evaluation of GI bleeding of obscure origin were entered into the study. Before the procedure, an electrocardiogram was obtained, and pacemaker functions were checked. Capsule endoscopy was performed in a hospital setting to allow closer monitoring, instead of the outpatient clinic, which is our routine. Cardiac rhythm was assessed simultaneously during capsule endoscopy with a Holter monitor. Post-procedure pacemaker function was again checked for any disturbance. When the capsule endoscopy studies were reviewed, observations were made with particular reference to technical difficulty or interference with imaging. OBSERVATIONS: Five consecutive patients (4 men, 1 woman; mean age, 73 years, range 56-92 years) with cardiac pacemakers were studied. In all patients, the indication for capsule endoscopy was GI bleeding of obscure origin. A cardiologist and pacemaker nurse specialist reviewed the Holter monitor recordings and evaluated pacemaker function after the procedure for each patient. No arrhythmia or other adverse cardiac event was noted during capsule transmission. No pacemaker-induced interference on the capsule endoscopy images was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy appears to be safe in patients with cardiac pacemakers and does not appear to be associated with any significant adverse cardiac event. Pacemakers do not interfere with capsule imaging.