You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Endoscopy
Original research
Evaluation of the safety, efficacy and feasibility of ‘at-home’ capsule endoscopy
  1. Ioanna Parisi1,
  2. Angelica Vania Hosea2,
  3. Sandro Stoffel2,3,
  4. Martin Nemec2,
  5. Sohail Badat1,
  6. Edward Seward1,
  7. Aradhna Kaushal2,
  8. Robert Kerrison4,
  9. Christian Von Wagner2
  1. 1 Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital, London, UK
  2. 2 Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
  3. 3 Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  4. 4 School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christian Von Wagner, Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK; c.wagner{at}ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective The role of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in diagnosing gastrointestinal diseases has long been established. Recently, colon CE (CCE) has been suggested as an alternative to colonoscopy. CE has been traditionally conducted at endoscopy units. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a switch was made to ‘at-home CE’ (ACE) which has continued to date. This study is an evaluation of ACE, focusing on safety, efficacy, feasibility and patient perceptions.

Methods The study evaluated the performance of ACE in 105 consecutive patients, considering procedure outcomes, completion rates, complications and patient satisfaction. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess perceptions and preferences of 84 ACE patients and 43 in-hospital CE patients. ACE procedure involved preassessment calls, bowel preparation, equipment setup, virtual verbal consent, capsule ingestion, booster alerts and equipment collection. Descriptive statistics and tests of independence were used for data analysis.

Results All 105 ACE patients were able to have CE at home, with completion rates for SBCE, CCE and panenteric (Crohn’s) CE at 98.3%, 75.9% and 55.6%, respectively. Patients reported low levels of pain (94.1%), embarrassment (98.8%) and anxiety (82.1%). ACE saved time and money, as 42.9% of patients were able to avoid work absence and 52.4% avoided transportation costs. ACE patients reported high satisfaction with the overall procedure (mean=8.5, SD=1.9), and 83.3% would prefer CE again at home.

Conclusion This study demonstrates that at-home CEs are clinically effective and well received by patients, providing the opportunity to conduct the test in the comfort of patients’ homes.

  • endoscopy
  • colonoscopy
  • COVID-19
  • colorectal cancer screening
  • crohn's disease

Data availability statement

No data are available. Request for additional information about the data should be made to corresponding author.

https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2023-102565

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    No data are available. Request for additional information about the data should be made to corresponding author.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors CVW, IP and ES conceptualised the study. IP, SB and AVH acquired the data. SB, MN and SS completed further analysis of the data contained within the manuscript. SB, MN, SS, IP and AVH jointly constructed initial and final drafts. AK, RK, ES and CVW reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. IP is the guarantor of this study.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.