Statistics from Altmetric.com
In our March #FGdebate we were joined by capsule endoscopy world experts: Professor McAlindon and Dr Tai who answered your questions and discussed the challenges of capsule endoscopy. This article summarises the main points covered in the Twitter debate.
Where are we with upper gastrointestinal capsule endoscopy?
Between 1% and 2% of the UK population undergo gastroscopy per annum and there has been a 30% increase in demand since the publication of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance for dyspepsia in 2004 (CG141).1 Despite this, in dyspeptic patients, over 70% of patients have normal gastroscopies.2 Upper gastrointestinal (GI) capsules can be controlled by patient position changes (Pillcam UGI, Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) and good views can be achieved 80% of the time, but require a separate reading session lasting a mean of 48 min.3 On the other hand, using handheld magnets to control upper GI capsules (Mirocam Navi, Intromedic, Seoul, Korea) allows a live examination. In a single blinded comparative study of recurrent or refractory iron deficiency anaemia, patients reported better tolerance to capsule endoscopy and clinicians found more lesions likely to cause iron deficiency on capsule endoscopy than gastroscopy. Mean magnet capsule examination time by the operator was 23 min. Finally, magnetic capsules can be robot controlled (Navicam, Ankon). In 350 patients with upper GI complaints, Liao et al4 report a 90% sensitivity in detecting focal lesions in the stomach-controlled capsules when compared with conventional gastroscopy in a multicentre study in China. This information is summarised in Box 1.
Capsule endoscopy quick facts
How is the capsule controlled?
Patient position changes.
Hand held magnets (23 min operator time).
Robot controlled magnets.
How long does it take to travel through the small bowel?
4 hours through the small bowel.
Can they take biopsies?
In pig models only: not yet …
Contributors SAR wrote the manuscript with guidance from FWDT and MMA. FWDT and MMA provided the content for the manuscript. All authors agreed the final version.
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 MMA has received research support from Intromedic, Ankon, Jinshan Science; has received travel costs from Ankon to attend international meetings and has been paid a consultancy fee by Medtronic. FWDT has received travel costs and training support from Ankon.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.