Blinded nonrandomized comparative study of gastric examination with a magnetically guided capsule endoscope and standard videoendoscope

Jean Francois Rey, Haruhiko Ogata, Naoki Hosoe, Kazuo Ohtsuka, Noriyuki Ogata, Keiichi Ikeda, Hiroyuki Aihara, Ileana Pangtay, Toshifumi Hibi, Shin Ei Kudo, Hisao Tajiri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

79 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Passive video capsule endoscopy is the criterion standard for small-bowel exploration but cannot be used for the large gastric cavity. We report the first blinded comparative clinical trial in humans comparing a magnetically guided capsule endoscope (MGCE) and a conventional high-definition gastroscope. Objective: To assess the potential of gastric examination with a guided capsule. Design: Blinded, nonrandomized comparative study. Setting: Single endoscopy center. Methods: The trial involved 61 patients included in a blinded capsule and gastroscopy comparative study. MGCE examination was performed 24 hours after patients had undergone gastroscopy. To remove food residue or mucus, patients drank 900 mL of water in 2 portions. Then to provide the air-water interface required by the guidance system, they drank 400 mL of water at 35°C. Results: Visualization of the gastric pylorus, antrum, body, fundus, and cardia was evaluated as complete in 88.5%, 86.9%, 93.4%, 85.2%, and 88.5% of patients, respectively. Of gastric lesions, 58.3% were detected by both gastroscopy and MGCE at immediate assessment and review of recorded data. Capsule examination missed 14 findings and gastroscopy missed 31 findings seen with MGCE. Overall diagnostic yield was similar for both modalities. Limitation: Pilot study. Conclusions: Diagnostic results were similar for the 2 methods. After some technical difficulties related to gastric expansion or presence of mucus had been overcome, this study opened a new field for noninvasive gastric examination in countries where high gastric cancer incidence demands a screening tool.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)373-381
Number of pages9
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume75
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Feb

Fingerprint

Capsule Endoscopes
Gastroscopy
Stomach
Capsules
Mucus
Water
Gastroscopes
Capsule Endoscopy
Pyloric Antrum
Cardia
Pylorus
Endoscopy
Stomach Neoplasms
Air
Clinical Trials
Food
Incidence

Keywords

  • magnetic resonance imaging
  • magnetically guided capsule endoscope
  • MGCE
  • MRI

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Blinded nonrandomized comparative study of gastric examination with a magnetically guided capsule endoscope and standard videoendoscope. / Rey, Jean Francois; Ogata, Haruhiko; Hosoe, Naoki; Ohtsuka, Kazuo; Ogata, Noriyuki; Ikeda, Keiichi; Aihara, Hiroyuki; Pangtay, Ileana; Hibi, Toshifumi; Kudo, Shin Ei; Tajiri, Hisao.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 75, No. 2, 02.2012, p. 373-381.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rey, Jean Francois ; Ogata, Haruhiko ; Hosoe, Naoki ; Ohtsuka, Kazuo ; Ogata, Noriyuki ; Ikeda, Keiichi ; Aihara, Hiroyuki ; Pangtay, Ileana ; Hibi, Toshifumi ; Kudo, Shin Ei ; Tajiri, Hisao. / Blinded nonrandomized comparative study of gastric examination with a magnetically guided capsule endoscope and standard videoendoscope. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2012 ; Vol. 75, No. 2. pp. 373-381.
@article{84f63bb901af41748f41f64e68c1aa8d,
title = "Blinded nonrandomized comparative study of gastric examination with a magnetically guided capsule endoscope and standard videoendoscope",
abstract = "Background: Passive video capsule endoscopy is the criterion standard for small-bowel exploration but cannot be used for the large gastric cavity. We report the first blinded comparative clinical trial in humans comparing a magnetically guided capsule endoscope (MGCE) and a conventional high-definition gastroscope. Objective: To assess the potential of gastric examination with a guided capsule. Design: Blinded, nonrandomized comparative study. Setting: Single endoscopy center. Methods: The trial involved 61 patients included in a blinded capsule and gastroscopy comparative study. MGCE examination was performed 24 hours after patients had undergone gastroscopy. To remove food residue or mucus, patients drank 900 mL of water in 2 portions. Then to provide the air-water interface required by the guidance system, they drank 400 mL of water at 35°C. Results: Visualization of the gastric pylorus, antrum, body, fundus, and cardia was evaluated as complete in 88.5{\%}, 86.9{\%}, 93.4{\%}, 85.2{\%}, and 88.5{\%} of patients, respectively. Of gastric lesions, 58.3{\%} were detected by both gastroscopy and MGCE at immediate assessment and review of recorded data. Capsule examination missed 14 findings and gastroscopy missed 31 findings seen with MGCE. Overall diagnostic yield was similar for both modalities. Limitation: Pilot study. Conclusions: Diagnostic results were similar for the 2 methods. After some technical difficulties related to gastric expansion or presence of mucus had been overcome, this study opened a new field for noninvasive gastric examination in countries where high gastric cancer incidence demands a screening tool.",
keywords = "magnetic resonance imaging, magnetically guided capsule endoscope, MGCE, MRI",
author = "Rey, {Jean Francois} and Haruhiko Ogata and Naoki Hosoe and Kazuo Ohtsuka and Noriyuki Ogata and Keiichi Ikeda and Hiroyuki Aihara and Ileana Pangtay and Toshifumi Hibi and Kudo, {Shin Ei} and Hisao Tajiri",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.030",
language = "English",
volume = "75",
pages = "373--381",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Blinded nonrandomized comparative study of gastric examination with a magnetically guided capsule endoscope and standard videoendoscope

AU - Rey, Jean Francois

AU - Ogata, Haruhiko

AU - Hosoe, Naoki

AU - Ohtsuka, Kazuo

AU - Ogata, Noriyuki

AU - Ikeda, Keiichi

AU - Aihara, Hiroyuki

AU - Pangtay, Ileana

AU - Hibi, Toshifumi

AU - Kudo, Shin Ei

AU - Tajiri, Hisao

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - Background: Passive video capsule endoscopy is the criterion standard for small-bowel exploration but cannot be used for the large gastric cavity. We report the first blinded comparative clinical trial in humans comparing a magnetically guided capsule endoscope (MGCE) and a conventional high-definition gastroscope. Objective: To assess the potential of gastric examination with a guided capsule. Design: Blinded, nonrandomized comparative study. Setting: Single endoscopy center. Methods: The trial involved 61 patients included in a blinded capsule and gastroscopy comparative study. MGCE examination was performed 24 hours after patients had undergone gastroscopy. To remove food residue or mucus, patients drank 900 mL of water in 2 portions. Then to provide the air-water interface required by the guidance system, they drank 400 mL of water at 35°C. Results: Visualization of the gastric pylorus, antrum, body, fundus, and cardia was evaluated as complete in 88.5%, 86.9%, 93.4%, 85.2%, and 88.5% of patients, respectively. Of gastric lesions, 58.3% were detected by both gastroscopy and MGCE at immediate assessment and review of recorded data. Capsule examination missed 14 findings and gastroscopy missed 31 findings seen with MGCE. Overall diagnostic yield was similar for both modalities. Limitation: Pilot study. Conclusions: Diagnostic results were similar for the 2 methods. After some technical difficulties related to gastric expansion or presence of mucus had been overcome, this study opened a new field for noninvasive gastric examination in countries where high gastric cancer incidence demands a screening tool.

AB - Background: Passive video capsule endoscopy is the criterion standard for small-bowel exploration but cannot be used for the large gastric cavity. We report the first blinded comparative clinical trial in humans comparing a magnetically guided capsule endoscope (MGCE) and a conventional high-definition gastroscope. Objective: To assess the potential of gastric examination with a guided capsule. Design: Blinded, nonrandomized comparative study. Setting: Single endoscopy center. Methods: The trial involved 61 patients included in a blinded capsule and gastroscopy comparative study. MGCE examination was performed 24 hours after patients had undergone gastroscopy. To remove food residue or mucus, patients drank 900 mL of water in 2 portions. Then to provide the air-water interface required by the guidance system, they drank 400 mL of water at 35°C. Results: Visualization of the gastric pylorus, antrum, body, fundus, and cardia was evaluated as complete in 88.5%, 86.9%, 93.4%, 85.2%, and 88.5% of patients, respectively. Of gastric lesions, 58.3% were detected by both gastroscopy and MGCE at immediate assessment and review of recorded data. Capsule examination missed 14 findings and gastroscopy missed 31 findings seen with MGCE. Overall diagnostic yield was similar for both modalities. Limitation: Pilot study. Conclusions: Diagnostic results were similar for the 2 methods. After some technical difficulties related to gastric expansion or presence of mucus had been overcome, this study opened a new field for noninvasive gastric examination in countries where high gastric cancer incidence demands a screening tool.

KW - magnetic resonance imaging

KW - magnetically guided capsule endoscope

KW - MGCE

KW - MRI

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855855944&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855855944&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.030

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.030

M3 - Article

C2 - 22154417

AN - SCOPUS:84855855944

VL - 75

SP - 373

EP - 381

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 2

ER -