Multicenter prospective feasibility study on compliance, safety, and acceptance of small bowel and colon capsule endoscopy in the out-of-clinic setting in Japan.

Naoki Ohmiya, Akihiro Araki, Akiyoshi Tsuboi, Keiko Nakamura, Kyoko Ito, Naoki Hotta, Yasuo Kakugawa, Shiro Oka, Yutaka Saito, Tomohiro Kato, Shinji Tanaka
{"title":"Multicenter prospective feasibility study on compliance, safety, and acceptance of small bowel and colon capsule endoscopy in the out-of-clinic setting in Japan.","authors":"Naoki Ohmiya, Akihiro Araki, Akiyoshi Tsuboi, Keiko Nakamura, Kyoko Ito, Naoki Hotta, Yasuo Kakugawa, Shiro Oka, Yutaka Saito, Tomohiro Kato, Shinji Tanaka","doi":"10.1111/den.14981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to determine the compliance, safety, and acceptance of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in an out-of-clinic setting remotely supported by medical staff.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 30 examinees (24 with CCE and six with SBCE) who had not undergone CE at six gastroenterological centers. All examinees were provided with instructions on equipment and bowel preparations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CCE was performed at home (n = 16) or at the workplace (n = 8). Compliance with data-recorder alerts was 100% for bowel preparation and 79% for equipment operation. Total capsule colonoscopy was achieved in 83.3%. The overall adequate endoscopic cleansing rate was 83.3%, and abnormalities, including colorectal polyps, were detected in 37.5%. CCE malfunction, such as the inability to automatically detect the small bowel mucosa occurred in one (4.2%). One experienced mild abdominal pain that required no treatment. Inquiries were present from half of the examinees. The proportions of examinees who desired and refused CCE at the next examination were 67% and 4%, respectively. SBCE was performed at home (n = 4) or at the workplace (n = 2). Compliance with the procedures was 100%. Whole small bowel images were recorded for all examinees. The overall adequate endoscopic clearness rate was 100%. One abnormality was detected. Inquiries were present from half of the examinees. There were no adverse events or malfunctions. The proportion of examinees who reported \"quite easy\" and \"fairly easy\" was 66%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CCE and SBCE with all procedures in the out-of-clinic setting supported by remote consultations were feasible. A multicenter prospective study of the safety and acceptance of capsule endoscopy examinations at home (HomeCam-J study) (jRCTs042220163).</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to determine the compliance, safety, and acceptance of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in an out-of-clinic setting remotely supported by medical staff.

Methods: We enrolled 30 examinees (24 with CCE and six with SBCE) who had not undergone CE at six gastroenterological centers. All examinees were provided with instructions on equipment and bowel preparations.

Results: CCE was performed at home (n = 16) or at the workplace (n = 8). Compliance with data-recorder alerts was 100% for bowel preparation and 79% for equipment operation. Total capsule colonoscopy was achieved in 83.3%. The overall adequate endoscopic cleansing rate was 83.3%, and abnormalities, including colorectal polyps, were detected in 37.5%. CCE malfunction, such as the inability to automatically detect the small bowel mucosa occurred in one (4.2%). One experienced mild abdominal pain that required no treatment. Inquiries were present from half of the examinees. The proportions of examinees who desired and refused CCE at the next examination were 67% and 4%, respectively. SBCE was performed at home (n = 4) or at the workplace (n = 2). Compliance with the procedures was 100%. Whole small bowel images were recorded for all examinees. The overall adequate endoscopic clearness rate was 100%. One abnormality was detected. Inquiries were present from half of the examinees. There were no adverse events or malfunctions. The proportion of examinees who reported "quite easy" and "fairly easy" was 66%.

Conclusion: CCE and SBCE with all procedures in the out-of-clinic setting supported by remote consultations were feasible. A multicenter prospective study of the safety and acceptance of capsule endoscopy examinations at home (HomeCam-J study) (jRCTs042220163).

日本门诊外小肠和结肠胶囊内镜依从性、安全性和接受度的多中心前瞻性可行性研究
目的:我们旨在确定结肠胶囊内镜(CCE)和小肠胶囊内镜(SBCE)在医疗人员远程支持下的门诊外环境中的依从性、安全性和可接受性。方法:我们在6个胃肠病学中心招募了30名未接受过CE治疗的考生(24名CCE, 6名SBCE)。所有的考生都得到了设备和肠道准备的指导。结果:CCE分别在家中(n = 16)和工作场所(n = 8)进行。数据记录仪警报的符合性在肠准备中为100%,在设备操作中为79%。全胶囊结肠镜检查成功率为83.3%。总的内镜清洗率为83.3%,检查出异常(包括结肠息肉)的比例为37.5%。CCE功能障碍,如不能自动检测小肠粘膜发生1例(4.2%)。其中一名患者有轻度腹痛,无需治疗。有一半的考生提出了问题。在下次考试中,希望和拒绝参加CCE考试的考生比例分别为67%和4%。SBCE在家中(n = 4)或在工作场所(n = 2)进行。对程序的遵从率为100%。记录所有受试者的整个小肠图像。整体足够的内镜清晰度为100%。检测到一个异常。有一半的考生提出了问题。没有不良事件或故障。回答“相当容易”和“相当容易”的考生比例为66%。结论:在远程会诊的支持下,CCE和SBCE在门诊外的所有程序都是可行的。家庭胶囊内窥镜检查安全性和接受度的多中心前瞻性研究(HomeCam-J study) (jRCTs042220163)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信