Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Qilu Hospital of Shandong University | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
A mini-sized MCE highlighted with a diameter of 9.5mm, a length of 24.5mm, and a weight of 3.0g has been developed. This new type of MCE is approximately 0.6 times the conventional MCE (27mm*11.8mm) in volume and weight, and it is the smallest CE among all the reported capsules. Thus, this pilot study was conducted to clarify whether the mini-sized MCE can further optimize the process of swallowing the capsule and to verify whether the smaller size of the capsule will have influence on the examination procedure of the upper gastrointestinal tract and small intestine.
Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE), with equally favorable diagnostic accuracy as conventional endoscopy, has become a painless noninvasive diagnostic modality in clinical practice. The more than 8 hours battery life of the MCE enables a further examination of the small bowel. In addition, it has been demonstrated that magnetic steering of capsule endoscopy improves the completion rate of small bowel examination by facilitating passage of the capsule through the pylorus, which further supported MCE as a practical modality for examination of both the stomach and small bowel. Previous studies have confirmed the great safety and efficacy of MCE for examination of patients with high-risk factors for standard gastroscopy, those long-time taking aspirin, aging patients and children.
However, this technique still has some limitations in clinical practice. Due to the large size of the capsule, some patients may be difficult to swallow the capsule, especially in children. A clinical trial reported that a certain number of children with ages ranging from 6 to 14 years fail to swallow the MCE by themselves for its big size (27mm*11.8mm). During the examination procedure of small bowel capsule endoscopy, measuring 26*11mm, in those under 10 years old of age, up to 87% of patients are unable to swallow the capsule. In adolescents, it is reported that more than one-third of patients have difficulties with swallowing standard size tablets. In addition, serious complications, such as aspiration of the capsule, often occur in the elderly who need more efforts to swallow the capsule. For those at any age unable or unwilling to swallow a capsule, endoscopic placement is required to deliver the capsule to the stomach or directly the duodenum. However, this procedure greatly increases patient's discomfort, examination costs and increase the risk associated with the endoscopic procedure, anesthesia. Thus, it is of great importance to make the capsule endoscopy easier to swallow in both children and adolescents.
Therefore, a mini-sized MCE highlighted with a diameter of 9.5mm, a length of 24.5mm, and a weight of 3.0g has been developed. This new type of MCE is approximately 0.6 times the conventional MCE (27mm*11.8mm) in volume and weight, and it is the smallest CE among all the reported capsules. Thus, this pilot study was conducted to clarify whether the mini-sized MCE can further optimize the process of swallowing the capsule and to verify whether the smaller size of the capsule will have influence on the examination procedure of the upper gastrointestinal tract and small intestine.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| mini-sized MCE | Experimental | Participants in this group underwent examination of mini-sized MCE. |
|
| normal-sized MCE | Other | Participants in this group underwent examination of normal-sized MCE. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mini-sized MCE | Device | Enrolled participants were randomly allocated into the normal-sized MCE group or mini-sized MCE group in a 1:1 ratio. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| the difficulty score for swallowing the capsule | The primary outcome was the difficulty score for swallowing the capsule, which was assessed on a visual analog scale ranging from 0 (very easy with no nausea) to 10 (very difficult or with severe nausea) | 6 months |
| the time required to swallow the capsule | The capsule swallowing time was defined as the time between the first mouth image and the first esophageal image. | 6 months |
| the success rate for swallowing the capsule at the first attempt | If the patient swallowed the capsule directly with a sip of water at the first attempt, it was defined as a success for swallowing the capsule at the first attempt; if the capsule entered the esophagus after several swallowing attempts or with endoscopic placement, it was defined as a failure. | 6 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| the number of images captured for Z-line and quadrants of the Z-line | Visualization of the esophagus indicated by the number of images captured for Z-line and how many quadrants of the Z-line were observed. | 6 months |
| Visualization score of the gastric mucosa |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Zhuan Liao, Professor | Changhai Hospital,Shanghai,China | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Changhai Hospital | Shanghai | 200433 | China |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27211503 | Background | Liao Z, Hou X, Lin-Hu EQ, Sheng JQ, Ge ZZ, Jiang B, Hou XH, Liu JY, Li Z, Huang QY, Zhao XJ, Li N, Gao YJ, Zhang Y, Zhou JQ, Wang XY, Liu J, Xie XP, Yang CM, Liu HL, Sun XT, Zou WB, Li ZS. Accuracy of Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy, Compared With Conventional Gastroscopy, in Detection of Gastric Diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Sep;14(9):1266-1273.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.05.013. Epub 2016 May 20. | |
| 30367341 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| normal-sized MCE | Device | Enrolled participants were randomly allocated into the normal-sized MCE group or mini-sized MCE group in a 1:1 ratio. |
|
To objectively evaluate the complete visualization of the gastric mucosa in the 6 anatomic landmarks (cardia, fundus, body, angulus, antrum, and pylorus), a 3-point grading scale was used: 1, poor (<70% of the mucosa was observed), 2, fair (70%-90% of the mucosa was observed), and 3, good (>90% of the mucosa was observed). |
| 6 months |
| Visualization of the small bowel | Visualization of the small bowel was determined by the small bowel complete examination rate. | 6 months |
| Difficulty score of swallowing the capsule | To evaluate the difficulty score of swallowing the capsule. After the examination, the patient was asked to complete a questionnaire. A visual analogue scale ranging from 0 (easy with no nausea) to 10 (very difficult or with sever nausea) was used to evaluate the degree of difficulty of swallowing the capsule. | 1 month |
| Gastrointestinal transit time | Examination-related parameters included esophageal transit time (ETT), gastric examination time (GET), gastric transit time (GTT), pylorus transit time (PTT), small bowel transit time (SBTT). ETT is defined as the time between the first esophageal image and the first gastric image. GTT is defined as the time between the first gastric image and the first duodenal image. GET is defined as the time for examination of gastric primary anatomic landmarks twice. PTT is defined as the time between the first pyloric image and the first duodenal image. SBTT is defined as the time between the first duodenal image and the first cecal image. | 1 month |
| Detection rate of lesions | The detection rate of lesions in different digestive part (esophagus, stomach, duodenum, small intestine) found by mini-sized MCE and normal-sized MCE. | 1 month |
| Safety of mini-sized MCE procedure:presence of any adverse events during mini-sized MCE procedure will be recorded | presence of any adverse events during mini-sized MCE procedure will be recorded | 1 month |
| Background |
| Liao Z, Zou W, Li ZS. Clinical application of magnetically controlled capsule gastroscopy in gastric disease diagnosis: recent advances. Sci China Life Sci. 2018 Nov;61(11):1304-1309. doi: 10.1007/s11427-018-9353-5. Epub 2018 Oct 18. |
| 31194028 | Background | Jiang X, Pan J, Li ZS, Liao Z. Standardized examination procedure of magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy. VideoGIE. 2019 May 30;4(6):239-243. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2019.03.003. eCollection 2019 Jun. No abstract available. |
| 30005825 | Background | Jiang X, Qian YY, Liu X, Pan J, Zou WB, Zhou W, Luo YY, Chen YZ, Li ZS, Liao Z. Impact of magnetic steering on gastric transit time of a capsule endoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Oct;88(4):746-754. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.06.031. Epub 2018 Jul 11. |
| 31328998 | Background | Hu J, Wang S, Ma W, Pan D, Sun S. Magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination for high-risk patients for the standard gastroscopy: a preliminary study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul;54(7):934-937. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2019.1638446. Epub 2019 Jul 22. |
| 21615227 | Background | Nuutinen H, Kolho KL, Salminen P, Rintala R, Koskenpato J, Koivusalo A, Sipponen T, Farkkila M. Capsule endoscopy in pediatric patients: technique and results in our first 100 consecutive children. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep;46(9):1138-43. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2011.584900. Epub 2011 May 26. |
| 25896843 | Background | Patel A, Jacobsen L, Jhaveri R, Bradford KK. Effectiveness of pediatric pill swallowing interventions: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2015 May;135(5):883-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-2114. |
| 30981792 | Background | Dan T, Dandan S, Enqiang L. Aspiration of a Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2023 May;164(6):e30-e31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.04.006. Epub 2019 Apr 11. No abstract available. |
| 35820437 | Derived | Jiang X, Qiu XO, Li Z, Pan J, Peng C, Zuo XL, Liao Z, Li ZS. Small-sized versus standard magnetic capsule endoscopy in adults: a two-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2023 Jan;55(1):52-57. doi: 10.1055/a-1881-4369. Epub 2022 Jul 12. |