Are bowel purgatives and prokinetics useful for small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled study.

Aymer Postgate, Paris Tekkis, Neil Patterson, Aine Fitzpatrick, Paul Bassett, Chris Fraser

Journal: Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2009;69(6):1120-8

PMID: 19152909

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is limited by incomplete small-bowel transit and poor view quality in the distal bowel. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the use of bowel purgatives or prokinetics in CE.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usefulness of bowel purgatives and prokinetics in small-bowel CE.

DESIGN

Prospective single-blind randomized controlled study.

SETTING

Academic endoscopy unit.

PATIENTS

A total of 150 patients prospectively recruited.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 preparations: "standard" (fluid restriction then nothing by mouth 12 hours before the procedure, water and simethicone at capsule ingestion [S]); "standard" + 10 mg oral metoclopramide before the procedure (M); Citramag + senna bowel-purgative regimen the evening before CE (CS); Citramag + senna + 10 mg metoclopramide before the procedure (CSM).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT), completion rates (CR), view quality, and patient acceptability.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

positive findings, diagnostic yield.

RESULTS

No significant difference was noted among groups for GTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 17.3, 24.7, and 15.1 minutes vs 16.8 minutes, respectively; P = .62, .18, and .30, respectively), SBTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 260, 241, and 201 vs 278, respectively; P = .91, .81, and .32, respectively), or CRs (85%, 85%, and 88% vs 89% for M, CS, and CSM vs S, respectively; P = .74, .74, and 1.00, respectively). There was no significant difference in view quality among groups (of 44: 38, 37, and 40 vs 37 for M, CS, and CSM, vs S, respectively; P = .18, .62, and .12, respectively). Diagnostic yield was similar among the groups. CS and CSM regimens were significantly less convenient (P < .001), and CS was significantly less comfortable (P = .001) than standard preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel purgatives and prokinetics do not improve CRs or view quality at CE, and bowel purgatives reduce patient acceptability.

Address: Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark's Hospital, Imperial College London, UK. [email protected]
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.