A Pilot Study of Sequential Capsule Endoscopy Using MiroCam and PillCam SB Devices with Different Transmission Technologies

A Pilot Study of Sequential Capsule Endoscopy Using MiroCam and PillCam SB Devices with Different Transmission Technologies

Background/Aims: Studies have investigated the use of different types of radiofrequency capsules for comparison or sequential capsule endoscopy, but none have compared the MiroCam device - which utilizes a novel data transmission technology - with other capsules. This study compared the feasibility of sequential capsule endoscopy using the MiroCam and PillCam SB devices, which employ different transmission technologies. Methods: Patients with diseases requiring capsule endoscopy were enrolled. After a 12-hour fast, one randomly selected capsule was swallowed. The second capsule was swallowed once fluoroscopy had indicated that the first capsule had migrated below the gastric outlet. Results: The total operating time in 24 patients was 702±60 min (mean±SD) for the MiroCam and 446±28 min for the PillCam SB (p＜0.0001). The rate of a complete examination to the cecum was 83.3% for the MiroCam and 58.3% for the PillCam SB (p=0.031). Diagnostic yields for the MiroCam, PillCam SB, and sequential capsule endoscopy were 45.8%,41.7%, and 50.0%, respectively. The agreement rate between the two capsules was 87.5%, with a κ value of 0.74. Electrical interference in data transmission between the two capsules was not observed, but temporary visual interferences were observed in seven patients (29.2%). Conclusions: Sequential capsule endoscopy with the MiroCam and PillCam SB produced slight but nonsignificant increases in the diagnostic yield, and the two capsules did not exhibit electrical interference. A larger trial is necessary for elucidating the usefulness of sequential capsule endoscopy.

Background/Aims: Studies have investigated the use of different types of radiofrequency capsules for comparison or sequential capsule endoscopy, but none have compared the MiroCam device - which utilizes a novel data transmission technology - with other capsules. This study compared the feasibility of sequential capsule endoscopy using the MiroCam and PillCam SB devices, which employ different transmission technologies. Methods: Patients with diseases requiring capsule endoscopy were enrolled. After a 12-hour fast, one randomly selected capsule was swallowed. The second capsule was swallowed once fluoroscopy had indicated that the first capsule had migrated below the gastric outlet. Results: The total operating time in 24 patients was 702±60 min (mean±SD) for the MiroCam and 446±28 min for the PillCam SB (p＜0.0001). The rate of a complete examination to the cecum was 83.3% for the MiroCam and 58.3% for the PillCam SB (p=0.031). Diagnostic yields for the MiroCam, PillCam SB, and sequential capsule endoscopy were 45.8%,41.7%, and 50.0%, respectively. The agreement rate between the two capsules was 87.5%, with a κ value of 0.74. Electrical interference in data transmission between the two capsules was not observed, but temporary visual interferences were observed in seven patients (29.2%). Conclusions: Sequential capsule endoscopy with the MiroCam and PillCam SB produced slight but nonsignificant increases in the diagnostic yield, and the two capsules did not exhibit electrical interference. A larger trial is necessary for elucidating the usefulness of sequential capsule endoscopy.