A multicenter randomized comparison of the Endocapsule and the Pillcam SB

David R. Cave, David E. Fleischer, Jonathan A Leighton, Douglas Orrick Faigel, Russell I. Heigh, Virender K. Sharma, Christopher J. Gostout, Elizabeth Rajan, Klaus Mergener, Anne Foley, Michael Lee, Kanishka Bhattacharya

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

88 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Video capsule endoscopy has been shown to be the single most effective endoscopic procedure for identifying the source of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). Objective: Our purpose was to report on the Food and Drug Administration pivotal trial in which the Endocapsule (EC) (Olympus America, Allentown, Pa) was compared with the Pillcam SB (PSB) (Given Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel) in patients with OGIB. Design: A novel trial design was used in which the EC and the PSB were swallowed by the same patient 40 minutes apart, in randomized order. Setting: Four academic medical centers. Patients: Patients with OGIB aged 18 to 85 years who had either been transfused or who had a hematocrit of <31% in males or <28% in females. Interventions: Both video capsules were swallowed in random order. Videos from the PSB were read locally for patient management. All videos were then read by at least 2 independent readers for normal versus abnormal categorization, a diagnosis, capsule transit time, reading time, and a subjective assessment of image quality. Main Outcome Measurement: Categorization of videos as either normal or abnormal. Results: Data from 51 of 63 enrolled patients were analyzed. Nine patients were excluded for technical reasons and 3 for protocol violations. Twenty-four videos were read as normal and 14 as abnormal from both capsules. Disagreement occurred in 13. No adverse events were reported for either capsule. Overall agreement was 38 of 51 (74.5%) with a κ of 0.48, P = .008. Limitations: Although ingestion order was randomized, the videos could not be read blind owing to a different shape of the image margin. Conclusions: (1) Both devices were safe and had a comparable diagnostic yield within the range previously reported. (2) There was a subjective difference in image quality favoring the EC. (3) This study design provided unique information about capsule movement in the small intestine and the lack of electromechanical interference between 2 different capsules.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)487-494
Number of pages8
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume68
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Capsules
Hemorrhage
Capsule Endoscopy
Israel
United States Food and Drug Administration
Hematocrit
Small Intestine
Reading
Eating
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

A multicenter randomized comparison of the Endocapsule and the Pillcam SB. / Cave, David R.; Fleischer, David E.; Leighton, Jonathan A; Faigel, Douglas Orrick; Heigh, Russell I.; Sharma, Virender K.; Gostout, Christopher J.; Rajan, Elizabeth; Mergener, Klaus; Foley, Anne; Lee, Michael; Bhattacharya, Kanishka.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 68, No. 3, 09.2008, p. 487-494.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cave, DR, Fleischer, DE, Leighton, JA, Faigel, DO, Heigh, RI, Sharma, VK, Gostout, CJ, Rajan, E, Mergener, K, Foley, A, Lee, M & Bhattacharya, K 2008, 'A multicenter randomized comparison of the Endocapsule and the Pillcam SB', Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.12.037
Cave, David R. ; Fleischer, David E. ; Leighton, Jonathan A ; Faigel, Douglas Orrick ; Heigh, Russell I. ; Sharma, Virender K. ; Gostout, Christopher J. ; Rajan, Elizabeth ; Mergener, Klaus ; Foley, Anne ; Lee, Michael ; Bhattacharya, Kanishka. / A multicenter randomized comparison of the Endocapsule and the Pillcam SB. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008 ; Vol. 68, No. 3. pp. 487-494.
@article{eadbc0d22a464ee7a129d21fc2ea98db,
title = "A multicenter randomized comparison of the Endocapsule and the Pillcam SB",
abstract = "Background: Video capsule endoscopy has been shown to be the single most effective endoscopic procedure for identifying the source of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). Objective: Our purpose was to report on the Food and Drug Administration pivotal trial in which the Endocapsule (EC) (Olympus America, Allentown, Pa) was compared with the Pillcam SB (PSB) (Given Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel) in patients with OGIB. Design: A novel trial design was used in which the EC and the PSB were swallowed by the same patient 40 minutes apart, in randomized order. Setting: Four academic medical centers. Patients: Patients with OGIB aged 18 to 85 years who had either been transfused or who had a hematocrit of <31{\%} in males or <28{\%} in females. Interventions: Both video capsules were swallowed in random order. Videos from the PSB were read locally for patient management. All videos were then read by at least 2 independent readers for normal versus abnormal categorization, a diagnosis, capsule transit time, reading time, and a subjective assessment of image quality. Main Outcome Measurement: Categorization of videos as either normal or abnormal. Results: Data from 51 of 63 enrolled patients were analyzed. Nine patients were excluded for technical reasons and 3 for protocol violations. Twenty-four videos were read as normal and 14 as abnormal from both capsules. Disagreement occurred in 13. No adverse events were reported for either capsule. Overall agreement was 38 of 51 (74.5{\%}) with a κ of 0.48, P = .008. Limitations: Although ingestion order was randomized, the videos could not be read blind owing to a different shape of the image margin. Conclusions: (1) Both devices were safe and had a comparable diagnostic yield within the range previously reported. (2) There was a subjective difference in image quality favoring the EC. (3) This study design provided unique information about capsule movement in the small intestine and the lack of electromechanical interference between 2 different capsules.",
author = "Cave, {David R.} and Fleischer, {David E.} and Leighton, {Jonathan A} and Faigel, {Douglas Orrick} and Heigh, {Russell I.} and Sharma, {Virender K.} and Gostout, {Christopher J.} and Elizabeth Rajan and Klaus Mergener and Anne Foley and Michael Lee and Kanishka Bhattacharya",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2007.12.037",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "487--494",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A multicenter randomized comparison of the Endocapsule and the Pillcam SB

AU - Cave, David R.

AU - Fleischer, David E.

AU - Leighton, Jonathan A

AU - Faigel, Douglas Orrick

AU - Heigh, Russell I.

AU - Sharma, Virender K.

AU - Gostout, Christopher J.

AU - Rajan, Elizabeth

AU - Mergener, Klaus

AU - Foley, Anne

AU - Lee, Michael

AU - Bhattacharya, Kanishka

PY - 2008/9

Y1 - 2008/9

N2 - Background: Video capsule endoscopy has been shown to be the single most effective endoscopic procedure for identifying the source of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). Objective: Our purpose was to report on the Food and Drug Administration pivotal trial in which the Endocapsule (EC) (Olympus America, Allentown, Pa) was compared with the Pillcam SB (PSB) (Given Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel) in patients with OGIB. Design: A novel trial design was used in which the EC and the PSB were swallowed by the same patient 40 minutes apart, in randomized order. Setting: Four academic medical centers. Patients: Patients with OGIB aged 18 to 85 years who had either been transfused or who had a hematocrit of <31% in males or <28% in females. Interventions: Both video capsules were swallowed in random order. Videos from the PSB were read locally for patient management. All videos were then read by at least 2 independent readers for normal versus abnormal categorization, a diagnosis, capsule transit time, reading time, and a subjective assessment of image quality. Main Outcome Measurement: Categorization of videos as either normal or abnormal. Results: Data from 51 of 63 enrolled patients were analyzed. Nine patients were excluded for technical reasons and 3 for protocol violations. Twenty-four videos were read as normal and 14 as abnormal from both capsules. Disagreement occurred in 13. No adverse events were reported for either capsule. Overall agreement was 38 of 51 (74.5%) with a κ of 0.48, P = .008. Limitations: Although ingestion order was randomized, the videos could not be read blind owing to a different shape of the image margin. Conclusions: (1) Both devices were safe and had a comparable diagnostic yield within the range previously reported. (2) There was a subjective difference in image quality favoring the EC. (3) This study design provided unique information about capsule movement in the small intestine and the lack of electromechanical interference between 2 different capsules.

AB - Background: Video capsule endoscopy has been shown to be the single most effective endoscopic procedure for identifying the source of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). Objective: Our purpose was to report on the Food and Drug Administration pivotal trial in which the Endocapsule (EC) (Olympus America, Allentown, Pa) was compared with the Pillcam SB (PSB) (Given Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel) in patients with OGIB. Design: A novel trial design was used in which the EC and the PSB were swallowed by the same patient 40 minutes apart, in randomized order. Setting: Four academic medical centers. Patients: Patients with OGIB aged 18 to 85 years who had either been transfused or who had a hematocrit of <31% in males or <28% in females. Interventions: Both video capsules were swallowed in random order. Videos from the PSB were read locally for patient management. All videos were then read by at least 2 independent readers for normal versus abnormal categorization, a diagnosis, capsule transit time, reading time, and a subjective assessment of image quality. Main Outcome Measurement: Categorization of videos as either normal or abnormal. Results: Data from 51 of 63 enrolled patients were analyzed. Nine patients were excluded for technical reasons and 3 for protocol violations. Twenty-four videos were read as normal and 14 as abnormal from both capsules. Disagreement occurred in 13. No adverse events were reported for either capsule. Overall agreement was 38 of 51 (74.5%) with a κ of 0.48, P = .008. Limitations: Although ingestion order was randomized, the videos could not be read blind owing to a different shape of the image margin. Conclusions: (1) Both devices were safe and had a comparable diagnostic yield within the range previously reported. (2) There was a subjective difference in image quality favoring the EC. (3) This study design provided unique information about capsule movement in the small intestine and the lack of electromechanical interference between 2 different capsules.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=50049092353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=50049092353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2007.12.037

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2007.12.037

M3 - Article

C2 - 18410941

AN - SCOPUS:50049092353

VL - 68

SP - 487

EP - 494

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 3

ER -