Comparison in the diagnostic yield between "Pillcam SB3" capsule endoscopy and "OMOM Smart Capsule 2" in small bowel bleeding. A randomized head-to-head study
Blanco-Velasco G, Zamarripa-Mottú RA, Solórzano-Pineda OM, Mascarenhas-Saraiva M, Blancas-Valencia JM, Hernández-Mondragón OV
Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland). 2020
Introduction Capsule endoscopy is the first-line tool for diagnosis of small bowel bleeding. There are some studies that have compared different types of capsule endoscopy. OMOM capsule endoscopy is one of the newest in the market, and has not been compared to other types of capsule endoscopy. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of the Pillcam SB3 and OMOM capsule endoscopy in small bowel bleeding. Material and methods This is a prospective, comparative, randomized and blinded study. Patients with suspected small bowel bleeding were included. All the patients were given both types of capsules endoscopy in random order. Diagnostic yield and functionality between the two types of capsule endoscopy were analyzed. Results We included 44 patients, 54.5% female with a median of 63.5 years old. Battery time was significantly longer with SB3 (816.5 vs. 700.5 minutes, p<0.001) and the download time was shorter with the OMOM (33 vs. 132 minutes, p<0.001). Both capsule endoscopies presented one failure. The cause of the bleeding was identified in 39 SB3 (88.6%) and in 34 OMOM CE (77.3%) (p=0.256). P2 lesions were observed in 32 SB3 (72.7%) and in 29 OMOM (65.9%) (p=0.784). The agreement between both capsule endoscopies for P2 lesions was moderate (κ=0.628). Conclusions Pillcam SB3 and OMOM devices are safe procedures and have a similar diagnostic yield. Significant differences were observed in the battery life and download time with both capsule endoscopies.