Systematic review and meta-analysis: is bowel preparation still necessary in small bowel capsule endoscopy?

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Optimal bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy(SBCE) is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of laxatives in SBCE.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies investigating the use of laxatives in SBCE. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield(DY) for SB findings; secondary outcomes SB visualization quality(SBVQ) and completion rate(CR). Pooled odds ratios(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) and number needed to treat(NNT) were calculated.

Results: Forty studies (4380 patients with laxatives, 2185 without) were included. Laxative use did not improve DY of SB findings overall (OR 1.11 (95%CI 0.85–1.44)) or for significant SB findings (OR 1.10 (95%CI 0.76–1.60)). However, SBVQ improved with the use of laxatives (OR 1.60 (95%CI 1.08–2.06)), NNT 14. The OR for completed SBCE was 1.30 (95%CI 0.95–1.78). Patients given polyethylene glycol(PEG) had lower DY than sodium phosphate(NaP). SBVQ improved more with NaP (NNT 7) than PEG (NNT 53).

Conclusions: Laxatives do not significantly improve DY or CR in SBCE, but do improve SBQV. The use of laxatives may be beneficial in patients likely to have subtle findings. There are significant differences in methodology/definitions between studies, hence the need for standardized visualization scoring and recording of SBCE findings.

KEYWORDS:

• Capsule endoscopy
• bowel preparation
• laxatives
• systematic review
• meta-analysis
• polyethylene glycol
• sodium phosphate

Declaration of interest

DE Yung has previously received research funding from Dr Falk and Core. A Koulaozidis has received honoraria from Dr Falk Pharma UK, has served on an advisory board to Dr Falk Pharma UK and has previously received research funding from Synmed UK. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.