Ioanna Parisi, Angelica Vania Hosea, Sandro Stoffel, Martin Nemec, Sohail Badat, Edward Seward, Aradhna Kaushal, Robert Kerrison, Christian Von Wagner
{"title":"评估 \"在家 \"胶囊内窥镜检查的安全性、有效性和可行性","authors":"Ioanna Parisi, Angelica Vania Hosea, Sandro Stoffel, Martin Nemec, Sohail Badat, Edward Seward, Aradhna Kaushal, Robert Kerrison, Christian Von Wagner","doi":"10.1136/flgastro-2023-102565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The role of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in diagnosing gastrointestinal diseases has long been established. Recently, colon CE (CCE) has been suggested as an alternative to colonoscopy. CE has been traditionally conducted at endoscopy units. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a switch was made to ‘at-home CE’ (ACE) which has continued to date. This study is an evaluation of ACE, focusing on safety, efficacy, feasibility and patient perceptions. Methods The study evaluated the performance of ACE in 105 consecutive patients, considering procedure outcomes, completion rates, complications and patient satisfaction. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess perceptions and preferences of 84 ACE patients and 43 in-hospital CE patients. ACE procedure involved preassessment calls, bowel preparation, equipment setup, virtual verbal consent, capsule ingestion, booster alerts and equipment collection. Descriptive statistics and tests of independence were used for data analysis. Results All 105 ACE patients were able to have CE at home, with completion rates for SBCE, CCE and panenteric (Crohn’s) CE at 98.3%, 75.9% and 55.6%, respectively. Patients reported low levels of pain (94.1%), embarrassment (98.8%) and anxiety (82.1%). ACE saved time and money, as 42.9% of patients were able to avoid work absence and 52.4% avoided transportation costs. ACE patients reported high satisfaction with the overall procedure (mean=8.5, SD=1.9), and 83.3% would prefer CE again at home. Conclusion This study demonstrates that at-home CEs are clinically effective and well received by patients, providing the opportunity to conduct the test in the comfort of patients’ homes. No data are available. Request for additional information about the data should be made to corresponding author.","PeriodicalId":46937,"journal":{"name":"Frontline Gastroenterology","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the safety, efficacy and feasibility of ‘at-home’ capsule endoscopy\",\"authors\":\"Ioanna Parisi, Angelica Vania Hosea, Sandro Stoffel, Martin Nemec, Sohail Badat, Edward Seward, Aradhna Kaushal, Robert Kerrison, Christian Von Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/flgastro-2023-102565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective The role of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in diagnosing gastrointestinal diseases has long been established. Recently, colon CE (CCE) has been suggested as an alternative to colonoscopy. CE has been traditionally conducted at endoscopy units. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a switch was made to ‘at-home CE’ (ACE) which has continued to date. This study is an evaluation of ACE, focusing on safety, efficacy, feasibility and patient perceptions. Methods The study evaluated the performance of ACE in 105 consecutive patients, considering procedure outcomes, completion rates, complications and patient satisfaction. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess perceptions and preferences of 84 ACE patients and 43 in-hospital CE patients. ACE procedure involved preassessment calls, bowel preparation, equipment setup, virtual verbal consent, capsule ingestion, booster alerts and equipment collection. Descriptive statistics and tests of independence were used for data analysis. Results All 105 ACE patients were able to have CE at home, with completion rates for SBCE, CCE and panenteric (Crohn’s) CE at 98.3%, 75.9% and 55.6%, respectively. Patients reported low levels of pain (94.1%), embarrassment (98.8%) and anxiety (82.1%). ACE saved time and money, as 42.9% of patients were able to avoid work absence and 52.4% avoided transportation costs. ACE patients reported high satisfaction with the overall procedure (mean=8.5, SD=1.9), and 83.3% would prefer CE again at home. Conclusion This study demonstrates that at-home CEs are clinically effective and well received by patients, providing the opportunity to conduct the test in the comfort of patients’ homes. No data are available. Request for additional information about the data should be made to corresponding author.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontline Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontline Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2023-102565\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontline Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2023-102565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the safety, efficacy and feasibility of ‘at-home’ capsule endoscopy
Objective The role of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in diagnosing gastrointestinal diseases has long been established. Recently, colon CE (CCE) has been suggested as an alternative to colonoscopy. CE has been traditionally conducted at endoscopy units. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a switch was made to ‘at-home CE’ (ACE) which has continued to date. This study is an evaluation of ACE, focusing on safety, efficacy, feasibility and patient perceptions. Methods The study evaluated the performance of ACE in 105 consecutive patients, considering procedure outcomes, completion rates, complications and patient satisfaction. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess perceptions and preferences of 84 ACE patients and 43 in-hospital CE patients. ACE procedure involved preassessment calls, bowel preparation, equipment setup, virtual verbal consent, capsule ingestion, booster alerts and equipment collection. Descriptive statistics and tests of independence were used for data analysis. Results All 105 ACE patients were able to have CE at home, with completion rates for SBCE, CCE and panenteric (Crohn’s) CE at 98.3%, 75.9% and 55.6%, respectively. Patients reported low levels of pain (94.1%), embarrassment (98.8%) and anxiety (82.1%). ACE saved time and money, as 42.9% of patients were able to avoid work absence and 52.4% avoided transportation costs. ACE patients reported high satisfaction with the overall procedure (mean=8.5, SD=1.9), and 83.3% would prefer CE again at home. Conclusion This study demonstrates that at-home CEs are clinically effective and well received by patients, providing the opportunity to conduct the test in the comfort of patients’ homes. No data are available. Request for additional information about the data should be made to corresponding author.
期刊介绍:
Frontline Gastroenterology publishes articles that accelerate adoption of innovative and best practice in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. Frontline Gastroenterology is especially interested in articles on multidisciplinary research and care, focusing on both retrospective assessments of novel models of care as well as putative future directions of best practice. Specifically Frontline Gastroenterology publishes articles in the domains of clinical quality, patient experience, service provision and medical education.