Optimal Bowel Preparation for Video Capsule Endoscopy

Table 5

Studies comparing SBVQ, DY, and CR between prokinetics versus clear liquid or fasting of small bowel VCE.

Author; (year, area)	Design	Number	Prokinetics	Prokinetics versus placebo or fasting
				GTT (min)	SBTT (min)	SBVQ	DY	CR
Leung et al. [28]; (2005, China)	Prospective nonrandomized study	38	Erythromycin	16 versus 70	227 versus 183	54% versus 64%	N/A	96% versus 79%
Caddy et al. [29]; (2006, Australia)	Prospective RCT	45	Erythromycin	51 versus 38	304 versus 302	1.9 versus 2.2	N/A	68% versus 78%
Niv et al. [30]; (2008, Israel)	Retrospective; blind study	100	Erythromycin	21 versus 28	279 versus 270	2.8 versus 2.8	48% versus 36%	90% versus 84%
Wei et al. [31]; (2007, China)	Prospective RCT	60	Mosapride	14 versus 34	248 versus 281	N/A	73% versus 50%	93% versus 67%
Selby [32]; (2005, Australia)	Prospective RCT	150	Metoclopramide	31 versus 48	231 versus 256	100% versus 69%	51% versus 57%	97% versus 76%
Postgate et al. [33]; (2009, UK)	Prospective RCT	74	Metoclopramide	17 versus 17	260 versus 278	38 versus 37	26% versus 35%	85% versus 89%
Almeida et al. [34]; (2010, Portugal)	Prospective RCT	95	Metoclopramide	26 versus 28	221 versus 256	55% versus 54%	68% versus 65%	81% versus 77%
Hooks III et al. [35]; (2009, Netherlands)	Prospective RCT	40	Lubiprostone	126 versus 43	188 versus 219	NS	N/A	N/A
Matsuura et al. [36]; (2014, Japan)	Prospective RCT	6	Lubiprostone	58 versus 23	111 versus 179	3.76 versus 2.88	N/A	N/A

VCE: video capsule endoscopy, GTT: gastric transit time, SBTT: small bowel transit time, SBVQ: small bowel visualization quality, DY: diagnostic yield, CR: completion rate, RCT: randomized controlled trial, N/A: not applicable, and NS: no significant.