Comparison Study of IntroMedic®'s MiroCam® and Olympus®' Enteropro EndoCapsule®

Introduction

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is an important tool in the diagnostic management of several gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Taking a video while passing the GI tract, VCE is the only technique providing image information of the whole small bowel. It is a comfortable and safe procedure; complications due to capsule retention are rare [1]. The main disadvantage of VCE is made up by its only dependence on macroscopic information. Therefore it can not be reliably used for the detection of disorders that need histological confirmation. However, lots of macroscopic pathologies can be diagnosed or excluded by VCE. Above all, obscure digestive bleeding (ODB) has become the main indication for the use of VCE [2].

Independent from the type of bowel preparation used, the ileocaecal transit cannot be visualized in up to 20 percent of VCE examinations, which means the loss of diagnostic information of the last intestinal parts [3]. Risk factors of such incomplete VCE include previous small-bowel surgery, hospitalization, moderate or poor bowel cleansing and a gastric transit time longer than 45 minutes [4]. Especially in the latter case, the success of the examination is determined by the battery life expectancy of the capsule technology used [5].

The new MiroCam®, a brand of IntroMedic®, is advertised to have a longer battery life expectancy than competitive products throughout the market. To prove this pronouncement, a pilot-study of 16 patients was presented by He Man Kim at the UEGW 2008, comparing MiroCam® to Given®'s PillCam® by sequential application of both capsules. Although the battery life expectancy of MiroCam® was significantly higher, there was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of both products [6]. Currently a similar comparison study between MiroCam® and Pill Cam® is ongoing in France, involving a higher amount of patients [unpublished data].

Study Aims