Use of Simethicone After Capsule Ingestion and Its Impact on the Quality of Small Bowel Video Capsule Endoscopy: A Pilot Study.

Background Small bowel capsule endoscopy is a tool to visualize the small bowel (SB) for conditions such as obscure bleeding. Various studies have been performed to compare various bowel preparation regimens in terms of small bowel transit time (SBTT), small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), and diagnostic yield (DY). Literature suggests that using polyethylene glycol (PEG) prep is significantly better compared to clear liquid and overnight fast in terms of SBVQ and DY. Other investigators have tried to assess the efficacy of adding simethicone to the bowel preparation regimen which seems to improve SBVQ. However, no studies have been done to assess the results of simethicone ingestion after capsule swallowing. We intend to give patients simethicone one hour after capsule ingestion for two consecutive hours and compare results for SBVQ pre-and post-ingestion groups. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of simethicone on SBVQ in pre- and post-capsule ingestion groups. Methodology This prospective, randomized controlled trial included patients who were scheduled for outpatient capsule endoscopy at Albany Medical Center (AMC) Endoscopy Suite. Patients were divided into the control group, group 1, and the treatment group (group 2). The control group followed the standard AMC pre-capsule protocol that included PEG 238 g the evening prior. Group 1 included patients who received 3 mL of simethicone (20 mg/0.3 mL) 20 minutes prior to ingesting the capsule. The treatment group (group 2) included patients who ingested simethicone 3 mL 20 minutes prior to capsule swallowing, 3 mL after one hour, and 1.5 mL after another hour, totaling 7.5 mL of simethicone. Data regarding SBVQ for every patient were evaluated as an individual zone score from 1-3 points, each in proximal, middle, and distal SB based on the SBTT. A cumulative score of 3-9 was given after adding the three zones. These scores were derived using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Data analysis was done using Microsoft Excel software. Results There were six patients in the control group, eight in group 1, and eight in the treatment group (group 2). Proximal, middle, and distal SB did not show any significant difference between their SBVQ scores. Moreover, the total combined score also showed no statistical difference in the SBVQ score. Conclusions There were no statistically significant differences in the SBVQ neither while looking at the cumulative score nor individual segmental score of the entire SB. However, this is only a pilot project with a small number of subjects and results may differ in future studies with increased power.