Capsule Endoscopy in Patients with Implantable Electromedical Devices is Safe.

Background and Study Aims. The presence of an implantable electromechanical cardiac device (IED) has long been considered a relative contraindication to the performance of video capsule endoscopy (CE). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of CE in patients with IEDs. A secondary purpose was to determine whether IEDs have any impact on images captured by CE. Patients and Methods. A retrospective chart review of all patients who had a capsule endoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, AZ, USA, or Rochester, MN, USA, (January 2002 to June 2010) was performed to identify CE studies done on patients with IEDs. One hundred and eighteen capsule studies performed in 108 patients with IEDs were identified and reviewed for demographic data, method of preparation, and study data. Results. The most common indications for CE were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (77%), anemia (14%), abdominal pain (5%), celiac disease (2%), diarrhea (1%), and Crohn's disease (1%). Postprocedure assessments did not reveal any detectable alteration on the function of the IED. One patient with an ICD had a 25-minute loss of capsule imaging due to recorder defect. Two patients with LVADs had interference with capsule image acquisition. Conclusions. CE did not interfere with IED function, including PM, ICD, and/or LVAD and thus appears safe. Additionally, PM and ICD do not appear to interfere with image acquisition but LVAD may interfere with capsule images and require that capsule leads be positioned as far away as possible from the IED to assure reliable image acquisition.

A single-center experience of 260 consecutive patients undergoing capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has revolutionized the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) but published literature is limited to small series with heterogeneous indications. The aim of this study was to determine the findings and the diagnostic yield of CE in a large series of patients with overt and occult OGIB. METHODS: Data on 260 patients who underwent CE for overt (N = 126) or occult (N = 134) OGIB were obtained by retrospective chart review and review of an internal database of CE patients and findings. RESULTS: Visualization of the entire small bowel was achieved in 74%. The majority of exams (66%) were rated as having a good or excellent prep. Clinically significant positive findings occurred in 53%. The yield of CE in the obscure-overt group was greater than in the obscure-occult group (60%vs 46%, P= 0.03). Small bowel angioectasias were the most common finding, comprising over 60% of clinically significant lesions. The mean follow-up was 9.6 months, and there were significant reductions in hospitalizations, additional tests/procedures, and units of blood transfused after CE. Both before and after CE, patients in the overt group had more significant GI bleeding than patients in the occult group. Complications occurred in five (1.9%) cases: nonnatural excretion (four) and CE impaction at cricopharyngeus (one). CONCLUSIONS: The yield of clinically important findings on CE in patients with OGIB is 53% and is greater in patients with obscure-overt than obscure-occult GI bleeding. Angioectasias account for the majority of significant lesions in both groups. Compared with pre-CE, patients had clinical improvement post-CE in medical interventions for OGIB. Complications of CE occur in less than 2% of cases.

Safety of wireless capsule endoscopy in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators.

OBJECTIVES: Wireless video capsule endoscopy (CE) is a new technology that allows visualization of the entire small intestinal mucosa. It is indicated for the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) and other disorders of the small intestine. Studies to date suggest that CE is safe and associated with few adverse events. A concern, which has not been studied, is the potential effect of CE on implanted cardiac devices such as implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) and other electromedical devices. We previously found CE to be safe in patients with cardiac pacemakers. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of CE in patients with ICDs who were being evaluated for OGIB. In addition, a secondary aim of the study was to determine whether ICDs had any effect on the images captured by CE. METHODS: Patients referred for the evaluation of OGIB and who also had an ICD were enrolled into the study after informed consent. Five consecutive patients (four females and one male; mean age: 72 yr; range: 60-81 yr) with ICDs were studied. All patients had transvenous endocardial ICDs located in the chest. Prior to CE, patients had a baseline electrocardiogram (ECG) and ICD interrogation. Thereafter, CE was performed in a hospital setting with telemetry monitoring performed simultaneously. A post-procedure ICD interrogation was carried out to evaluate changes in programmed parameters. A cardiologist and ICD nurse specialist together reviewed both the telemetry monitor and the post-procedure ICD interrogation on each patient. When CE studies were reviewed, observations pertaining to technical difficulties and interference with video imaging were documented. RESULTS: No arrhythmia or other adverse cardiac events were noted during capsule transmission. No interference by the ICD on the CE video images was seen. CONCLUSIONS: CE was performed safely in these five patients with ICDs, and was not associated with any adverse cardiac events. ICDs also do not appear to interfere with video capsule imaging.

Safety of capsule endoscopy in patients with pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy, a new technology, allows visualization of the entire small intestinal mucosa. The main indication for capsule endoscopy at present is the evaluation of GI bleeding of obscure origin. Studies to date suggest that capsule endoscopy is safe and is associated with few adverse events. One concern, which has not been studied, is the potential effect of the capsule on cardiac pacemakers and other electromedical devices. The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the safety of capsule endoscopy in patients with cardiac pacemakers who are being evaluated for GI bleeding of obscure origin and to determine whether pacemakers have any effect on the images captured by the capsule endoscope. METHODS: Patients with cardiac pacemakers referred for evaluation of GI bleeding of obscure origin were entered into the study. Before the procedure, an electrocardiogram was obtained, and pacemaker functions were checked. Capsule endoscopy was performed in a hospital setting to allow closer monitoring, instead of the outpatient clinic, which is our routine. Cardiac rhythm was assessed simultaneously during capsule endoscopy with a Holter monitor. Post-procedure pacemaker function was again checked for any disturbance. When the capsule endoscopy studies were reviewed, observations were made with particular reference to technical difficulty or interference with imaging. OBSERVATIONS: Five consecutive patients (4 men, 1 woman; mean age, 73 years, range 56-92 years) with cardiac pacemakers were studied. In all patients, the indication for capsule endoscopy was GI bleeding of obscure origin. A cardiologist and pacemaker nurse specialist reviewed the Holter monitor recordings and evaluated pacemaker function after the procedure for each patient. No arrhythmia or other adverse cardiac event was noted during capsule transmission. No pacemaker-induced interference on the capsule endoscopy images was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy appears to be safe in patients with cardiac pacemakers and does not appear to be associated with any significant adverse cardiac event. Pacemakers do not interfere with capsule imaging.