Get access

Patient burden and patient preference: Comparing magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy

Authors


Mr Bart Wiarda, Department of Radiology, Medical Center Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, Alkmaar 1815JD, the Netherlands. Email: b.m.wiarda@mca.nl

Abstract

Background and Aim:  We aimed to prospectively determine patient burden and patient preference for magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy in patients with suspected or known Crohn's disease (CD) or occult gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB).

Methods:  Consecutive consenting patients with CD or OGIB underwent magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Capsule endoscopy was only performed if magnetic resonance enteroclysis showed no high-grade small bowel stenosis. Patient preference and burden was evaluated by means of standardized questionnaires at five moments in time.

Results:  From January 2007 until March 2009, 76 patients were included (M/F 31/45; mean age 46.9 years; range 20.0–78.4 years): 38 patients with OGIB and 38 with suspected or known CD. Seventeen patients did not undergo capsule endoscopy because of high-grade stenosis. Ninety-five percent (344/363) of the questionnaires were suitable for evaluation. Capsule endoscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy with respect to bowel preparation, swallowing of the capsule (compared to insertion of the tube/scope), burden of the entire examination, duration and accordance with the pre-study information. Capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance enteroclysis were significantly preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, and magnetic resonance enteroclysis was significantly preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination. Balloon-assisted enteroscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for insertion of the scope and procedure duration. Pre- and post-study the order of preference was capsule endoscopy, magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy.

Conclusion:  Capsule endoscopy was preferred to magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy; it also had the lowest burden. Magnetic resonance enteroclysis was preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination, and balloon-assisted enteroscopy over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for scope insertion and study duration.

Ancillary