PillCam SB3 vs. PillCam SB2: Can technologic advances in capsule endoscopy improve diagnostic yield in patients with small bowel bleeding?

Which model of small bowel capsule endoscopy has a better diagnostic yield? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims: Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is a safe and efficient method for diagnosis of small-bowel diseases. Since its development, different models have appeared. The aim of this study was to analyze which of the different models of SBCE has the best diagnostic yield. Patients and methods: Extensive medical literature research was reviewed, using MESH terms, searching studies comparing different SBCE types. We analyzed the diagnostic yield of all the comparisons and when there were 2 or more studies that compared the same model of SBCEs, a meta-analysis was performed. Results: Ten eligible studies including 1065 SBCEs procedures were identified. The main indication was occult gastrointestinal bleeding in 9/10 studies. Two of them included anemia, chronic diarrhea and/or chronic abdominal pain. The indication in one article was celiac disease. In 9 studies, different types of SBCEs (MiroCam, Endocapsule, OMOM and CapsoCam) were compared with PillCam (SB, SB2 and SB3). Three studies compared MiroCam vs PillCam and CapsoCam vs PillCam, while two studies contrast Endocapsule vs PillCam. None of the SBCEs show superiority over PillCam [OR 0.78 (95%CI;0.60-1.01)]. One study compared SBCEs other than Pillcam (MiroCam vs Endocapsule). Nine studies did not find statistical differences between SBCEs, one showed better diagnostic yield of Mirocam compared with PillCam SB3 (p=0.02). The difference between these SBCE was not replayed in the metaanalysis [OR 0.77 (95%CI;0.49-1.21)]. Conclusions: Despite the appearance of new SBCE models, there are no differences in diagnostic yield; therefore, SBCE endoscopist’s performance should be based on experience and availability.