首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Endoscopy International Open >Video capsule endoscopy completion and total transit times are similar with oral or endoscopic delivery
【2h】

Video capsule endoscopy completion and total transit times are similar with oral or endoscopic delivery

机译:视频胶囊内窥镜检查的完成和总转运时间与口服或内窥镜检查的情况相似

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background and study aims: Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is limited by incomplete procedures. There are also contraindications to the standard ingestion of the capsule that require endoscopic placement. Our aim was to compare the study completion rate of VCE after oral ingestion and endoscopic deployment. >Patients and methods: We performed a review of all VCE from April 2010 through March 2013. Inpatient and outpatient cohorts grouped by the method of capsule delivery were formed and compared. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was utilized adjusting for variables with a P value ≤ 0.1 in group comparisons. Log-rank analysis was used to compare transit times. >Results: A total of 687 VCE were performed, including 316 inpatient (36 endoscopic deployment, 280 oral ingestion) and 371 outpatient (20 endoscopic deployment, 351 oral ingestion). For VCE on hospitalized patients, the completion rates were similar after endoscopic deployment and oral ingestion (72 % vs 73 %, P = 0.94). The completion rates were also similar for ambulatory patients (90 % vs 87 %, P = 0.69). There remained no difference after multivariable modeling for inpatients (P = 0.71) and outpatients (P = 0.46). Total transit times were not significantly different. >Conclusions: VCE completion rates and total transit times are similar after oral or endoscopic deployment for both hospitalized and ambulatory patients. Endoscopic placement is effective in patients with contraindications to standard oral ingestion, but should otherwise be avoided to limit unnecessary procedural risks and costs.
机译:>背景和研究目标:视频胶囊内窥镜检查(VCE)受不完整的程序限制。对于胶囊的标准摄入也有禁忌症,需要内窥镜放置。我们的目的是比较口服和内窥镜部署后VCE的研究完成率。 >患者和方法:我们对从2010年4月到2013年3月的所有VCE进行了回顾。形成并比较了按胶囊递送方法分组的住院和门诊队列。多变量逻辑回归建模用于在小组比较中调整P值≤0.1的变量。对数秩分析用于比较运输时间。 >结果:总共进行了687次VCE,其中包括316例住院患者(36例内窥镜部署,280次口服)和371名门诊患者(20例内窥镜部署,351次口服)。对于住院患者的VCE,内窥镜部署和口服摄入后的完成率相似(72 %% vs 73 %%,P = 0.94)。非卧床患者的完成率也相似(90%vs 87%,P = 0.69)。在住院病人(P = 0.71)和门诊病人(P = 0.46)进行多变量建模后,没有差异。总运输时间没有显着差异。 >结论:对于住院患者和非住院患者,口服或内镜部署后,VCE完成率和总通过时间相似。内镜放置对标准口服摄入禁忌症的患者有效,但应避免这种做法以限制不必要的手术风险和费用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号