Concern has been raised regarding the use of simethicone, a de‐foaming agent, during endoscopic procedures. Following reports of simethicone residue in endoscope channels despite high level disinfection, an endoscope manufacturer recommended that it not be used due to concerns of biofilm formation and a possible increased risk of microorganism transmission. However, a detailed mucosal assessment is essential in performing high‐standard endoscopic procedures. This is impaired by bubbles within the gastrointestinal lumen. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia's Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines (ICEG) Committee conducted a literature search utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Following a review of the available evidence, and drawing on extensive clinical experience, the multidisciplinary ICEG committee considered the risks and benefits of simethicone use in formulating four recommendations. Published reports have documented residual liquid or crystalline simethicone in endoscope channels after high level disinfection. There are no data confirming that simethicone can be cleared from channels by brushing. Multiple series report benefits of simethicone use during gastroscopy and colonoscopy in improving mucosal assessment, adenoma detection rate, and reducing procedure time. There are no published reports of adverse events related specifically to the use of simethicone, delivered either orally or via any endoscope channel. An assessment of the risks and benefits supports the continued use of simethicone during endoscopic procedures. Strict adherence to instrument reprocessing protocols is essential. 相似文献
Objectives: This study aims to review the utility of repeat capsule endoscopy (CE) with on-going concern of small bowel (SB) bleeding following initial SB investigation with CE.
Materials and methods: A specifically designed database of CE examinations performed over 13 years, with hospital records, was retrospectively interrogated for patients undergoing multiple CEs to investigate iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) or suspected SB bleeding.
Results: 1335/2276 (58.7%) of CEs were performed to investigate IDA or SB bleeding; 92 were repeat CEs carried out for ongoing clinical concern. The median time interval between initial and repeat CE procedures was 466.5 (range 1–3066) days. Twenty-four patients had initially normal CE; on repeat examination, abnormalities were detected in 11/24 (45.8%). 3/21 (14.2%) of patients with angioectasia on first CE had alternative causes for IDA or GI bleeding detected on repeat CE. Six patients with active bleeding, without an identifiable source on initial CE, undergoing repeat CE had a cause isolated in 5/6 (83.3%). Changing CE device did not affect diagnostic yield (DY) compared to repeat CE using the same device (27.5% to 26.8%).
Conclusions: It is known that CE can miss clinically relevant and serious lesions. Our results suggest that patients with an initially negative or inconclusive CE frequently have a cause of SB bleeding detected on repeat CE. The DY of repeat CE is highest in those with bleeding on their initial CE (83.3%) and lower in those with initially normal examinations (45.8%) or when an alternative cause, such as angioectasia is seen (14.2%). 相似文献