Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) has been applied in the last 15 years in an increasing field of applications. Although many contraindications have been put into perspective, some precautions still have to be considered. Known stenosis of the gastrointestinal tract is a clear contraindication for VCE unless surgery is already scheduled or at least has been considered as an optional treatment modality. In patients with a higher incidence of stenosis, as in an established diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, clinical signs of obstruction, prior radiation or surgical small bowel resection, a preceding test with the self-dissolving patency capsule can override this contraindication. Endoscopic placement of the capsule should be considered in patients with swallowing disorders to avoid aspiration. Esophageal or gastric motility disorders may require endoscopic capsule transport or application of prokinetics if the real-time viewer proofs delayed transit. In pregnant women, VCE should be restricted to urgent cases where diagnosis cannot be postponed after delivery, as data on safety are missing. There is theoretical and clinical evidence that patients with implanted cardiac devices such as a pacemaker, cardioverters or left heart assist devices, can safely undergo VCE in spite of still existing contraindication by manufacturers. Children from the age of 2 years have safely undergone VCE. Although video capsules are not proven safe with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), first single cases of patients incidentally undergoing MRI with an incorporated capsule have been reported, showing susceptibility artifacts but no signs of clinical harm.

• Video capsule endoscopy
• Contraindications
• Stenosis
• Pacemaker
• Aspiration
• Pregnancy
• Magnetic resonance imaging

• Age Factors
• Capsule Endoscopy
• Constriction, Pathologic
• Contraindications
• Defibrillators, Implantable
• Deglutition Disorders
• Esophageal Motility Disorders
• Female
• Gastrointestinal Diseases/diagnosis
• Heart-Assist Devices
• Humans
• Pacemaker, Artificial
• Pregnancy

• Aged
• Capsule Endoscopes
• Capsule Endoscopy/adverse effects
• Capsule Endoscopy/methods
• Defibrillators, Implantable/adverse effects
• Equipment Safety
• Female
• Follow-Up Studies
• Humans
• Intestinal Diseases/diagnosis
• Intestine, Small/pathology
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Monitoring, Physiologic
• Nonverbal Communication
• Pacemaker, Artificial/adverse effects
• Patient Safety
• Prospective Studies
• Republic of Korea
• Risk Assessment
• Sampling Studies

AIM: To determine if there were any interactions between cardiac devices and small bowel capsules secondary to electromagnetic interference (EMI) in patients who have undergone small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE).

METHODS: Authors conducted a chart review of 20 patients with a cardiac pacemaker (CP) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) who underwent continuous electrocardiographic monitoring during their SBCE from 2003-2008. authors searched for unexplained electrocardiogram (ECG) findings, changes in CP and ICD set parameters, any abnormality in transmitted capsule data, and adverse clinical events.

RESULTS: There were no adverse events or hemodynamically significant arrhythmias reported. CP and ICD set parameters were preserved. The majority of ECG abnormalities were also found in pre- or post- SBCE ECG tracings and the CP behavior during arrhythmias appeared appropriate. Two patients seemed to have episodes of undersensing by the CP. However, similar findings were documented in ECGs taken outside the time frame of the SBCE. One patient was observed to have a low signal encountered from the capsule resulting in lack of localization, but no images were lost.

CONCLUSION: Capsule-induced EMI remains a possibility but is unlikely to be clinically important. CP-induced interference of SBCE is also possible, but is infrequent and does not result in loss of images transmitted by the capsule.

• Small bowel capsule endoscopy
• Cardiac pacemakers
• Implantable cardioverter defibrillators
• Electromagnetic interference
• Telemetry review

Background and Study Aims. Capsule endoscopy is an established tool for investigation of the small intestine. Because of limited clinical experience in patients with cardiac devices, the Food and Drug Administration and the manufacturer recommended not to use capsule endoscopy in these patients. The vast majority of investigations did not reveal any interference between capsule endoscopy and cardiac devices. Methods. Studies investigating interference between CE and cardiac devices were analysed. For the review we considered studies published in English or German and indexed in Medline, as well as highly relevant abstracts. Results. In vitro and in vivo studies mainly revealed no interference between capsule endoscopy and cardiac devices. Technical data of capsule endoscopy (Given Imaging) reveal that interference with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillator is impossible. Telemetry can interfere with CE video. Conclusion. The clinical use of capsule endoscopy (Given Imaging) is unproblematic in patients with cardiac pacemakers.