BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Letter to the Editor
©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 16, 2013; 5(4): 201-202
Published online Apr 16, 2013. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i4.201
Interference between pacemakers/implantable cardioverter defibrillators and video capsule endoscopy
Dirk Bandorski, Johannes Gehron, Reinhard Höltgen
Dirk Bandorski, Medical Clinic II, University Hospital Giessen und Marburg GmbH, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Johannes Gehron, Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Giessen und Marburg GmbH, 35392 Giessen, Germany
Reinhard Höltgen, Medical Clinic III, St.-Agnes Hospital Bocholt, 46397 Bocholt, Germany
Author contributions: All authors read and analysed the article, discussed the results and defined the comments for the Letter to the Editor; Bandorski D and Höltgen R wrote the text of the Letter.
Correspondence to: Dirk Bandorski, MD, FESC, Medical Clinic II, University Hospital Giessen und Marburg GmbH, Excellence Cluster Cardio-Pulmonary System (ECCPS), Klinikstrasse 36, 35392 Giessen, Germany. dirk.bandorski@hkw.med.uni-giessen.de
Telephone: +49-641-98551251 Fax: +49-641-98551259
Received: July 15, 2012
Revised: November 21, 2012
Accepted: January 16, 2013
Published online: April 16, 2013
Processing time: 275 Days and 14.6 Hours
Abstract

Our Letter to the Editor, related to the article “Small bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: Outcome analysis using telemetry” by Cuschieri et al, comments on some small errors, that slipped into the authors discussions. The given informations concerning the pacemaker- and implantable cardioverter defibrillators modes were inaccurate and differ between the text and the table. Moreover, as 8 of 20 patient’s pacemakers were programmed to VOO or DOO (“interference mode”) and one patient was not monitored by telemetry during capsule endoscopy, 9 of 20 patients (45%) lack the informations of possible interference between capsule endoscopy their implanted device. Another objection refers to the interpretation of an electrocardiogram (figure 1, trace B) presented: in contrast to the author’s opinion the marked spike should be interpreted as an artefact and not as ”undersensing of a fibrillatory wave”. Finally, three comments to cited reviews were not complete respectively not quoted correctly.

Keywords: Capsule endoscopy; Small bowel capsule endoscopy; Interference; Cardiac pacemaker; Implantable cardioverter defibrillator; Telemetry
Write to the Help Desk