Patient tolerance and acceptance of different colonic imaging modalities: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Less invasive alternatives to optical colonoscopy (OC) may improve patient compliance with investigation, but study of patient preference is limited. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine patient tolerance and acceptability of OC, computed tomography colonography (CTC) and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and also to determine the choice of investigation made by fully informed members of the lay public. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients assigned a Gloucester Comfort Score (GCS, 1-5; as did endoscopists), an overall test experience score (visual analogue scale, 0-10) and completed a 'Friends and Family Test' following OC, CTC or CCE. In the second part of the study, members of the public were given information detailing the nature, tolerance, acceptability, risks and outcomes and invited to choose which test they would prefer in the event that one was needed. RESULTS: Assessed by endoscopist and patient, respectively, 24.2 and 49.3% (P<0.005) of symptomatic and 27.3 and 22.1% (P=0.4) of Bowel Cancer Screening Programme patients suffered moderate to severe discomfort (GCS: 4-5) [GCS (mean±SEM): 3.32±0.085, 1.96±0.083 and 1.30±0.088 (P<0.001); overall experience: 5.43, 2.35 and 3.80 (P<0.001)]. In all, 93.6, 96.1 and 85.7% of OC, CTC and CCE patients, respectively, were willing to undergo the same test under the same circumstances. The lay public (n=100) chose a noninvasive test (CTC or CCE) in 55% of the cases to investigate symptoms and chose a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme test in 29% of the cases (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patient tolerance and experience favours CTC and CCE over OC and informed about all aspects of each procedure; a noninvasive option is commonly chosen by the lay public.

International core curriculum for capsule endoscopy training courses.

Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a first-line noninvasive tool for visualisation of the small bowel (SB) and is being increasingly used for investigation of the colon. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines have specified requirements for the clinical applications of CE. However, there are no standardized recommendations yet for CE training courses in Europe. The following suggestions in this curriculum are based on the experience of European CE training courses directors. It is suggested that 12 hours be dedicated for either a small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) or a colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) course with 4 hours for an introductory CCE course delivered in conjunction with SBCE courses. SBCE courses should include state-of-the-art lectures on indications, contraindications, complications, patient management and hardware and software use. Procedural issues require approximately 2 hours. For CCE courses 2.5 hours for theoretical lessons and 3.5 hours for procedural issued are considered appropriate. Hands-on training on reading and interpretation of CE cases using a personal computer (PC) for 1 or 2 delegates is recommended for both SBCE and CCE courses. A total of 6 hours hands-on session- time should be allocated. Cases in a SBCE course should cover SB bleeding, inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), tumors and variants of normal and cases with various types of polyps covered in CCE courses. Standardization of the description of findings and generation of high-quality reports should be essential parts of the training. Courses should be followed by an assessment of trainees' skills in order to certify readers' competency.

A pilot study comparing ESO-2 capsule endoscopy with conventional upper endoscopy for the assessment of uncomplicated heartburn and dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: ESO-2 video capsule endoscopy provides images of the oesophageal mucosa and continues to transmit gastric, and often small bowel images, for up to 30 min. This study compares ESO capsule endoscopy capsule oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (Cap-OGD) with conventional endoscopy (OGD). METHODS: 50 outpatients with uncomplicated dyspepsia underwent Cap-OGD followed by OGD which was recorded on DVD. Cap-OGD and OGD were each reported independently by two gastroenterologists. A benchmark report was also produced by two gastroenterologists viewing both Cap-OGD and OGD on side-by-side monitors. Major findings included large hiatus hernia, Barrett's oesophagus, oesophagitis, erosive gastritis, tumour and ulceration. Minor findings included histologically-proven superficial gastritis, pouting gastric folds and fundic gland polyps. A questionnaire assessed the patient experience. RESULTS: 49 patients completed the study. In 61%, Cap-OGD transmitted in the duodenum. In the benchmark study, all the major OGD findings were observed on Cap-OGD. Cap-OGD revealed fewer minor findings. When reported independently, Cap-OGD and OGD reports indicated differences in interpretation most marked between the capsule readers with or without previous ESO-2 experience. Patients expressed a clear preference for Cap-OGD. CONCLUSIONS: When compared side-by-side, all the major findings on OGD are seen on Cap-OGD while there is under-reporting of minor findings. Previous experience of ESO-2 capsule reporting improves reading accuracy and indicates the need for training. This pilot study provides a backdrop to explore the possible role of Cap-OGD, especially where patients are reluctant to undergo conventional OGD or where there is risk of prion contamination of the endoscope.