Detection of lesions during capsule endoscopy: physician performance is disappointing.

OBJECTIVES: Limited data guide capsule endoscopists on how to view the many images collected in each capsule. The objective of this study was to compare the detection rates of clinically significant findings in different capsule endoscopy reading modes and speeds. METHODS: Seventeen capsule endoscopists with experience from 23 to > 1,000 total capsule procedures read 24 clips, 18 of which were abnormal. Clips were read in two different reading modes utilizing two speeds, including SingleView at 15 at frames per second (f.p.s.), SingleView 25 f.p.s., QuadView 20 f.p.s., and QuadView 30 f.p.s. The main outcome measurements were pathology detection rates correlated with reading mode, lesion type, reader experience, and timing order. RESULTS: SingleView 15, QuadView 20, and QuadView 30 had no significant difference in overall detection rate (45, 47, and 43%, respectively). SingleView 25 had a 26% detection rate, which was significantly lower than SingleView 15 (P = 0.04) and QuadView 20 (P = 0.002). The detection rates of angioectasias, ulcers/erosions, masses/polyps, and blood were 69, 38, 46, and 17%, respectively. Reader experience and timing of interpretation did not significantly impact detection rate. LIMITATIONS: Pathology was present on a few frames. Limited modes and speeds were assessed. Lesion types were not confirmed with surgical or deep enteroscopic methods. A relatively small number of readers provided interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the detection rates in this study are lower than previously reported and not influenced by increasing experience. Detection rates are significantly higher when reading in SingleView 15 and QuadView 20 compared with reading in SingleView 25. Increasing viewing speed from QuadView 20 to QuadView 30 appears to have no significant effect on detection. Quality control measures to compare and improve lesion detection rates need further study.

Clinical significance of colonoscopic findings associated with colonic thickening on computed tomography: is colonoscopy warranted when thickening is detected?

GOAL: To determine the utility of colonoscopy in the management of patients with abdominal pain found to have colonic thickening on computed tomography (CT). BACKGROUND: CT is often used in the investigation of abdominal pain. Clinical guidelines regarding colonoscopy when colonic wall thickening is reported at CT are lacking. STUDY: From July 2000 to April 2004, the abdominal CT reports of all patients at a major teaching hospital who were investigated for abdominal pain were reviewed. Cases were selected if any colonic wall thickening was reported. Patients were excluded if they had a previously diagnosed gastrointestinal condition, or if they had not undergone colonoscopy within 30 days of the abnormal CT. Clinical, endoscopic, and pathologic data were extracted from the medical records of all eligible patients. RESULTS: One hundred seven cases were identified. Of these, 8 (7.4%) had colorectal adenocarcinoma. In 10 patients (9.3%), a new diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was made. Sixteen (15.0%) had findings consistent with infectious colitis, 39 (36.4%) ischemic colitis, and 6 patients (5.6%) had miscellaneous findings possibly responsible for the colonic thickening (diverticulitis, appendicitis, proctitis, and melanosis coli). In 28 patients (26.1%), no abnormality was found that could explain the CT finding. Of those diagnosed with colorectal carcinoma or IBD, only 4 of the 18 patients (28%) presented with evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or anemia. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the rate of new diagnoses of colorectal carcinoma and IBD, we recommend colonoscopy be performed after clinical evaluation in patients with abdominal pain and colonic thickening on CT.