The impact of reader fatigue on the accuracy of capsule endoscopy interpretation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Capsule endoscopy (CE) interpretation requires the review of many thousands of images, with lesions often limited to just a few frames. In this study we aim to determine whether lesion detection declines according to the number of capsule videos read. METHODS: 32 participants, 16 of which were novices (NR) and 16 experienced (ER) capsule readers took part in this prospective evaluation study. Participants read six capsule cases with a variety of lesions, in a randomly assigned order during a single sitting. Psychomotor Vigilance Tests and Fatigue Scores were recorded prior to commencing and then after every two capsules read. Changes in lesion detection and measures of fatigue were assessed across the duration of the study. RESULTS: Mean agreement with the predefined lesions was 48.3% (SD:16.1), and 21.3% (SD:15.1) for the experienced and novice readers respectively. Lesion detection declined amongst experienced reader after the first study (p = 0.01), but remained stable after subsequent capsules read, while NR accuracy was unaffected by capsule numbers read. Objective measures of fatigue did not correlate with reading accuracy. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that reader accuracy declines after reading just one capsule study. Subjective and objective measures of fatigue were not sufficient to predict the onset of the effects of fatigue.

Preferences for different diagnostic modalities to follow up abnormal colorectal cancer screening results: a hypothetical vignette study.

OBJECTIVES: In England, a significant proportion of people who take part in the national bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) and have a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) result, do not attend follow-up colonoscopy (CC). The aim of this study was to investigate differences in intended participation in a follow-up investigation by diagnostic modality offered including CC, CT colonography (CTC) or capsule endoscopy (CE). SETTING: We performed a randomised online experiment with individuals who had previously completed an FOBt as part of the English BCSP. METHODS: Participants (n=953) were randomly allocated to receive one of three online vignettes asking participants to imagine they had received an abnormal FOBt result, and that they had been invited for a follow-up test. The follow-up test offered was either: CC (n=346), CTC (n=302) or CE (n=305). Participants were then asked how likely they were to have their allocated test or if they refused, either of the other tests. Respondents were also asked to cite possible emotional and practical barriers to follow up testing. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate intentions. RESULTS: Intention to have the test was higher in the CTC group (96.7%) compared with the CC group (91.8%; OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.22 to 5.73). CTC was considered less 'off-putting' (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94) and less uncomfortable compared with CC (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77). For those who did not intend to have the test they were offered, CE (39.7%) or no investigation (34.5%) was preferable to CC (8.6%) or CTC (17.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternative tests have the potential to increase attendance at diagnostic follow-up appointments.

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.

Patient burden and patient preference: comparing magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We aimed to prospectively determine patient burden and patient preference for magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy in patients with suspected or known Crohn's disease (CD) or occult gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). METHODS: Consecutive consenting patients with CD or OGIB underwent magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Capsule endoscopy was only performed if magnetic resonance enteroclysis showed no high-grade small bowel stenosis. Patient preference and burden was evaluated by means of standardized questionnaires at five moments in time. RESULTS: From January 2007 until March 2009, 76 patients were included (M/F 31/45; mean age 46.9 years; range 20.0-78.4 years): 38 patients with OGIB and 38 with suspected or known CD. Seventeen patients did not undergo capsule endoscopy because of high-grade stenosis. Ninety-five percent (344/363) of the questionnaires were suitable for evaluation. Capsule endoscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy with respect to bowel preparation, swallowing of the capsule (compared to insertion of the tube/scope), burden of the entire examination, duration and accordance with the pre-study information. Capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance enteroclysis were significantly preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, and magnetic resonance enteroclysis was significantly preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination. Balloon-assisted enteroscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for insertion of the scope and procedure duration. Pre- and post-study the order of preference was capsule endoscopy, magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. CONCLUSION: Capsule endoscopy was preferred to magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy; it also had the lowest burden. Magnetic resonance enteroclysis was preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination, and balloon-assisted enteroscopy over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for scope insertion and study duration.

A study comparing tolerability, satisfaction and acceptance of three different techniques for esophageal endoscopy: sedated conventional, unsedated peroral ultra thin, and esophageal capsule.

Three methods of esophagoscopy are available until now: sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. The three methods carry comparable diagnostic accuracy and different complication rates. Although all of them have been found well accepted from patients, no comparative study comprising the three techniques has been published. The aim of this study was to compare the three methods of esophagoscopy regarding tolerability, satisfaction, and acceptance. Twenty patients with large esophageal varices and 10 with gastroesophageal reflux disease were prospectively included. All patients underwent consecutively sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. After each procedure, patients completed a seven-item questionnaire. The total positive attitude of patients toward all methods was high. However, statistical analysis revealed the following differences in favor of esophageal capsule endoscopy: (i) total positive attitude has been found higher (chi(2)= 18.2, df = 2, P= 0.00), (ii) less patients felt pain (chi(2)= 6.9, df = 2, P= 0.03) and discomfort (chi(2)= 22.1, df = 2, P= 0.00), (iii) less patients experienced difficulty (chi(2)= 13.7, df = 2, P= 0.01), and (iv) more patients were willing to undergo esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future (chi(2)= 12.1, df = 2, P= 0.002). Esophageal capsule endoscopy was characterized by a more positive general attitude and caused less pain and discomfort. Sedated conventional endoscopy has been found more difficult. More patients would repeat esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future. Patients' total position for all three available techniques for esophageal endoscopy was excellent and renders the observed advantage of esophageal capsule endoscopy over both sedated conventional and unsedated ultrathin endoscopy a statistical finding without a real clinical benefit.