Extracolonic findings with the PillCam Colon: is panendoscopy with capsule endoscopy closer?

Background and study aims: Colon capsules display images from the moment they are ingested, making the study of other extracolonic areas possible. The aim of this study was to analyze the significance of these extracolonic findings. Patients and methods: In this single-center, prospective study, 165 patients underwent colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) between September 2009 and October 2012 to rule out colonic pathology. Images were recorded, without interruptions, from the moment the capsule was ingested until its battery ran out. The study was deemed complete when the capsule had traveled from the esophagus to excretion or until the hemorrhoidal plexus was observed. Results: CCE was used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (81.2 %), to investigate for chronic diarrhea (9.7 %) and chronic iron deficiency anemia (6.1 %), and for patients with incomplete colonoscopy (3.0 %). The capsule returned findings in the esophagus in 52.1 % of patients, in the stomach in 45.5 % of patients, and in the small bowel in 70.7 % of patients, with the findings being considered relevant in 4.9 %, 9.7 %, and 22.6 % of patients, respectively. The whole extent of the digestive tract was fully recorded in 86.1 % of patients and the Z line could be fully observed in 57.6 % of patients. There were no adverse events. Conclusions: CCE allows the recording of images from almost the whole extent of the digestive tract in most patients, enabling relevant pathologies to be identified in extracolonic areas, particularly the small bowel. Technical and procedural improvements are still necessary in order to achieve better observation of the stomach and esophagus.

Colon capsule endoscopy is a safe and useful tool to assess disease parameters in patients with ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a new endoscopic technique that is minimally invasive and allows evaluation of the colon mucosa without pain, sedation, and gas insufflation. To date, few studies have investigated the use of CCE in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This study compares the ability of CCE and a conventional colonoscopy to assess mucosal disease activity and the extent of inflammatory mucosa in patients with UC. METHODS: Forty-two patients (27 men, mean age 48.5 years) with known UC and indication for colonoscopy were enrolled in this single-blind, prospective study. All patients underwent CCE, followed by a colonoscopy. The activity and extent of the disease was assessed using Mayo scores and Montreal scores, respectively. RESULTS: There was a good correlation between CCE and colonoscopy in disease severity (κ=0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.96) and extent of inflammation (κ=0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.90) observed. The ability of CCE to assess a broad segment of distal ileum led to a change in the diagnosis of UC to ileocolonic Crohn's disease in three patients. Bowel preparation was considered adequate in 80% of the patients and no serious adverse events related to the CCE procedure or bowel preparation were reported. CONCLUSION: CCE is a safe and useful method for the evaluation of patients with UC. The ability of CCE to assess distal ileum provides an advantage to colonoscopy as CCE can identify patients who have been incorrectly diagnosed with UC, resulting in a change in their diagnosis to Crohn's disease.