Time-saving polyp detection in colon capsule endoscopy: evaluation of a novel software algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a reliable method to detect colonic polyps in the well-prepared colon. As CCE evaluation can be time consuming, a new software algorithm might aid in reducing evaluation time. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether it is feasible to reliably detect colon polyps in CCE videos with a new software algorithm the "collage mode" (Rapid 8 Software, Covidien/Medtronic®). METHODS: Twenty-nine CCE videos were randomly presented to three experienced and to three inexperienced investigators. Videos were evaluated by applying the collage mode. Investigation time was documented and the results (≥one polyp vs. no polyp) were compared with the findings of two highly experienced central readers who read the CCE videos in the standard mode beforehand. RESULTS: It took a median time of 9.8, 3.5, and 7.5 vs. 4.3, 4.6 and 12.5 min for experienced vs. inexperienced investigators to review the CCE videos. For detecting ≥one polyp vs. no polyp, sensitivity of 93.3%, 73.3%, and 93.3% was observed for the experienced and sensitivity of 46.7%, 33.3%, and 93.3% for the inexperienced CCE readers. CONCLUSION: Collage mode might allow for a quick review of CCE videos with a high polyp detection rate for experienced CCE readers. Future prospective studies should include CCE collage mode for rapid polyp detection to further prove the feasibility of practical colon polyp detection by CCE and possibly support the role of CCE as a screening tool in CRC prevention.

Transcatheter closure of multiple interatrial communications.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine acute and midterm results of closure of multiple interatrial communications with staged device deployment and to review the relevant literature. BACKGROUND: Information about percutaneous methods of closure for multiple defects is limited. METHODS: We treated 148 patients with multiple defects. Of these, 88 had a relevant left to right shunt ("LRS"), 52 had a presumed paradoxical embolism ("PPE"), five had both (LRS and PPE), and one patient, respectively, had migraine, decompression sickness, and a right to left shunt. After implantation of the first device, closure of additional septal defects was attempted only if indicated clinically. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients received a single device and 53 more than one. In four patients, surgical defect closure followed. At the end of follow-up (FU; mean 4.5 ± 3.4 years), complete closure of all defects occurred in 67.6% (62.1% for LRS, 76.5% for PPE). Clinical success (small or trivial residual shunt) was achieved in 86.9% (83.9% for LRS, 90.2% for PPE). Complications included pericardial effusions in 2.7%, recurrent thromboembolic events in 4.8%, and new onset of atrial fibrillation in 10.1%. In a significant number of patients with multiple defects, after single device implantation, the likelihood of complete closure increased with FU time (26% complete closure at 1 month vs. 78% at 24 months). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous closure of multiple interatrial communications is feasible and safe. Importantly, many residual defects close without further intervention at FU. Therefore, staged device delivery is an alternative to simultaneous device implantation, possibly requiring fewer and smaller second devices.