How should we do colon capsule endoscopy reading: a practical guide.

In this article, we aim to provide general principles as well as personal views for colonic capsule endoscopy. To allow an in-depth understanding of the recommendations, we also present basic technological characteristics and specifications, with emphasis on the current as well as the previous version of colonic capsule endoscopy and relevant software. To date, there is no scientific proof to support the optimal way of reading a colonic capsule endoscopy video, or any standards or guidelines exist. Hence, any advice is a mixture of recommendations by the capsule manufacturer and experts' opinion. Furthermore, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of term(s) (pre-reader/reader-validator) in colonic capsule endoscopy. We also include a couple of handy tables in order to get info at a glance.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Indications, Findings, and Complications - Data from a Prospective German Colon Capsule Registry Trial (DEKOR).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Reliable and especially widely accepted preventive measures are crucial to further reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might increase the screening numbers among patients unable or unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopy. This registry trial aimed to document and determine the CCE indications, findings, complications, and adverse events in outpatient practices and clinics throughout Germany. METHODS: Patients undergoing CCE between 2010 and 2015 were enrolled in this prospective multicenter registry trial at six German centers. Patient demographics, outcomes, and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included. Of the CCE evaluations, 111 (68.9%) were considered successful. Pathological findings in the colon (n=92, 60.1%) and in the remaining gastrointestinal tract (n=38, 24.8%) were recorded. The main finding was the presence of polyps (n=52, 32.3%). Furthermore, five carcinomas (3.1%) were detected and histologically confirmed later. Adequate bowel cleanliness was more likely to be achieved in the outpatient setting (p<0.0001). Interestingly, 85 patients (55.6%) chose to undergo CCE based on personal motivation. CONCLUSION: CCE seems to be a reliable and safe endoscopic tool for screening for CRC and detecting other diseases. Its patient acceptance and feasibility seems to be high, especially in the outpatient setting.

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.

PillCamColon2 after incomplete colonoscopy - A prospective multicenter study.

AIM: To evaluate the ability of PillCamColon2 to visualize colonic segments missed by incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) and to assess the diagnostic yield. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study included 81 patients from nine centres who underwent second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) following incomplete OC performed by an experienced gastroenterologist (> 1000 colonoscopies). Patients with stenosis were excluded. According to patient preferences, CCE was performed the following day (protocol A) after staying on clear liquids and 0.75 L Moviprep in the morning or within 30 d after new split-dose Moviprep (protocol B). Boosts consisted of 0.75 L and 0.25 L Moviprep, and phospho-soda was given as a rescue if the capsule was not excreted after seven hours. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were analysed (51% of them in group A; 49% in group B). Bowel cleansing was adequate in 67% of cases, and CCE could visualize colonic segments missed by incomplete colonoscopy in 90% of patients under protocol A and 97% of patients under protocol B (P = 0.35, n.s.). Significant polyps including adenocarcinoma were detected in 24% of cases. Detection rates for all polyps and significant polyps per patient were similar in both protocols. Polyps were found predominantly in the right colon (86%) in segments that were not reached by OC. Extracolonic findings - such as reflux esophagitis, suspected Barrett esophagus, upper GI-bleeding, gastric polyps, gastric erosions and angiectasia - were detected in eight patients. PillCamColon2 capsule was retained in the ileum of one patient (1.4%) without symptoms and removed during an uneventful resection for unknown Crohn's disease that was diagnosed as the cause of anemia, which was the indication for colonoscopy. CCE was well tolerated. One patient suffered from self-limiting vomiting after consuming the phospho-soda. CONCLUSION: Second-generation CCE using a low-volume preparation is useful after incomplete OC, and it allows for the detection of additional relevant findings, but cleansing efficiency could be improved.

Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer.

BACKGROUND: An ingestible capsule consisting of an endoscope equipped with a video camera at both ends was designed to explore the colon. This study compared capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy (the standard for comparison) in a cohort of patients with known or suspected colonic disease for the detection of colorectal polyps or cancer. Patients underwent an adapted colon preparation, and colon cleanliness was graded from poor to excellent. We computed the sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for polyps, advanced adenoma, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients (mean age, 58.6 years) were included in the study. The capsule was excreted within 10 hours after ingestion and before the end of the lifetime of the battery in 92.8% of the patients. The sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for detecting polyps that were 6 mm in size or bigger were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59 to 72) and 84% (95% CI, 81 to 87), respectively, and for detecting advanced adenoma, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% (95% CI, 61 to 83) and 79% (95% CI, 77 to 81), respectively. Of 19 cancers detected by colonoscopy, 14 were detected by capsule endoscopy (sensitivity, 74%; 95% CI, 52 to 88). For all lesions, the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy was higher in patients with good or excellent colon cleanliness than in those with fair or poor colon cleanliness. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported in 26 patients (7.9%) and were mostly related to the colon preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.)

Endoscopic full-thickness plication for the treatment of GERD by application of multiple Plicator implants: a multicenter study (with video).

BACKGROUND: The full-thickness Plicator allows transmural suturing at the gastroesophageal (GE) junction to restructure the antireflux barrier. Studies of the Plicator procedure to date have been limited to placement of a single transmural suture to create the endoscopic gastroplication. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of placing multiple transmural sutures for the treatment of GERD. DESIGN: Open-label, prospective, multicenter study. SETTING: Four tertiary-referral centers. PATIENTS: Subjects with symptomatic GERD who require daily maintenance proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Study exclusions were hiatal hernia >3 cm, grades III and IV esophagitis, Barrett's epithelium, and esophageal dysmotility. INTERVENTIONS: Forty-one patients received two or more transmural sutures placed linearly in the anterior gastric cardia approximately 1 cm below the GE junction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Six months after the procedure, median GERD-health-related quality of life (HRQL) improved 76% compared with off-medication baseline (6.0 vs 25.0, P < .001), with 75% of patients (32/40) achieving >50% improvement in their baseline GERD-HRQL score. Six months after the procedure, daily PPI therapy was eliminated in 70% of patients (28/40). Heartburn symptoms improved 80% compared with off-medication baseline (16.0 vs 84.0, P < .001). Median esophagitis grade improved 75% compared with baseline (0.0 vs 1.0, P = .005). Esophageal pH assessed as median distal esophageal-acid exposure (percentage time pH < 4.0) improved 38% compared with baseline (9.0 vs 11.0, P < .020; nominal P value for a single statistical test: significance removed upon the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing of data) and manometric outcomes were also improved compared with baseline (median lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure improved 25% [10.0 vs 6.0, P < .017; nominal P value for a single statistical test: significance removed upon the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing of data]) and median amplitude of contraction improved 11% (70.0 vs 62.0, P < .037; nominal P value for a single statistical test: significance removed upon the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing of data). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. No randomized comparison with a single implant group. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic full-thickness plication with multiple serially placed implants was safe and effective in reducing GERD symptoms, medication use, esophageal-acid exposure, and esophagitis.