A comprehensive examination of small-bowel capsule endoscopy in Spanish centers to meet European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards.

Background and study aims In 2019, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) created a working group to develop technical and quality standards for small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) to improve the daily practice of endoscopy services. They developed 10 quality parameters, which have yet to be tested in a real-life setting. Our study aimed to evaluate the accomplishment of the quality standards in SBCE established by the ESGE in several Spanish centers. Materials and methods An online survey of 11 multiple-choice questions related to the ESGE performance measures was sent to Spanish centers with experience in SBCE. In order to participate and obtain reliable data, at least 100 questionnaires had to be answered per center because that is the minimum number established by ESGE. Results 20 centers participated in the study, compiling 2049 SBCEs for the analysis. Only one of 10 performance measures (cecal visualization) reached the minimum standard established by the ESGE. In five of 10 performance measures (Indication, lesion detection rate, terminology, and retention rate) the minimum standard was nearly achieved. Conclusions Our study is the first multicenter study regarding SBCE quality performance measures in a real setting. Our results show that the minimum standard is hardly reached in most procedures, which calls into question their clinical applicability in real life. We suggest performing similar studies in other countries to evaluate whether there is a need for quality improvement programs or a need to reevaluate the minimum and target values published so far.

Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Placement of Capsule Endoscopy to Investigate the Small Bowel: a Multicentric European Retrospective Series of 630 Procedures in Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) is a first line procedure for exploring the SB. Endoscopic GastroIntestinal PlacemenT (EGIPT) of SB CE is sometimes necessary. While the experience of EGIPT is large in pediatric populations, we aimed to describe the safety, efficacy and outcomes of EGIPT of SB CE in adult patients. METHODS: The international CApsule endoscopy REsearch (iCARE) group set up a retrospective multicenter study. Patients over 18 year-old who underwent EGIPT of SB CE before May 2022 were included. Data were collected from medical records and capsule recordings. The primary endpoint was the technical success rate of the EGIPT procedures. RESULTS: 630 patients were included (mean age 62.5 years old, 55.9% female) from 39,565 patients (1.6%) issued from 29 centers. EGIPT technical success was achieved in 610 procedures (96.8%). Anesthesia (moderate/deep sedation or general anesthesia) and centers with intermediate or high procedure loads were independent factors of technical success. Severe adverse events occurred in three (0.5%) patients. When technically successful, EGIPT was associated with a high SB CE completion rate (84.4%) and with a substantial diagnostic yield (61.1%). Completion rate was significantly higher when the capsule was delivered in the SB compared to when delivered in the stomach. CONCLUSION: EGIPT of SB CE is highly feasible, safe and comes with high completion rate and diagnostic yield. When indicated, it should rather be performed under anesthesia and the capsule should be delivered in the duodenum rather than in the stomach, for better SB examination outcomes.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) presents a short list of performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Current performance measures for colonoscopy mainly focus on detecting (pre)malignant lesions. However, these performance measures are not relevant for all colonoscopy indications in IBD patients. Therefore, our aim was to provide endoscopy services across Europe and other interested countries with a tool for quality monitoring and improvement in IBD colonoscopy. Eight key performance measures and one minor performance measure were recommended for measurement and evaluation in daily endoscopy practice.

Small bowel Crohn's disease: optimal modality for diagnosis and monitoring.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper reviews different imaging options for small bowel (SB) Crohn's disease (CD) patients. RECENT FINDINGS: In total, 80% of patients suffering from CD have SB involvement, being the exclusive manifestation in 30% of cases. As the proximal disease is related to poor response to treatment, a higher rate of stenosis and a greater need for surgical treatment, a SB assessment should be performed. This evaluation should be done not only once the disease has been diagnosed but periodically. The former to determine the extent of the disease, and the latter according to a treat-to-target strategy. Available techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging, intestinal ultrasound and capsule endoscopy (CE) have shown good accuracy parameters in CD patients. Cross-sectional studies are superior for penetrating and stricturing disease, whereas CE is excellent for proximal involvement and mucosal healing. Local expertise and availability may lead the election between techniques, nevertheless, they should not be considered as competitors but as complementary tools. SUMMARY: SB involvement in CD patients is frequent and related to poorer outcomes. Hence, SB evaluation should be screened after diagnosis and routinely during the follow-up.

Predictive factors for inadequate bowel cleansing in colon capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Achieving adequate bowel cleansing is of utmost importance for the efficiency of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). However, information about predictive factors is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. METHODS: In this observational study, 126 patients who underwent CCE at two tertiary care hospitals were included between June 2017 and January 2020. Participants prepared for bowel cleansing with a 1-day clear liquid diet, a 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen and boosters with sodium phosphate, sodium amidotrizoate and meglumine amidotrizoate. Domperidone tablets and bisacodyl suppositories were administered when needed. Overall and per-segment bowel cleansing was evaluated using a CCE cleansing score. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were carried out to assess poor bowel cleansing and excretion rate predictors. RESULTS: Overall bowel cleansing was optimal in 53 patients (50.5%). Optimal per-segment bowel cleansing was achieved as follows: cecum (86 patients; 74.8%), transverse colon (91 patients; 81.3%), distal colon (81 patients; 75%) and rectum (64 patients; 66.7%). In the univariate analysis, elderly (OR, 1.03; 95% CI (1.01-1.076)) and constipation (OR, 3.82; 95% CI (1.50-9.71)) were associated with poor bowel cleansing. In the logistic regression analysis, constipation (OR, 3.77; 95% CI (1.43-10.0)) was associated with poor bowel cleansing. No variables were significantly associated with the CCE device excretion rate. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that constipation is the most powerful predictor of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. Tailored cleansing protocols should be recommended for these patients.

The "diagnose and leave in" strategy for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps in Lynch syndrome: a post hoc analysis from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The "diagnose-and-leave-in" policy has been established to reduce the risks and costs related to unnecessary polypectomies in the average-risk population. In individuals with Lynch syndrome, owing to accelerated carcinogenesis, the general recommendation is to remove all polyps, irrespective of size, location, and appearance. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy in individuals with Lynch syndrome. METHODS : We performed a post hoc analysis based on per-polyp data from a randomized, clinical trial conducted by 24 dedicated colonoscopists at 14 academic centers, in which 256 patients with confirmed Lynch syndrome underwent surveillance colonoscopy from July 2016 to January 2018. In vivo optical diagnosis with confidence level for all detected lesions was obtained before polypectomy using virtual chromoendoscopy alone or with dye-based chromoendoscopy. Primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) for neoplasia of high-confidence optical diagnosis among diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid lesions. Histology was the reference standard. RESULTS: Of 147 rectosigmoid lesions, 128 were diminutive. In 103 of the 128 lesions (81 %), the optical diagnostic confidence was high and showed an NPV of 96.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.9 %-98.6 %) and accuracy of 89.3 % (95 %CI 81.9 %-93.9 %). By following the diagnose-and-leave-in policy, we would have avoided 59 % (75/128) of polypectomies at the expense of two diminutive low grade dysplastic adenomas and one diminutive sessile serrated lesion that would have been left in situ. CONCLUSION: In patients with Lynch syndrome, the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps would be feasible and safe.

Monitoring established Crohn's disease with pan-intestinal video capsule endoscopy in Europe: clinician consultation using the nominal group technique.

OBJECTIVE: Monitoring established Crohn's disease (CD) through a "treat-to-target" strategy aims to reduce and prevent long-term bowel damage and disability. Despite the availability of different monitoring techniques, there is a current lack of integrated evidence to guide optimal monitoring in terms of appropriate tools and timing. Pan-intestinal video capsule endoscopy (PCE) enables non-invasive and direct visualization of the entire intestinal tract with proven safety and efficacy. This study aims to generate insights on the value of PCE for monitoring established CD from the physician's perspective. METHODS: The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to create discussion around pre-defined research questions aimed at identifying target patient populations for PCE, benefits of PCE in terms of improving disease management, comparative benefits of PCE over standard of care, research priorities to ratify the use of PCE, and hurdles to PCE utilization. A NGT panel was held in Brussels, Belgium in October 2018 with 9 gastroenterology experts. Data were collected from multiple rankings of statements to the research questions and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Consensus indicated that PCE is differentiated from other diagnostic tools, allowing for non-invasive and direct visualization of the luminal intestinal tract in one single procedure. Participants agreed that PCE is beneficial for mapping and grading established CD in all patients, enabling individual and tailored treatment decision-making. Time required to read PCE results was identified as the main utilization hurdle by participants. Well-designed studies are needed to confirm improved outcomes amongst patients with CD managed through a PCE-guided approach. CONCLUSIONS: This study, using the NGT, generated expert opinion on the value of PCE for monitoring established CD in terms of target patient populations and benefits compared to other diagnostic modalities. Participants perceived PCE to facilitate a "treat-to-target" strategy for CD management. Further research is needed to support this value perception.

Pan-enteric capsule for bleeding high-risk patients. Can we limit endoscopies?

INTRODUCTION: obscure gastrointestinal bleeding is defined as bleeding from a source that cannot be identified on upper or lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and capsule endoscopy is the next step in these patients. Some patients may be unsuitable for conventional endoscopy and performing a capsule panendoscopic test as a first line procedure might potentially reduce the number of endoscopies and their subsequent risk. AIM: to analyze our experience with capsule endoscopy in the bleeding setting. METHODS: the first 100 panendoscopic capsule procedures performed in our center from August 2011 until December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: positive findings were observed in 61.2 % of patients; 46.26 % had a previous negative gastroscopy and the capsule detected small bowel lesions in 67.7 % and colonic findings in 80.64 %. Taking into consideration that our population were high-risk patients (mainly because of comorbidities) and that we used up to 45 ml of sodium phosphate, sodium, potassium and creatinine changes were analyzed before and after procedure. The mean "before" values were 140.68, 4.04 and 1.36, respectively. The mean "after" values were 140.28, 3.9 and 1.35 (p = n.s.). According to our findings, no other endoscopic studies would be needed in 64.5 % of patients with negative gastroscopy. According to capsule results, conventional endoscopy could have been avoided in 68.6 % of cases. CONCLUSION: panendoscopy with a capsule may be useful and safe in bleeding high-risk patients, by selecting those who need therapeutic endoscopy, avoiding up to 68.6 % of diagnostic endoscopies in our series.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Small Bowel Enteroscopy - A Joint Clinical Guideline from the Spanish and Portuguese Small Bowel Study Groups.

The present evidence-based guidelines are focused on the use of device-assisted enteroscopy in the management of small-bowel diseases. A panel of experts selected by the Spanish and Portuguese small bowel study groups reviewed the available evidence focusing on the main indications of this technique, its role in the management algorithm of each indication and on its diagnostic and therapeutic yields. A set of recommendations were issued accordingly.

Estas recomendações baseadas na evidência detalham o uso da enteroscopia assistida por dispositivo no manejo clínico das doenças do intestino delgado. Um conjunto de Gastrenterologistas diferenciados em patologia do intestino delgado foi selecionado pelos grupos de estudos Espanhol e Portugués de intestino delgado para rever a evidência disponível sobre as principais indicações desta técnica, o seu papel nos algoritmos de manejo de cada indicação e sobre o seu rendimento diagnóstico e terapêutico. Foi gerado um conjunto de recomendações pelos autores.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Curriculum for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize training in small-bowel endoscopy across European centers. The following criteria and framework for training in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), which aim to provide uniform and high quality training to ensure that small-bowel endoscopists are competent to operate independently, are based on the current literature and experience of experts in the field. Three main areas are covered: skills required prior to commencing training in small-bowel endoscopy; structured training for trainees to become independent endoscopists; and ways of ensuring competence is achieved. 1 : Centers providing training in SBCE should perform a minimum of 75 - 100 SBCEs/year. 2 : Experience in bidirectional endoscopies is desirable for structured training in SBCE. 3 : SBCE courses should consist of at least 50 % hands-on training and cover information on technology, indications and contraindications for SBCE, pathologies that can be encountered on SBCE, and standard terminology that should be used during reporting of SBCE. An SBCE course should be completed prior to achieving competence in SBCE reporting. 4 : Competence in SBCE can be assessed by considering a minimum of 30 SBCEs. Direct Observation of Procedural Skills, short SBCE videos, and multiple-choice questions can be useful to assess improvement in the skills of trainees. 5 : Centers offering training in DAE should aim to carry out at least 75 DAEs/year, should have direct links with an SBCE service, and should allow regular discussion of cases at a radiology small-bowel MDT. Training centers with lower numbers are encouraged to offer training by "buddying-up" with other centers, or using mentoring systems. 6 : DAE trainees must be independent in bidirectional endoscopies and have experience in level 1 polypectomy prior to commencement of training. They should also be competent in reviewing SBCEs. 7 : Training in DAE should be structured with a minimum of 75 procedures, including 35 retrograde DAEs, with therapeutic procedures undertaken in at least 50 % of the DAEs performed. Training should cover the indications, contraindications, complications including prevention, and technicalities of the DAE procedure; formal evaluation should follow. DAE trainees must acquire skills to independently manage and advise on small-bowel pathology following DAE procedures. 8 : It is highly recommended that international societies develop online modules and courses on DAE, which are currently lacking across Europe.

Small bowel enteroscopy - A joint clinical guideline by the Spanish and Portuguese small-bowel study groups.

The present evidence-based guidelines are focused on the use of device-assisted enteroscopy in the management of small-bowel diseases. A panel of experts selected by the Spanish and Portuguese small-bowel study groups reviewed the available evidence focusing on the main indications of this technique, its role in the management algorithm of each indication, and its diagnostic and therapeutic yield. A set of recommendations was issued accordingly.

White-Light Endoscopy Is Adequate for Lynch Syndrome Surveillance in a Randomized and Noninferiority Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy is recommended for colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with Lynch syndrome. However, there is scarce evidence to support its superiority to high-definition white-light endoscopy. We performed a prospective study assess whether in the hands of high detecting colonoscopists, high-definition, white-light endoscopy is noninferior to pancolonic chromoendoscopy for detection of adenomas in patients with Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We conducted a parallel controlled study, from July 2016 through January 2018 at 14 centers in Spain of adults with pathogenic germline variants in mismatch repair genes (60% women; mean age, 47 ± 14 years) under surveillance. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent high-definition white-light endoscopy (n = 128) or pancolonic chromoendoscopy (n = 128) evaluations by 24 colonoscopists who specialized in detection of colorectal lesions in high-risk patients for colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rates (defined as the proportion of patients with at least 1 adenoma) were compared between groups, with a noninferiority margin (relative difference) of 15%. RESULTS: We found an important overlap of confidence intervals (CIs) and no significant difference in adenoma detection rates by pancolonic chromoendoscopy (34.4%; 95% CI 26.4%-43.3%) vs white-light endoscopy (28.1%; 95% CI 21.1%-36.4%; P = .28). However, pancolonic chromoendoscopy detected serrated lesions in a significantly higher proportion of patients (37.5%; 95% CI 29.5-46.1) than white-light endoscopy (23.4%; 95% CI 16.9-31.4; P = .01). However, there were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients found to have serrated lesions of 5 mm or larger (9.4% vs 7.0%; P = .49), of proximal location (11.7% vs 10.2%; P = .68), or sessile serrated lesions (3.9% vs 5.5%; P = .55), respectively. Total procedure and withdrawal times with pancolonic chromoendoscopy (30.7 ± 12.8 minutes and 18.3 ± 7.6 minutes, respectively) were significantly longer than with white-light endoscopy (22.4 ± 8.7 minutes and 13.5 ± 5.6 minutes; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized parallel trial, we found that for Lynch syndrome surveillance, high-definition white-light endoscopy is not inferior to pancolonic chromoendoscopy if performed by experienced and dedicated endoscopists. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02951390.

Improving Diagnostic Yield of Capsule Endoscopy in Coeliac Disease: Can Flexible Spectral Imaging Colour Enhancement Play a Role?

INTRODUCTION: Flexible spectral imaging colour enhancement (FICE) is a form of virtual chromoendoscopy that is incorporated in the capsule reading software and that can be used by reviewers to enhance the delineation of lesions in the small bowel. This has been shown to be useful in the detection of pigmented (ulcers, angioectasias) lesions. However, its application to coeliac disease (CD) images from small bowel capsule endoscopies (SBCEs) has rarely been studied. METHODS: This was a European, multicentre study that included 5 expert capsule reviewers who were asked to evaluate a number of normal and abnormal de-identified images from SBCEs of patients with CD to determine whether the use of FICE and blue light can improve the detection of CD-related changes. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of conventional white light in the delineation of CD-related changes were 100%. The next best image modification was FICE 1 with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 100%. There was no difference between conventional white light, FICE and blue light for the identification of CD-related changes. There was a low agreement (Fleiss kappa 0.107; p = 0.147) between expert reviewers in selecting the best image modification that detected CD-related changes. CONCLUSIONS: FICE and blue light were not found to be superior to conventional white light in the delineation of macroscopic changes related to CD on SBCEs.

International core curriculum for capsule endoscopy training courses.

Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a first-line noninvasive tool for visualisation of the small bowel (SB) and is being increasingly used for investigation of the colon. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines have specified requirements for the clinical applications of CE. However, there are no standardized recommendations yet for CE training courses in Europe. The following suggestions in this curriculum are based on the experience of European CE training courses directors. It is suggested that 12 hours be dedicated for either a small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) or a colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) course with 4 hours for an introductory CCE course delivered in conjunction with SBCE courses. SBCE courses should include state-of-the-art lectures on indications, contraindications, complications, patient management and hardware and software use. Procedural issues require approximately 2 hours. For CCE courses 2.5 hours for theoretical lessons and 3.5 hours for procedural issued are considered appropriate. Hands-on training on reading and interpretation of CE cases using a personal computer (PC) for 1 or 2 delegates is recommended for both SBCE and CCE courses. A total of 6 hours hands-on session- time should be allocated. Cases in a SBCE course should cover SB bleeding, inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), tumors and variants of normal and cases with various types of polyps covered in CCE courses. Standardization of the description of findings and generation of high-quality reports should be essential parts of the training. Courses should be followed by an assessment of trainees' skills in order to certify readers' competency.

Therapeutic impact of colon capsule endoscopy with PillCam™ COLON 2 after incomplete standard colonoscopy: a Spanish multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative approach for the examination of the colon in patients who refuse colonoscopy or after incomplete colonoscopy (IC). We conducted a study to determine the frequency of complete colonoscopy after IC, the diagnostic yield of CCE, the therapeutic impact of lesions found in CCE, the level of colon cleanliness and the safety of the procedure. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study involving ten Spanish hospitals. Consecutive outpatients aged ≥ 18 years with previous IC were invited to participate. The latest version of the CCE device, PillCam™ COLON 2 (CCE-2), was administered to all patients according to the protocol. RESULTS: The study population comprised 96 patients. The most frequent cause of IC was the inability to move past a loop using standard maneuvers (75/96 patients, 78%). Complete visualization of the colon was obtained with CCE-2 in 69 patients (71.9%). Of the 27 patients in whom the CCE-2 did not reach the hemorrhoidal plexus, it passed the colonic segment explored with the previous colonoscopy in 20 cases; therefore, it could be inferred that a combined approach (CCE-2 plus colonoscopy) enabled complete visualization of the colonic mucosa in 92.7% of patients. CCE-2 revealed new lesions in 58 patients (60.4%). Polyps were the most frequent finding (41 patients; 42.7% of the total number of patients). In 43 of the 58 patients (44.8% of the total number of patients), the new lesions observed led to modification of therapy, which included a new colonoscopy for polyp resection or surgery in patients with colonic neoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: CCE-2 is a suitable diagnostic procedure that can lead to more frequent diagnosis of significant colonic lesions after IC.