Capsule endoscopy in Crohn's disease.

Capsule endoscopy (CE) represents a significant advance in the investigation of small bowel diseases. Two-thirds of Crohn's disease (CD) patients have small bowel involvement at diagnosis. Study of small intestine mucosa by CE may have a strong impact on CD management in a near future. CE may be superior to small bowel cross-sectional imaging for detection of mucosal lesions consistent with CD and a normal CE has a high negative predictive value for active small bowel CD. A GI imaging study should generally precede CE to rule out complications such as fistulas and strictures. In established CD, CE may be useful in patients with unexplained symptoms when other investigations are inconclusive, if this will alter management. The low specificity of CE is its main drawback. Furthermore, there are no validated CD diagnosis criteria for CE and no severity indexes have been independently validated. The role of CE in evaluating mucosal healing and postoperative recurrence will require additional investigation.

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. PATIENTS: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. INTERVENTION: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are ≥6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. RESULTS: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. CONCLUSION: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging.

Could the colonic capsule PillCam Colon be clinically useful for selecting patients who deserve a complete colonoscopy?: results of clinical comparison with colonoscopy in the perspective of colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Preliminary studies have shown the possibility of detecting colonic polyps and tumors using the PillCam Colon capsule endoscope (CCE) (Given Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel). The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of CCE to detect clinically relevant colonic findings as compared with colonoscopy, and further, to test the assumption that CCE used in the frame of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could accurately discriminate patients deserving a complete colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 128 patients (67 men, 55+/-14 years) with an indication of colonoscopy were investigated by CCE, followed by colonoscopy under general anesthesia on the next day. Bowel cleansing was carried out according to a previously published protocol (3 l polyethylene glycol+2 doses of sodium phosphate solution). All CCE recordings were read by the same physician and all colonoscopies, performed by the same operator, were blinded to each other's results. The primary outcome of the study was the decision made by the CCE reader to indicate a colonoscopy, compared with the final result of the colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were the agreement between CCE and colonoscopy for making a diagnosis of colorectal disease, as well as detection rate, number, and size of polyps. RESULTS: Two patients were excluded: one did not swallow the capsule and the other was diagnosed with a jejunal stenosis by the CCE. The CCE found at least one clinically relevant colonic finding in 71 patients (56.3%), and the colonoscopy results confirmed this finding in 56 patients, showing a sensitivity of CCE of 87.5% (confidence interval (CI) 79.4-95.6%) and a specificity of 75.8% (CI 65.4-86.2%). With a prevalence of 50.8% of clinically relevant findings at colonoscopy, the positive predictive value of CCE was 78.9%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 85.4%. The agreement between CCE and colonoscopy was significant for the detection of any colonic lesion (P<0.0001), polyps (P<0.001), as well as for the detection of the number (P<0.0001) and size (P=0.0083) of polyps. Tolerance of the procedure was excellent, and no complication was reported. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of this study, CCE seemed to be effective in detecting clinically significant colonic findings in patients with an indication of colonoscopy. The high NPV and excellent tolerance of CCE suggest that it could be evaluated in large CRC-screening programs and further studies in screening conditions should also evaluate its cost-efficacy ratio.

Capsule endoscopy in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-enteropathy and miscellaneous, rare intestinal diseases.

Despite significant advances over the last decade, mucosal lesions of the small bowel are poorly detected by imaging studies such as CT scan, MRI-enteroclysis and contrast-enhanced abdominal ultrasound. Capsule endoscopy (CE) has dramatically changed the diagnostic approach to intestinal diseases. Moreover, the use of CE can be extended to include other conditions. However, it is difficult to assess the positive influence of CE on patient outcomes in conditions involving a small number of patients, or in critically ill and difficult to examine patients. CE has the advantage of diagnosing intestinal lesions and of directing the use of double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in order to obtain biopsy specimens. Moreover, CE allows repeated assessment in chronic conditions, especially to detect relapse of an infectious disease.

Details of the initial management of cardiac arrest occurring in the workplace in a French urban area.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to evaluate the details and management of cardiac arrest (CA) occurring in the working environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 10-year retrospective study based on the medical records of the Garches mobile intensive care unit. CA occurring in the workplace ("Inside W." group) was matched with two CA outside the workplace ("Outside W." group), with regard to sex, age and year of occurrence. The Chain of Survival and prognosis factors were analysed in a bi-multivariate analysis. RESULTS: From 1993 to 2002, 72 CA were included in the "Inside W." group, with 79% arising from suspected cardiac aetiology (there was a similar proportion in the "Outside W." group). Some variables in the cardiac aetiology patients were higher in the "Inside W." group compared to the "Outside W." group (P < 0.05): early external chest compression [(ECC), 37%, n = 20 versus 16%, n = 16)] and ventricular fibrillation as initial recorded rhythm (40%, n = 33 versus 16%, n = 16). The proportion of use of automated external defibrillator (AED) was similar in the two groups. The workplace was not associated with a better outcome, with 9% patients discharged alive compared to 4% n = 6, P > 0.05. Early ECC and defibrillation attempted with an AED were associated with patients discharged alive from the intensive care unit in a multivariate analysis (P < 0.05), but not the workplace and cardiac aetiology. CONCLUSION: Although our study did not support that concept that the workplace was a safer place, there was a better chain of survival for CA applied within workplace settings. Basic Life Support teaching and installation of AEDs could be helpful, though further cost-effectiveness studies are needed.