The Role of Capsule Endoscopy in the Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Tumors: A Narrative Review.

Small bowel tumors (SBT) are relatively rare, but have had a steadily increasing incidence in the last few decades. Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy are the main endoscopic techniques for the study of the small bowel, the latter additionally providing sampling and therapeutic options, and hence acting complementary to SBCE in the diagnostic work-up. Although a single diagnostic modality is often insufficient in the setting of SBTs, SBCE is a fundamental tool to drive further management towards a definitive diagnosis. The aim of this paper is to provide a concise narrative review of the role of SBCE in the diagnosis and management of SBTs.

Surveillance of the small-bowel by capsule endoscopy in Lynch syndrome - A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The role of small-bowel (SB) cancer surveillance by capsule endoscopy (CE) in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients has been investigated in recent years, with contradicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic yield (DY) of CE as a screening tool in asymptomatic LS patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for all studies reporting the results of SB cancer screening in patients with LS. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the DY of CE in this setting for consecutive screening rounds. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 428 patients and CE 677 procedures were included for data extraction and statistical analysis. The estimated pooled DY for CE-identified pathological findings was 8% in the first screening round and 6% in the second. Limiting the analysis to histologically-confirmed pathological findings, the pooled DY of second-round screening dropped to 0%. The included studies showed a significantly different prevalence of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair (path_MMR) genes, which underlie different cumulative incidences of extracolonic cancers. CONCLUSIONS: SB surveillance by CE with a 2-year interval in asymptomatic LS individuals does not appear to be an effective screening strategy. Confirmatory prospective studies in this context are needed, considering the different cumulative incidence of SB tumors according to underlying path_MMR defects.

Diagnosis and management of small-bowel bleeding.

Small-bowel (SB) bleeding is a challenging problem for the clinician, presenting many pitfalls in both diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) have revolutionized the approach to the patient with SB bleeding, allowing for the endoscopic diagnosis and management of what was previously only a surgical matter. The patients' assessment in SB bleeding is of foremost importance, as treatment success relies on a detailed evaluation of clinical history, suspicion for underlying lesions, and a careful selection and timing of diagnostic and therapeutic tools. This review will summarize current state-of-the-art evidence and practice points, to provide the clinician with a comprehensive guide towards the management of SB bleeding.

The evolving role of device-assisted enteroscopy: The state of the art as of August 2023.

Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in particular, has become a routine endoscopic procedure which has revolutionized our approach to small-bowel disease. Evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of BAE spans over 22-years of experience, making it an established pillar of minimally invasive care. The robust evidence for BAE's safety and efficacy has now been incorporated into international clinical guidelines, technical reviews, benchmarking performance measures and curricula. The more recently introduced motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) which had replaced the previous manual version, abruptly ended its 7-year stint in clinical practice, when it was withdrawn and recalled from the market by its manufacturing company in July 2023, due to several associated serious adverse events (including fatalities). This article, written by the original developer of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and other recognized international experts and pioneers in this field, focuses mainly on the technical aspects, evolving indications, and equipment-related technological advances. Despite the very recent withdrawal of MSE from clinical practice, for completeness, this technology and its technique is still briefly covered here, albeit importantly, along with a short description of reported, associated, serious adverse events which have contributed to its withdrawal/recall from the market and clinical practice.

Clinical impact of videocapsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy in non-bleeding small bowel lesions.

Background: Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are part of the diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of indications other than suspected small bowel bleeding (OSBB). The literature is currently lacking studies describing these procedures in this particular setting. Objectives: We assessed the clinical impact of VCE and DBE in a large monocentric cohort of OSBB patients, as compared to a control group of suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB) patients who underwent enteroscopy over the same period. Design: Monocentric, retrospective, cohort study. Methods: We collected the data of consecutive patients with OSBB undergoing VCE and/or DBE from March 2001 to July 2020. The demographic and clinical parameters of the patients, technical characteristics, and adverse events for each procedure were collected. The impact of VCE and DBE was defined in terms of diagnostic yield (DY). The patients were subdivided according to the main indication into four groups: celiac disease, Crohn's disease (CD), neoplasia, and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. Results: A total of 611 VCEs and 387 DBEs were performed for OSBB. The main indications were complicated celiac disease and CD. The DYs of VCE and DBE overall were 53 and 61.7%, respectively, with some variance among the four groups. We report no statistical differences in the DY of VCE and DBE in SSBB vs OSBB (57.7% vs 53%, p = 0.0859 and 68.8% vs 61.7%, p = 0.0582, respectively). OSBB patients were significantly younger than those with SSBB. However, similarly to SSBB (k = 0.059), poor agreement between the enteroscopic techniques was found in the OSBB population (k = 0.109). The safety of both procedures in OSBB was comparable to that in SSBB patients. Conclusion: VCE and DBE are effective and safe in suspected OSBB, where their role is similar to that in SSBB, their main indication.

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.

Enteroscopy in diagnosis and treatment of small bowel bleeding: A Delphi expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: Enteroscopy plays an important role in the management of small bowel bleeding. However, current guidelines are not specifically designed for small bowel bleeding and recommendations from different international societies do not always align. Consequently, there is heterogeneity in the definitions of clinical entities, clinical practice policies, and adherence to guidelines among clinicians. This represents an obstacle to providing the best patient care and to obtain homogeneous data for clinical research. AIMS: The aims of the study were to establish a consensus on the definitions of bleeding entities and on the role of enteroscopy in the management of small bowel bleeding using a Delphi process. METHODS: A core group of eight experts in enteroscopy identified five main topics of small bowel bleeding management and drafted statements on each topic. An expert panel of nine gastroenterologists participated in three rounds of the Delphi process, together with the core group. RESULTS: A total of 33 statements were approved after three rounds of Delphi voting. CONCLUSION: This Delphi consensus proposes clear definitions and a unifying strategy to standardize the management of small bowel bleeding. Furthermore, it provides a useful guide in daily practice for both clinical and technical issues of enteroscopy.

New Generation Express View: An Artificial Intelligence Software Effectively Reduces Capsule Endoscopy Reading Times.

BACKGROUND: Reading capsule endoscopy (CE) is time-consuming. The Express View (EV) (IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea) software was designed to shorten CE video reading. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EV in detecting significant small-bowel (SB) lesions. We also compared the reading times with EV mode and standard reading (SR). METHODS: 126 patients with suspected SB bleeding and/or suspected neoplasia were prospectively enrolled and underwent SB CE (MiroCam®1200, IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea). CE evaluation was performed in standard and EV mode. In case of discrepancies between SR and EV readings, a consensus was reached after reviewing the video segments and the findings were re-classified. RESULTS: The completion rate of SB CE in our cohort was 86.5% and no retention occurred. The per-patient analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of EV compared to SR were 86%, 86%, 90%, 81%, and 86%, respectively, before consensus. After consensus, they increased to 97%, 100%, 100%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. The median reading time with SR and EV was 71 min (range 26−340) and 13 min (range 3−85), respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The new-generation EV shows high diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduces CE reading times.

Indications, Detection, Completion and Retention Rates of Capsule Endoscopy in Two Decades of Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a widespread modality for non-invasive evaluation of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with several CE models having been developed throughout the years. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate performance measures such as completion, detection and retention rates of CE. METHODS: Literature through to August 2021 was screened for articles regarding all capsule types: small bowel, double-headed capsule for the colon or PillCam®Crohn's capsule, magnetically-controlled capsule endoscopy, esophageal capsule and patency capsule. Primary outcomes included detection rate (DR), completion rate (CR) and capsule retention rate (RR). DR, CR and RR were also analyzed in relation to indications such as obscure GI bleeding (OGIB), known/suspected Crohn's disease (CD), celiac disease (CeD), neoplastic lesions (NL) and clinical symptoms (CS). RESULTS: 328 original articles involving 86,930 patients who underwent CE were included. OGIB was the most common indication (n = 44,750), followed by CS (n = 17,897), CD (n = 11,299), NL (n = 4989) and CeD (n = 947). The most used capsule type was small bowel CE in 236 studies. DR, CR and RR for all indications were 59%, 89.6% and 2%, respectively. According to specific indications: DR were 55%, 66%, 63%, 52% and 62%; CR were 90.6%, 86.5%, 78.2%, 94% and 92.8%; and RR were 2%, 4%, 1%, 6% and 2%. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled DR, CR and RR are acceptable for all capsule types. OGIB is the most common indication for CE. Technological advancements have expanded the scope of CE devices in detecting GI pathology with acceptable rates for a complete examination.

Screening and surveillance of oesophageal varices in patients with HCV-positive liver cirrhosis successfully treated by direct-acting antiviral agents.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: limited evidence is available to guide hepatologists regarding endoscopic surveillance of oesophageal varices (EV) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)-positive cirrhotic patients achieving a sustained virologic response. To address these issues, we conducted a long-term prospective study on 427 HCV-positive cirrhotic patients successfully treated by Direct Antiviral Agents (DAAs). METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups according to their baseline Baveno VI status: Group 1 (92, 21.5%, favourable Baveno VI status) and Group 2 (335, 78.5%, unfavourable Baveno VI status). Each patient underwent baseline endoscopy and was endoscopically monitored for a median follow-up of 65.2 months according to Baveno VI recommendations. RESULTS: About 4.3% of Group 1 patients showed baseline EV compared with 30.1% of Group 2 patients (p < .0001). No patients belonging to Group 1 without baseline EV developed EV at follow-up endoscopy compared with 6.5% in Group 2 patients (p = .02); 69/107 (64.5%) patients with baseline EV showed small varices. During the endoscopic follow-up, EV disappeared/improved in 36 (33.6%), were stable in 39 (36.4%) and worsened in 32 (29.9%) patients, all belonging to Group 2 (p = .001). Improvement in Baveno VI status was observed in 118/335 (35.2%, p < .0001) of Group 2 patients and among those without pre-therapy EV, none developed EV throughout the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HCV-positive cirrhotic patients cured by DAAs showing baseline favourable Baveno VI status and no worsening during follow-up can safely avoid endoscopic screening and surveillance. Patients having unfavourable Baveno VI status without baseline EV who improve their status may suspend further endoscopic surveillance.

Efficacy of bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. Patients and methods We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Results Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764-0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820-0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735-0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896-0.979). Conclusions In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Preferences for Colon Capsule Endoscopy and Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Colon capsule endoscopy as an alternative to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colonic disease may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable investigation for patients. Our aim was to examine patient-reported outcomes for colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional optical colonoscopy including preference of investigation modality, tolerability and adverse events. A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and Embase. Search results were thoroughly screened for in- and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent assessment of transparency and completeness, after which, data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates of patient preference were calculated and heterogeneity was examined including univariate meta-regressions. Patient-reported tolerability and adverse events were reviewed. Out of fourteen included studies, twelve had investigated patient-reported outcomes in patients who had undergone both investigations, whereas in two the patients were randomized between investigations. Pooled patient preferences were estimated to be 52% (CI 95%: 41-63%) for colon capsule endoscopy and 45% (CI 95%: 33-57%) for conventional colonoscopy: not indicating a significant difference. Procedural adverse events were rarely reported by patients for either investigation. The tolerability was high for both colon capsule endoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patient preferences for conventional colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy were not significantly different. Procedural adverse events were rare and the tolerability for colon capsule endoscopy was consistently reported higher or equal to that of conventional colonoscopy.

Clinical feasibility of panintestinal (or panenteric) capsule endoscopy: a systematic review.

In recent years, panintestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE) with double-headed capsules has been used to perform complete, single-sitting exploration of both small bowel and colon in different clinical conditions. Double-headed capsules for colonic examination (CCE) have been exploited first in this setting, followed by newer generations of capsules (i.e. PillCam Crohn, PCC) specifically engineered for this purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of PCE in the form of a systematic review. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify papers in which CE was specifically used for a PCE of the gastrointestinal tract. Data on CE, bowel preparation regimen, rate of cleanliness and completeness, and data on transit times were analyzed. The primary outcome was to assess the feasibility of a whole-gut exploration with CE. Sixteen (n = 16) studies including 915 CE procedures with CCE1 (n = 134), CCE2 (n = 357) and PCC (n = 424) were included. 13/16 studies were performed in the setting of Crohn's disease. Cleanliness and completeness rates were acceptable in all studies, ranging from 63.9% and 68.6% to 100%, respectively. In conclusion, PCE is a feasible technique, although further structured studies are needed to explore its full potential.

The Role of Video Capsule Endoscopy in Liver Disease.

In the setting of chronic liver disease, capsule endoscopy is safe and well tolerated, making it an appealing diagnostic procedure. It is used mainly for the surveillance of esophageal varices, investigation of anemia, and exploration of the small bowel for complications of portal hypertension. Capsule endoscopy is recognized as a viable alternative in patients unable or unwilling to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for investigations of esophageal varices. In evaluating the small bowel of patients with liver disease and unexplained anemia, capsule endoscopy increases recognition of mucosal abnormalities, although their clinical significance is often unclear.

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. RESULTS: 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. CONCLUSION: CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

[Capsule endoscopy: evidence-based indications in 2020.] / Enteroscopia con videocapsula: indicazioni EBM nel 2020.

Videocapsule endoscopy is, by far, one of the most important milestones in the technological development of endoscopy in the last twenty years. The introduction and spread of videocapsule endoscopy in clinical practice revolutionized the management of small bowel's diseases, allowing a high-quality, extensive examination of its whole mucosal surface. Because of its technical features, videocapsule endoscopy does not allow any direct therapeutic interventions but, compared to other techniques, it is minimally invasive, radiation-free and has an excellent safety profile. The most common indication for videocapsule endoscopy is suspected small bowel bleeding, although other conditions (such as coeliac disease, hereditary polyposis syndromes and, above all, Crohn's disease) may benefit from its use, as highlighted by several studies in recent years. The aim of this paper is to provide a wide overview on indications, limitations and future perspectives of videocapsule endoscopy: by 2020, this technique has become a valuable and irreplaceable tool for the study of the small bowel, changing the patients' management in many clinical scenarios.

Small bowel capsule endoscopy: where do we stand after 20 years of clinical use?

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) was introduced into clinical practice almost 20 years ago and, nowadays, it is an essential tool for the study of the small bowel. SBCE allows a radiation-free examination of the entire mucosal surface of the small bowel with high-quality images, limited invasivity and a good safety profile. Nevertheless, the main limitation of SBCE is the lack of any possible direct therapeutic intervention. Indications for SBCE have evolved throughout the years, from "old" ones such as suspected small bowel bleeding (still the main indication for SBCE) to newer ones such as refractory celiac disease, hereditary polyposis syndromes and Crohn's disease. Thus, nowadays SBCE has a key role in the diagnostic algorithms in many conditions. Furthermore, the introduction in the SBCE field of cutting-edge technologies, as artificial intelligence systems, is likely to shorten the reading time making SBCE even more effective and easy to perform. Preliminary data are extremely promising and solid evidence is being gathered by current studies.