The impact of hospitalization on the performance of capsule endoscopy (CE).

BACKGROUND: For proper evaluation of capsule endoscopy (CE), a complete examination is necessary. AIM: We evaluated risk factors of an incomplete CE with focus on patient hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 161 consecutive patients who underwent CE between 01.07.2013 and 13.03.2016. Main indications were active bleeding, iron deficiency anemia (IDA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), abdominal pain, and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). RESULTS: We report the results of 103 in-patients and 56 out-patients. Eighty-two patients were male, average age was 58.9 years (range 18-90). Indications for CE were active bleeding (103 patients), IDA and IBD (16 patients), and FAP, abdominal pain and others (eight examinations each). All FAP patients were out-patients, but showed the longest small bowel transit time (SBTT) of 443.6min (p=0.0001). The shortest SBTT was found in out-patients without FAP (267.5min, p<0.05). In the in-patient group, nine endoscopies did not record the entire small bowel (8.7%) due to battery depletion, compared with only one incomplete examination in the out-patients (1.8%, p=0.036). We found pathologic lesions in the last 30min of the SBTT in 43 patients, and this indicates the necessity for complete examination. Thirteen of these 43 patients showed major lesions such as ulcers or angiodysplasia in this last region alone. CONCLUSION: In-patients might require special treatment to ensure complete examination, since a considerable amount of pathologies can only be found in the ileum.

The malabsorption of commonly occurring mono and disaccharides: levels of investigation and differential diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Adverse food reactions (AFR) have has recently attracted increased attention from the media and are now more commonly reported by patients. Its classification, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment are complex and present a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Non-immune-mediated types of food intolerance have a cumulative prevalence of 30% to 40%, while true (immune-mediated) food allergies affect only 2% to 5% of the German population. METHOD: We selectively searched the literature for pertinent publications on carbohydrate malabsorption, with special attention to published guidelines and position papers. RESULTS: Carbohydrate intolerance can be the result of a rare, systemic metabolic defect (e.g., fructose intolerance, with a prevalence of 1 in 25,000 persons) or of gastrointestinal carbohydrate malabsorption. The malabsorption of simple carbohydrates is the most common type of non-immune-mediated food intolerance, affecting 20% to 30% of the European population. This condition is caused either by deficient digestion of lactose or by malabsorption of fructose and/or sorbitol. Half of all cases of gastrointestinal carbohydrate intolerance have nonspecific manifestations, with a differential diagnosis including irritable bowel syndrome, intolerance reactions, chronic infections, bacterial overgrowth, drug side effects, and other diseases. The diagnostic evaluation includes a nutritional history, an H2 breath test, ultrasonography, endoscopy, and stool culture. CONCLUSION: The goals of treatment for carbohydrate malabsorption are to eliminate the intake of the responsible carbohydrate substance or reduce it to a tolerable amount and to assure the physiological nutritional composition of the patient's diet. In parallel with these goals, the patient should receive extensive information about the condition, and any underlying disease should be adequately treated.

Conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography vs the Olympus V-scope system.

AIM: To compare the new Olympus V-scope (VS) to conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP). METHODS: Forty-nine patients with previous endoscopic papillotomy who were admitted for interventional ERCP for one of several reasons were included in this single-centre, prospective randomized study. Consecutive patients were randomized to either the VS group or to the conventional ERCP group. ERCP-naïve patients who had not undergone papillotomy were excluded. The main study parameters were interventional examination time, X-ray time and dose, and premedication dose (all given below as the median, range) and were investigated in addition to each patient's clinical outcome and complications. Subjective scores to assess each procedure were also provided by the physicians and endoscopy assistants who carried out the procedures. A statistical analysis was carried out using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with 50 interventions were examined with the VS ERCP technique, and 24 patients with 47 interventions were examined using the conventional ERCP technique. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the age, sex, indications, degree of ERCP difficulty, or interventions performed. The main study parameters in the VS group showed a nonsignificant trend towards a shorter interventional examination time (29 min, 5-50 min vs 31 min, 7-90 min, P = 0.28), shorter X-ray time (5.8 min, 0.6-14.1 min vs 6.1 min, 1.6-18.8 min, P = 0.48), and lower X-ray dose (1351 cGy/m(2), 159-5039 cGy/m(2) vs 1296 cGy/m(2), 202.2-6421 cGy/m(2), P = 0.34). A nonsignificant trend towards fewer adverse events occurred in the VS group as compared with the conventional ERCP group (cholangitis: 12% vs 16%, P = 0.12; pain: 4% vs 12.5%, P = 0.33; post-ERCP pancreatitis: 4% vs 12.5%, P = 0.14). In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in assessment by the physicians and endoscopy assistants using subjective questionnaires. CONCLUSION: ERCP using the short-guidewire V-system did not significantly improve ERCP performance or patient outcomes, but it may reduce and simplify the ERCP procedure in difficult settings.

Over-the-scope clip application yields a high rate of closure in gastrointestinal perforations and may reduce emergency surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perforation of the gastrointestinal tract may cause various complications and may require emergency surgery, even in patients with significant comorbidities. METHODS: Seventeen consecutive patients with indication for surgery due to a visible gastrointestinal perforation were treated with OTSC application. In this study, cause of perforation, estimated size, location, rate of perforation closure, outcome and complications were reported. RESULTS: In 11 of 17 patients (64.7 %), OTSC application resulted in permanent closure of perforations, thus avoiding surgery. All 11 successful cases had smaller perforation lengths (5.5 ± 1.9 mm, p < 0.02), widths (3.7 ± 0.9 mm) or area (21.1 ± 9.1 mm(2)), had vital margins of perforations and 1.1 ± 0.3 OTSC per patient were necessary. The six unsuccessful cases (35.3 %) showed larger perforation lengths (13.4 ± 8.8 mm, p < 0.02), widths (5 ± 4.5 mm) and area (97.6 ± 149 mm(2)), had necrotic or soft inflammatory margins and significantly more OTSC (2.3 ± 0.5, p = 0.018) were tried. CONCLUSIONS: OTSC application yields a high rate of endoscopic perforation closure in patients with macroscopic gastrointestinal perforation, even in an emergency setting, representing an alternative to surgery, especially when the size of the lesion is not too large and when vital or solid perforation margins are expected.