The volume of ERCP per endoscopist is associated with a higher technical success and a lower post-ERCP pancreatitis rate. A prospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: conflicting results have been reported regarding the influence of the annual volume of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on outcome. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the influence of case volume on ERCP outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: an analysis of a prospective database was performed, comparing the outcomes of ERCP in three consecutive periods defined by the number of endoscopists performing ERCP: five endoscopists in period I (P1), four in period II (P2) and three in period III (P3). Only patients with biliary ERCP in accessible and naïve papilla were included. Primary variables were cannulation rates and adverse effects (AE). The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) complexity grades III and IV were considered as highly complex procedures. RESULTS: a total of 2,561 patients were included: 727 (P1), 972 (P2) and 862 (P3). There were no differences in age and sex between groups (p > 0.05). The cannulation rate was significantly higher in P2 and P3: 92.4 % vs 93.3 % vs 93 % (p = 0.037). The AE rate was 13.8 %, 12.6 % and 10.3 % (p > 0.05), respectively. The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly lower in P3: 8.5 %, 7.3 % and 5 % (p = 0.01). The rate of complex procedures was 12 %, 14.8 % and 27 % (p < 0.0001), respectively. Two endoscopists participated in all periods and only one had significantly improved outcomes. Cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis rates remained significantly better in P3 after adjusting for sex, complexity and endoscopist. CONCLUSION: a higher annual volume of ERCP per endoscopist was associated with a higher rate of cannulation and a lower rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, despite the greater complexity of the procedures. These beneficial effects seem to differ between endoscopists.

Next-generation sequencing of bile cell-free DNA for the early detection of patients with malignant biliary strictures.

OBJECTIVE: Despite significant progresses in imaging and pathological evaluation, early differentiation between benign and malignant biliary strictures remains challenging. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is used to investigate biliary strictures, enabling the collection of bile. We tested the diagnostic potential of next-generation sequencing (NGS) mutational analysis of bile cell-free DNA (cfDNA). DESIGN: A prospective cohort of patients with suspicious biliary strictures (n=68) was studied. The performance of initial pathological diagnosis was compared with that of the mutational analysis of bile cfDNA collected at the time of first ERCP using an NGS panel open to clinical laboratory implementation, the Oncomine Pan-Cancer Cell-Free assay. RESULTS: An initial pathological diagnosis classified these strictures as of benign (n=26), indeterminate (n=9) or malignant (n=33) origin. Sensitivity and specificity of this diagnosis were 60% and 100%, respectively, as on follow-up 14 of the 26 and eight of the nine initially benign or indeterminate strictures resulted malignant. Sensitivity and specificity for malignancy of our NGS assay, herein named Bilemut, were 96.4% and 69.2%, respectively. Importantly, one of the four Bilemut false positives developed pancreatic cancer after extended follow-up. Remarkably, the sensitivity for malignancy of Bilemut was 100% in patients with an initial diagnosis of benign or indeterminate strictures. Analysis of 30 paired bile and tissue samples also demonstrated the superior performance of Bilemut. CONCLUSION: Implementation of Bilemut at the initial diagnostic stage for biliary strictures can significantly improve detection of malignancy, reduce delays in the clinical management of patients and assist in selecting patients for targeted therapies.

Population-Based Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Abnormalities at Colon Capsule Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The population prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) disease is unclear and difficult to assess in an asymptomatic population. The aim of this study was to determine prevalence of GI lesions in a largely asymptomatic population undergoing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). METHODS: Participants aged between 50-75 years were retrieved from the Rotterdam Study, a longitudinal epidemiological study, between 2017-2019. Participants received CCE with bowel preparation. Abnormalities defined as clinically relevant were Barrett segment >3cm, severe ulceration, polyp >10 mm or ≥3 polyps in small bowel (SB) or colon, and cancer. RESULTS: Of 2800 invited subjects, 462 (16.5%) participants (mean age 66.8 years, female 53.5%) ingested the colon capsule. A total of 451 videos were analyzed, and in 94.7% the capsule reached the descending colon. At least 1 abnormal finding was seen in 448 (99.3%) participants. The prevalence of abnormalities per GI segment, and the most common type of abnormality, were as follows: Esophageal 14.8% (Barrett's esophagus <3 cm in 8.3%), gastric 27.9% (fundic gland polyps in 18.1%), SB abnormalities 33.9% (erosions in 23.8%), colon 93.3% (diverticula in 81.2%). A total of 54 participants (12%) had clinically relevant abnormalities, 3 (0.7%) in esophagus/stomach (reflux esophagitis grade D, Mallory Weiss lesion and severe gastritis), 5 (1.1%) in SB (polyps > 10 mm; n = 4, severe ulcer n = 1,) and 46 (10.2%) in colon (polyp > 10 mm or ≥3 polyps n = 46, colorectal cancer n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: GI lesions are very common in a mostly asymptomatic Western population, and clinically relevant lesions were found in 12% at CCE. These findings provide a frame of reference for the prevalence rates of GI lesions in the general population.

Strange coincidence in the gut: pseudomelanosis duodeni diagnosed by capsule endoscopy and active bleeding due to angiodysplasia.

We present the case of an 82-year-old male with a medical history of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal failure, ischemic heart disease and iron deficiency anemia. He was under therapy with hydralazine, furosemide, amlodipine, valsartan, nitroglycerin patches, bisoprolol, omeprazole, doxazosin, human insulin and oral iron. The patient presented at our institution with melena. Initial gastroscopy showed fresh blood and a gastric angiodysplasia that was treated with argon plasma coagulation (APC). Three months later, he suffered a new episode of bleeding and a small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) was subsequently indicated.

Can we predict an incomplete capsule endoscopy? Results of a multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) does not reach the cecum within the battery lifetime in approximately 15-35 % of patients. Incomplete examinations result in diagnostic delays and increase the economic burden. To date, risk factors for incomplete examinations have been described with contradictory results. The aims of this study were to analyze the rate and identify risk factors for incomplete examinations, excluding capsule retentions, in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: data from 1,894 consecutive SBCE examinations performed from January 2009 to December 2015 were analyzed. Variables recorded included demographics, past medical and surgical history, biochemical parameters and procedure characteristics. The rate of incomplete examinations, excluding capsule retentions, was calculated and a multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model was performed in order to evaluate predictive factors. RESULTS: the incidence of incomplete examinations, excluding capsule retentions, was 10.1 % (187 incomplete procedures). The multivariate analysis showed that age > 65 years, gastric transit time > 41 minutes and SB transit time > 286 minutes are predictive factors for incomplete examinations, increasing the probability of this event by 199 % (OR: 1.99; 95 % CI: 1.34-2.95), 260 % (OR: 2.60; 95 % CI: 1.72-3.93) and 352 % (OR: 3.52; 95 % CI: 2.26-5.48), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: age > 65 years, gastric transit time > 41 minutes and SB transit time > 286 minutes are predictive factors for incomplete examinations excluding capsule retentions. Both age and gastric transit time events are known before the procedure ends. Therefore, pharmacologic or endoscopic measures may be taken into account to avoid incomplete examinations.

Multicentre, prospective, randomised study comparing the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in a screening population (the TOPAZ study).

OBJECTIVE: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has shown promise for colorectal neoplasia detection compared with optical colonoscopy (OC), but has not been compared with other screening tests in average risk screening patients. DESIGN: Patients 50 to 75 years of age (African Americans, 45-75 years) were randomised to CCE or CT colonography (CTC) and subsequent blinded OC. The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield of polyps ≥6 mm with CCE or CTC. Secondary endpoints included accuracy for size and histology, examination completeness, number/proportion of subjects with polyps and adenomas ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm, subject satisfaction and safety. RESULTS: From 320 enrolled subjects, data from 286 (89.4%) were evaluable. The proportion of subjects with any polyp ≥6 mm confirmed by OC was 31.6% for CCE versus 8.6% for CTC (pPr non-inferiority and superiority=0.999). The diagnostic yield of polyps ≥10 mm was 13.5% with CCE versus 6.3% with CTC (pPr non-inferiority=0.9954). The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥6 mm was 79.2% and 96.3% while that of CTC was 26.8% and 98.9%. The sensitivity and specificity of CCE for polyps ≥10 mm was 85.7% and 98.2% compared with 50% and 99.1% for CTC. Both tests were well tolerated/safe. CONCLUSION: CCE was superior to CTC for detection of polyps ≥6 mm and non-inferior for identification of polyps ≥10 mm. CCE should be considered comparable or superior to CTC as a colorectal neoplasia screening test, although neither test is as effective as OC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02754661.

Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommendations for small-bowel capsule endoscopy into clinical practice: Results of an official ESGE survey.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to document international practices in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), measuring adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical and clinical recommendations. METHODS: Participants reached through the ESGE contact list completed a 52-item web-based survey. RESULTS: 217 responded from 47 countries (176 and 41, respectively, from countries with or without a national society affiliated to ESGE). Of respondents, 45 % had undergone formal SBCE training. Among SBCE procedures, 91 % were performed with an ESGE recommended indication, obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), and suspected/established Crohn's disease being the commonest and with higher rates of positive findings (49.4 %, 38.2 % and 53.5 %, respectively). A watchful waiting strategy after a negative SBCE for OGIB or IDA was preferred by 46.7 % and 70.3 %, respectively. SBCE was a second-line exam for evaluation of extent of new Crohn's disease for 62.2 % of respondents. Endoscopists adhered to varying extents to ESGE technical recommendations regarding bowel preparation ( > 60 %), use in those with pacemaker holders (62.5 %), patency capsule use (51.2 %), and use of a validated scale for bowel preparation assessment (13.3 %). Of the respondents, 67 % read and interpreted the exams themselves and 84 % classified exams findings as relevant or irrelevant. Two thirds anticipated future increase in SBCE demand. Inability to obtain tissue (78.3 %) and high cost (68.1 %) were regarded as the main limitations, and implementation of artificial intelligence as the top development priority (56.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: To some extent, endoscopists follow ESGE guidelines on using SBCE in clinical practice. However, variations in practice have been identified, whose implications require further evaluation.

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.

Oral ingestion versus endoscopic delivery of endoscopic capsule in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery (ORENCES study): A Spanish multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy is the first-choice technique for investigating the majority of small bowel diseases. Its most common complications are related to incomplete examinations and capsule retention. There is no consensus on how patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery should receive the capsule. OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of complete small-bowel examinations (completion rate) between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery of the capsule. The secondary endpoint was to compare diagnostic yield and adverse events in the two groups. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted in nine hospitals in Spain. Demographic data, previous surgery, indication for capsule endoscopy, intestinal transit time, diagnosis, completion rate (percentage of capsules reaching the caecum), diagnostic yield (percentage of results compatible with indication for the exam) and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: From January 2009 to May 2019 fifty-seven patients were included (39 male, mean age 66±15 years). The most common indications for the exam were "overt" (50.9%) and "occult" (35.1%) small bowel bleeding. Previous Billroth II gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were present in 52.6% and 17.5% of patients respectively. The capsule was swallowed in 34 patients and placed endoscopically in 23 patients. No significant differences were observed between the oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery groups in terms of completion rate (82.4% vs. 78.3%; p=0.742), diagnostic yield (41.2% vs. 52.2%; p=0.432) or small bowel transit time (301 vs. 377min, p=0.118). No capsule retention occurred. Only one severe adverse event (anastomotic perforation) was observed in the endoscopic delivery group. CONCLUSIONS: In our case series, there were no significant differences between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery in terms of completion rate, diagnostic yield or safety. Being less invasive, oral ingestion of the capsule should be the first-choice method in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery.

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.

Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 for GI bleeding in a nationwide study: survival and predictors of failure via competing risks analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) is an inorganic hemostatic powder recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness, safety, and predictors of TC-325 failure in a large real-life cohort. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at 21 Spanish centers. All patients treated with TC-325 until September 2018 were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as failed intraprocedural hemostasis or recurrent bleeding within the first 30 postprocedural days. Secondary outcomes included safety and survival. Risk and predictors of failure were assessed via competing-risk models. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 261 patients, of whom 219 (83.9%) presented with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The most common causes were peptic ulcer (28%), malignancy (18.4%), and therapeutic endoscopy-related GIB (17.6%). TC-325 was used as rescue therapy in 191 (73.2%) patients. The rate of intraprocedural hemostasis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90%-96%). Risks of TC-325 failure at postprocedural days 3, 7, and 30 were 21.1%, 24.6%, and 27.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, spurting bleeding (P = .004), use of vasoactive drugs (P = .02), and hypotension (P = .008) were independent predictors of failure. Overall 30-day survival was 81.9% (95% CI, 76%-86%) and intraprocedural hemostasis was associated with a better prognosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.29; P = .006). Two severe adverse events were noted. CONCLUSION: TC-325 was safe and effective for intraprocedural hemostasis in more than 90% of patients, regardless of the cause or site of bleeding and its use as rescue therapy. In this high-risk cohort treated with TC-325, the 30-day failure rate exceeded 25% and was highest with spurting bleeding or hemodynamic instability.

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i. e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

Utility of video capsule endoscopy for longitudinal monitoring of Crohn's disease activity in the small bowel: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This prospective, multicenter study evaluated small-bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) for the longitudinal assessment of mucosal inflammation in subjects with Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Subjects with known CD underwent clinical evaluation with ileocolonoscopy and CE at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Small-bowel patency was confirmed before CE at both time points. The Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) was used for ileocolonoscopy, and the Lewis score and the CE CD Endoscopic Index of Severity (CECDEIS) were used for CE. Clinical scoring indices included the Physician Global Assessment (PGA), CD Activity Index (CDAI), and Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI). Laboratory markers including C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were collected at baseline and follow-up. Correlation between endoscopic scores and clinical parameters were measured using Spearman tests. RESULTS: A total of 74 subjects were enrolled, of whom 53 (72%) completed endoscopic procedures at baseline and 6-month follow-up. The SES-CD ileocolonoscopy score correlated with the Lewis score (P < .001, ρ = .59) and CECDEIS capsule score (P = .002, ρ = .48). None of the 3 endoscopic scores correlated with PGA, CDAI, HBI, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or fecal calprotectin. Approximately 85% of subjects had proximal small-bowel inflammation identified on CE. There were no CE-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There was high correlation between CE and ileocolonoscopy scores for the assessment of mucosal disease activity over time; however, there were no correlations between endoscopic scores and clinical parameters. The use of serial CE for the assessment of small-bowel CD is feasible and valid. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01942720.).

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

SMALL-BOWEL CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY (SBCE): 1: ESGE recommends that prior to SBCE patients ingest a purgative (2 L of polyethylene glycol [PEG]) for better visualization.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.However, the optimal timing for taking purgatives is yet to be established. 2: ESGE recommends that SBCE should be performed as an outpatient procedure if possible, since completion rates are higher in outpatients than in inpatients.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that patients with pacemakers can safely undergo SBCE without special precautions.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that SBCE can also be safely performed in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends the acceptance of qualified nurses and trained technicians as prereaders of capsule endoscopy studies as their competency in identifying pathology is similar to that of medically qualified readers. The responsibility of establishing a diagnosis must however remain with the attending physician.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends observation in cases of asymptomatic capsule retention.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In cases where capsule retrieval is indicated, ESGE recommends the use of device-assisted enteroscopy as the method of choice.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. DEVICE-ASSISTED ENTEROSCOPY (DAE): 1: ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.Strong recommendation, low quality evidenceThe choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE] and double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Factors that predict the presence of non-small bowel lesions during capsule endoscopy examinations.

We read the papers by Juanmartiñena et al. entitled "Colonic lesions in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact" and "Gastroduodenal lesions detected during small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact".

[Giant hepatic hemangioma, an uncommon presentation of a frequent disease]. / Hemangioma cavernomatoso hepático gigante, presentación infrecuente de una lesión común.

Hepatic hemangiomas, also referred to as cavernous hemangiomas, are the most common benign mesenchymal hepatic tumors. They are often solitary, small lesions that have an excellent safety-prognosis and were commonly incidentally detected. Hepatic hemangiomas are frequently asymptomatic, although symptoms are more likely in those lesions larger than 5 cm also referred to as giant hemangiomas. We present a case of a pauci-asymptomatic 43 year-old woman with an uncommon 16x16x27 cm giant hemangioma and perform a review of the literature.

Comparing diagnostic yield of a novel pan-enteric video capsule endoscope with ileocolonoscopy in patients with active Crohn's disease: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Crohn's disease (CD) is typically diagnosed with ileocolonoscopy (IC); however, when inflammation is localized solely in the small bowel, visualization of the entire small-bowel mucosa can be challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of a pan-enteric video capsule endoscope (small-bowel colon [SBC] capsule) versus IC in patients with active CD. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter study. Patients with known active CD and proven bowel luminal patency underwent a standardized colon cleansing protocol followed by ingestion of the capsule. After passage of the capsule, IC was performed and recorded. Lesions indicative of active CD were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen subjects were screened; 66 subjects completed both endoscopic procedures. The per-subject diagnostic yield rate for active CD lesions was 83.3% for SBC and 69.7% for IC (yield difference, 13.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6%-24.7%); 65% of subjects had active CD lesions identified by both modalities. Of the 12 subjects who were positive for active CD by SBC only, 5 subjects were found to have active CD lesions in the terminal ileum. Three subjects were positive for active CD by IC only. Three hundred fifty-five classifying bowel segments were analyzed; the per-segment diagnostic yield rate was 40.6% for SBC and 32.7% for IC (yield difference 7.9%; 95% CI, 3.3%-12.4%). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study shows that the diagnostic yields for SBC might be higher than IC; however, the magnitude of difference between the two is difficult to estimate. Further study is needed to confirm these findings.

Choledochocele as an atypical cause of relapsing acute pancreatitis: diagnosis and endoscopic treatment.

The choledochocele is a cystic dilatation of the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct and corresponds to the type III biliary cysts in the Todani ´s classification. Eventhough the majority of patients remain asymptomatic they can be an atypical cause of abdominal pain or relapsing acute pancreatitis events. The risk of malignancy is lower than other choledochal cyst (<2,5%). The treatment is based on surgical or new endoscopic techniques of resection. In some of the cases an endoscopic sphincterotomy is the first approach.

Signet ring cell carcinoma of the jejunum: an uncommon finding within the reach of capsule endoscopy.

An 80 year-old female presented with ductal breast carcinoma (stage II) three years ago, complained of asthenia and iron-deficiency anemia. No diagnosis was obtained after conventional endoscopy and iron supplements were indicated. Ten months later visible digestive hemorrhage was presented. Upper and lower endoscopy was repeated but non-diagnosis was obtained. Thus, video capsule endoscopy was indicated identifying a stenotic lesion arising in the mucosa of distal jejunum. Histopathological examination revealed a poorly mucinous differentiated signet-ring cell adenocarcinoma with an intense peri-tumoral lymphoid (Crohn´s-like lymphoid reaction) and lympho-vascular infiltration with no nodal metastases (pT3N0;7ª edition TNM classification). Immunochemistry revealed negative stained for estrogen and progesterone receptors in contrast with prior breast cancer. Thus, metastatic origin was rule out. Primary small-bowel malignancies are extremely rare. They account for 2% of all gastrointestinal tract malignancies. Carcinoid tumor (40%), adenocarcinoma (33%), lymphoma (17%) and sarcoma (8%) are most common histological types. Symptomatic lesions are rare, but when present: gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal pain and weight loss are most common digestive symptoms. Primary signet ring cell adenocarcinoma is a rarely histopathological variety of adenocarcinoma with poor prognosis, usually identified in esophageal or gastric locations (95%). They are less commonly detected in remaining gastrointestinal tract, and when present, metastatic origin must always rule out. Nowadays, diagnostic delayed is common and leads to detected small bowel neoplasms at late stages with poor treatment outcomes. Thus, capsule endoscopy may help to improve this situation as it may identify them at early stages.

Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) of the gastroesophageal junction: a case report and review of the literature.

Esophageal cancer is the fourth most common neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract. It is responsible for 1.7% of all deaths related with cancer. The two main types of esophageal cancer are squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Other types of esophageal cancer are uncommon. We present a 57-year-old man admitted to the hospital with nausea and vomiting due to a high-grade malignant mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction. The patient underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy and adyuvant chemoradiotherapy. At 8-month follow-up he was alive without evidence of recurrence.