The Role of Imaging for Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Consensus Recommendations From the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high healthcare utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including computed tomography angiography, catheter angiography, computed tomography enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided.

The Role of Imaging for GI Bleeding: ACG and SAR Consensus Recommendations.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high health care utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including CT angiography, catheter angiography, CT enterography, MR enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist, which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided. © Radiological Society of North America and the American College of Gastroenterology, 2024. Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is being published concurrently in American Journal of Gastroenterology and Radiology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Citations from either journal can be used when citing this article. See also the editorial by Lockhart in this issue.

Deep enteroscopy - what's new and what works best?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aim to review the types of device-assisted deep enteroscopy endoscopes, tips for a successful procedure as well as areas for improvement. RECENT FINDINGS: Deep enteroscopy allows for diagnostic and therapeutic intervention of the small bowel and can be used as an adjunct to video capsule endoscopy to improve the yield and management of small bowel lesions. SUMMARY: Our top tips for deep enteroscopy success include reviewing patient history and prior imaging, utilizing CO 2 insufflation or water exchange, verifying quality measures and emphasizing ergonomics. With these, endoscopists can optimize patient outcomes while minimizing occupational risks. New aspects of deep enteroscopy equipment focus on high-resolution imaging, a larger working channel, and enhanced scope angulation. Proposed improvements include developing innovative technology to optimize the color and clarity of the high-resolution imaging, minimizing the number of staff required for the procedure, and decreasing ergonomic strain.

Prospective Cohort Study to Investigate the Safety of Preoperative Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Exposure in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Undergoing Intra-abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Whether preoperative treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) increases the risk of postoperative infectious complications remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether preoperative exposure to TNFis is an independent risk factor for postoperative infectious complications within 30 days of surgery. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective observational study of patients with IBD undergoing intra-abdominal surgery across 17 sites from the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation Clinical Research Alliance. Infectious complications were categorized as surgical site infections (SSIs) or non-SSIs. Current TNFi exposure was defined as use within 12 weeks of surgery, and serum was collected for drug-level analyses. Multivariable models for occurrence of the primary outcome, any infection, or SSI were adjusted by predefined covariates (age, sex, preoperative steroid use, and disease type), baseline variables significantly associated (P < .05) with any infection or SSI separately, and TNFi exposure status. Exploratory models used TNFi exposure based on serum drug concentration. RESULTS: A total of 947 patients were enrolled from September 2014 through June 2017. Current TNFi exposure was reported by 382 patients. Any infection (18.1% vs 20.2%, P = .469) and SSI (12.0% vs 12.6%, P = .889) rates were similar in patients currently exposed to TNFis and those unexposed. In multivariable analysis, current TNFi exposure was not associated with any infection (odds ratio, 1.050; 95% confidence interval, 0.716-1.535) or SSI (odds ratio, 1.249; 95% confidence interval, 0.793-1.960). Detectable TNFi drug concentration was not associated with any infection or SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative TNFi exposure was not associated with postoperative infectious complications in a large prospective multicenter cohort.

Interobserver agreement of the modified Paris classification and histology prediction of colorectal lesions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: SCENIC (International Consensus Statement on Surveillance and Management of Dysplasia in IBD) guidelines recommend that visible dysplasia in patients with longstanding inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) should be endoscopically characterized using a modified Paris classification. This study aimed to determine the interobserver agreement (IOA) of the modified Paris classification and endoscopists' accuracy for pathology prediction of IBD visible lesions. METHODS: One hundred deidentified endoscopic still images and 30 videos of IBD visible colorectal lesions were graded by 10 senior and 4 trainee endoscopists from 5 tertiary care centers. Endoscopists were asked to assign 4 classifications for each image: the standard Paris classification, modified Paris classification, pathology prediction, and lesion border. Agreement was measured using Light's kappa coefficient. Consensus of ratings was assessed according to strict majority. RESULTS: The overall Light's kappa for all study endpoints was between .32 and .49. In a subgroup analysis between junior and senior endoscopists, Light's kappa continued to be less than .6 with a slightly higher agreement among juniors. Lesions with the lowest agreement and no consensus were mostly classified as Is, IIa, and mixed Paris classification and sessile and superficial elevated for modified Paris classification. Endoscopist accuracy for prediction of dysplastic, nondysplastic, and serrated pathology was 77%, 56%, and 30%, respectively. There was a strong association (P < .001) between the given morphology classification and the predicted pathology with Ip lesions carrying a much lower expectation of dysplasia than Is/IIc/III and mixed lesions. The agreement for border prediction was .5 for junior and .3 for senior endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates very low IOA for Paris and modified Paris classifications and low accuracy and IOA for lesion histopathology prediction. Revisions of these classifications are required to create a clinically useful risk stratification tool and enable eventual application of augmented intelligence tools.

Neoplasia Diagnosis After Multi-target Stool DNA Is Enhanced Among Lowest Baseline Detectors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Variation in colorectal neoplasia detection limits the effectiveness of screening colonoscopy. By evaluating neoplasia detection rates of individual colonoscopists, we aimed to quantify the effects of pre-procedural knowledge of a positive (+) multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) on colonoscopy quality metrics. METHODS: We retrospectively identified physicians who performed a high volume of + mt-sDNA colonoscopies; colorectal neoplasia at post-mt-sDNA colonoscopy was recorded. These colonoscopists were stratified into quartiles based on baseline adenoma detection rates. Baseline colonoscopy adenoma detection rates and sessile serrated lesion detection rates were compared to post-mt-sDNA colonoscopy neoplasia diagnosis rates among each quartile. Withdrawal times were measured from negative exams. RESULTS: During the study period (2014-17) the highest quartile of physicians by volume of post-mt-sDNA colonoscopies were evaluated. Among thirty-five gastroenterologists, their median screening colonoscopy adenoma detection rate was 32% (IQR, 28-39%) and serrated lesion detection rate was 13% (8-15%). After + mt-sDNA, adenoma diagnosis increased to 47% (36-56%) and serrated lesion diagnosis increased to 31% (17-42%) (both p < 0.0001). Median withdrawal time increased from 10 (7-13) to 12 (10-17) minutes (p < 0.0001) and was proportionate across quartiles. After + mt-sDNA, lower baseline detectors had disproportionately higher rates of adenoma diagnosis in female versus male patients (p = 0.048) and higher serrated neoplasia diagnosis rates among all patients (p = 0.0092). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of + mt-sDNA enriches neoplasia diagnosis compared to average risk screening exams. Adenomatous and serrated lesion diagnosis was magnified among those with lower adenoma detection rates. Awareness of the mt-sDNA result may increase physician attention during colonoscopy. Pre-procedure knowledge of a positive mt-sDNA test improves neoplasia diagnosis rates among colonoscopists with lower baseline adenoma detection rates, independent of withdrawal time.

Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Testing in Unselected Patients With Colorectal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hereditary factors play a role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Identification of germline predisposition can have implications on treatment and cancer prevention. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in CRC patients using a universal testing approach, association with clinical outcomes, and the uptake of family variant testing. METHODS: We performed a prospective multisite study of germline sequencing using a more than 80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among CRC patients (not selected for age or family history) receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. RESULTS: Of 361 patients, the median age was 57 years (SD, 12.4 y), 43.5% were female, 82% were white, and 38.2% had stage IV disease. PGVs were found in 15.5% (n = 56) of patients, including 44 in moderate- and high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. Thirty-four (9.4%) patients had incremental clinically actionable findings that would not have been detected by practice guideline criteria or a CRC-specific gene panel. Only younger age at diagnosis was associated with the presence of PGVs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.56). After a median follow-up period of 20.7 months, no differences in overall survival were seen between those with or without a PGV (P = .2). Eleven percent of patients had modifications in their treatment based on genetic findings. Family cascade testing was low (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Universal multigene panel testing in CRC was associated with a modest, but significant, detection of heritable mutations over guideline-based testing. One in 10 patients had changes in their management based on test results. Uptake of cascade family testing was low, which is a concerning observation that warrants further study.

Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. METHODS: An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. RESULTS: The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

T cell-derived protein S engages TAM receptor signaling in dendritic cells to control the magnitude of the immune response.

Dendritic cell (DC) activation is essential for the induction of immune defense against pathogens, yet needs to be tightly controlled to avoid chronic inflammation and exaggerated immune responses. Here, we identify a mechanism of immune homeostasis by which adaptive immunity, once triggered, tempers DC activation and prevents overreactive immune responses. T cells, once activated, produced Protein S (Pros1) that signaled through TAM receptor tyrosine kinases in DCs to limit the magnitude of DC activation. Genetic ablation of Pros1 in mouse T cells led to increased expression of costimulatory molecules and cytokines in DCs and enhanced immune responses to T cell-dependent antigens, as well as increased colitis. Additionally, PROS1 was expressed in activated human T cells, and its ability to regulate DC activation was conserved. Our results identify a heretofore unrecognized, homeostatic negative feedback mechanism at the interface of adaptive and innate immunity that maintains the physiological magnitude of the immune response.

Quality indicators for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. METHODS: An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. RESULTS: The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Prospective multicenter study to evaluate capsule endoscopy competency using a validated assessment tool.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is an established, noninvasive modality for examining the small bowel. Minimum training requirements are based primarily on guidelines and expert opinion. A validated tool to assess the competence of CE is lacking. In this prospective, multicenter study, we determined the minimum number of CE procedures required to achieve competence during gastroenterology fellowship; validated a capsule competency test (CapCT); and evaluated any correlation between CE competence and endoscopy experience. METHODS: We included second- and third-year gastroenterology fellows from 3 institutions between 2013 and 2018 in a structured CE training program with supervised CE interpretation. Fellows completed the CapCT with a maximal score of 100. For comparison, expert faculty completed the same CapCT. Trainee competence was defined as a score ≥90% compared with the mean expert score. Fellows were tested after 15, 25, and 35 supervised CE interpretations. CapCT was validated using expert consensus and item analysis. Data were collected on the number of previous endoscopies. RESULTS: A total of 68 trainees completed 102 CapCTs. Fourteen CE experts completed the CapCT with a mean score of 94. Mean scores for fellows after 15, 25, and 35 cases were 83, 86, and 87, respectively. Fellows with at least 25 interpretations achieved a mean score ≥84 in all 3 institutions. CapCT item analysis showed high interobserver agreement among expert faculty (k = 0.85). There was no correlation between the scores and the number of endoscopies performed. CONCLUSION: After a structured CE training program, gastroenterology fellows should complete a minimum of 25 supervised CE interpretations before assessing competence using the validated CapCT, regardless of endoscopy experience.

Family History Associates With Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Individuals with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) have an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Although family history of CRC is a well-established risk factor in healthy individuals, its role in patients with IBD is less clear. We aimed to estimate the risk of CRC in a cohort of patients with IBD from Utah and the significance of family history of CRC in a first-degree relative (FDR). METHODS: We identified Utah residents with IBD, using the Intermountain Healthcare and University of Utah Health Sciences databases, from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2011. CRCs were identified using the Utah Cancer Registry and linked to pedigrees from the Utah Population Database. CRC incidence was compared with that of the state population by standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: A cohort of 9505 individuals with IBD was identified and 101 developed CRC during the study period. The SIR for CRC in patients with Crohn's disease was 3.4 (95% CI, 2.3-4.4), and in patients with ulcerative colitis was 5.2 (95% CI, 3.9-6.6). Patients with IBD and a concurrent diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis had the greatest risk of CRC (SIR, 14.8; 95% CI, 8.3-21.2). A history of CRC in a FDR was associated with a nearly 8-fold increase in risk of CRC in patients with IBD (SIR, 7.9; 95% CI, 1.6-14.3), compared with the state population. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD have a 3- to 5-fold increase in risk of CRC, and those with CRC in a FDR have an almost 8-fold increase in risk. Family history may act as a simple measure to identify individuals with IBD at highest risk for CRC and indicates the need for enhanced surveillance in this population.

The Clinician's Guide to Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding.

Small bowel bleeding accounts for 5-10% of gastrointestinal bleeding. With the advent of capsule endoscopy, device-assisted enteroscopy, and multiphase CT scanning, a small bowel source can now be found in many instances of what has previously been described as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. We present a practical review on the evaluation and management of small bowel bleeding for the practicing clinician.

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.).

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rates: Outcomes of quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Feedback has been shown to improve performance in colonoscopy including adenoma detection rate (ADR). The frequency at which feedback should be given is unknown. As part of a quality improvement program, we sought to measure the outcome of providing quarterly and monthly feedback on colonoscopy quality measures. METHODS: All screening colonoscopies performed at endoscopy unit at Mayo Clinic Arizona by gastroenterologists between October 2010 and December 2012 were reviewed. Quality indicators, including ADR, were extracted for each individual endoscopist, and feedback was provided. The study period was divided into four distinct groups: pre-intervention that served as baseline, quarterly feedback, monthly feedback, and post-intervention. Based on ADR, endoscopists were grouped into "low detectors" (≤ 25%), "average detectors" (26-35%), and "high detectors" (> 35%). RESULTS: A total of 3420 screening colonoscopies were performed during the study period (555 patients during pre-intervention, 1209 patients during quarterly feedback, 599 during monthly feedback, and 1057 during the post-intervention period) by 16 gastroenterologists. The overall ADR for the group improved from 30.5% to 37.7% (P = 0.003). Compared with the pre-interventional period, all quality indicators measured significantly improved during the monthly feedback and post-intervention periods but not in the quarterly feedback period. CONCLUSIONS: In our quality improvement program, monthly feedback significantly improved colonoscopy quality measures, including ADR, while quarterly feedback did not. The impact of the intervention was most prominent in the "low detectors" group. Results were durable up to 6 months following the intervention.

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.

Accuracy of First- and Second-Generation Colon Capsules in Endoscopic Detection of Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique used to explore the colon without sedation or air insufflation. A second-generation capsule was recently developed to improve accuracy of detection, and clinical use has expanded globally. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of CCE in detecting colorectal polyps. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases from 1966 through 2015 for studies that compared accuracy of colonoscopy with histologic evaluation with CCE. The risk of bias within each study was ascertained according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Systematic Reviews recommendations. Per-patient accuracy values were calculated for polyps, overall and for first-generation (CCE-1) and second-generation (CCE-2) capsules. We analyzed data by using forest plots, the I2 statistic to calculate heterogeneity, and meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: Fourteen studies provided data from 2420 patients (1128 for CCE-1 and 1292 for CCE-2). CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >6 mm with 86% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 82%-89%) and 58% sensitivity (95% CI, 44%-70%), respectively, and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 74.2%-95.0%) and 85.7% specificity (95% CI, 80.2%-90.0%), respectively. CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >10 mm with 87% sensitivity (95% CI, 81%-91%) and 54% sensitivity (95% CI, 29%-77%), respectively, and 95.3% specificity (95% CI, 91.5%-97.5%) and 97.4% specificity (95% CI, 96.0%-98.3%), respectively. CCE-2 identified all 11 invasive cancers detected by colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity in detection of polyps >6 mm and >10 mm increased substantially between development of first-generation and second-generation colon capsules. High specificity values for detection of polyps by CCE-2 seem to be achievable with a 10-mm cutoff and in a screening setting.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Bleeding.

Bleeding from the small intestine remains a relatively uncommon event, accounting for ~5-10% of all patients presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Given advances in small bowel imaging with video capsule endoscopy (VCE), deep enteroscopy, and radiographic imaging, the cause of bleeding in the small bowel can now be identified in most patients. The term small bowel bleeding is therefore proposed as a replacement for the previous classification of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). We recommend that the term OGIB should be reserved for patients in whom a source of bleeding cannot be identified anywhere in the GI tract. A source of small bowel bleeding should be considered in patients with GI bleeding after performance of a normal upper and lower endoscopic examination. Second-look examinations using upper endoscopy, push enteroscopy, and/or colonoscopy can be performed if indicated before small bowel evaluation. VCE should be considered a first-line procedure for small bowel investigation. Any method of deep enteroscopy can be used when endoscopic evaluation and therapy are required. VCE should be performed before deep enteroscopy if there is no contraindication. Computed tomographic enterography should be performed in patients with suspected obstruction before VCE or after negative VCE examinations. When there is acute overt hemorrhage in the unstable patient, angiography should be performed emergently. In patients with occult hemorrhage or stable patients with active overt bleeding, multiphasic computed tomography should be performed after VCE or CTE to identify the source of bleeding and to guide further management. If a source of bleeding is identified in the small bowel that is associated with significant ongoing anemia and/or active bleeding, the patient should be managed with endoscopic therapy. Conservative management is recommended for patients without a source found after small bowel investigation, whereas repeat diagnostic investigations are recommended for patients with initial negative small bowel evaluations and ongoing overt or occult bleeding.