Incidence, clinical outcomes, and therapeutic approaches of capsule endoscopy-related adverse events in a large study population.

INTRODUCTION: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a first-line tool for small bowel (SB) examination. However, adverse events (AEs), such as CE retention or aspiration, may occur. The aims of this study were to evaluate incidence, clinical outcomes and therapeutic approaches of CE-related AEs in the largest series published to date. METHODS: Data from 5428 procedures performed at 12 institutions between August 2001 and January 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline patient characteristics; procedure; type, localization and symptoms before/after AEs; previous patency tests performed; therapeutic management and patient's outcome were recorded. RESULTS: The overall incidence of CE-related AEs was 1.9%: 2.0% for SB, 0.9% for esophageal and 0.5% for colon CE. The incidence of capsule retention was significantly higher than capsule aspiration (1.87% vs. 0.003%; p < 0.05), in patients suffering from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than in obscure GI bleeding (OGIB) (3.3% vs. 1.5%; p < 0.05) and in patients with the combination of nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain and distension. The SB was the most frequent localization of retention (88.2%). The use of patency tests -except for Patency© capsule- before CE was not a good predictor for AEs. Most of the patients with AEs developed no or mild symptoms (97%) and were managed by non-surgical methods (64.4%). CONCLUSIONS: CE-related AEs are uncommon and difficult to predict by imagiological examinations. SB retention, that is usually asymptomatic, is the most frequent AE. In absence of symptoms, non-surgical management of CE-related AEs is recommended.

Incidence, clinical outcomes, and therapeutic approaches of capsule endoscopy-related adverse events in a large study population

INTRODUCTION: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a first-line tool for small bowel (SB) examination. However, adverse events (AEs), such as CE retention or aspiration, may occur. The aims of this study were to evaluate incidence, clinical outcomes and therapeutic approaches of CE-related AEs in the largest series published to date. METHODS: Data from 5428 procedures performed at 12 institutions between August 2001 and January 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline patient characteristics; procedure; type, localization and symptoms before/after AEs; previous patency tests performed; therapeutic management and patient's outcome were recorded. RESULTS: The overall incidence of CE-related AEs was 1.9%: 2.0% for SB, 0.9% for esophageal and 0.5% for colon CE. The incidence of capsule retention was significantly higher than capsule aspiration (1.87% vs. 0.003%; p < 0.05), in patients suffering from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than in obscure GI bleeding (OGIB) (3.3% vs. 1.5%; p < 0.05) and in patients with the combination of nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain and distension. The SB was the most frequent localization of retention (88.2%). The use of patency tests -except for Patency© capsule- before CE was not a good predictor for AEs. Most of the patients with AEs developed no or mild symptoms (97%) and were managed by non-surgical methods (64.4%). CONCLUSIONS: CE-related AEs are uncommon and difficult to predict by imagiological examinations. SB retention, that is usually asymptomatic, is the most frequent AE. In absence of symptoms, non-surgical management of CE-related AEs is recommended

A randomized trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate solution vs. 4 L polyethylene glycol solution as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and acceptability of an evening-before regimens of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as bowel cleansers and to explore the results of a same-day regimen of SPMC. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel study carried out in subjects who were 18-80 years old and were undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for the first time. The primary outcome was treatment success, which was a composite outcome defined by (1) the evaluation of the overall preparation quality as "excellent" or "good" by two blinded independent evaluators with the Fleet(®) Grading Scale for Bowel Cleansing and (2) a subject's acceptability rating of "easy to take" or "tolerable." The primary outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression with site, gender, and age group (age ≥65 years and <65 years) as factors. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety subjects were included in the efficacy evaluation. Although treatment success was significantly higher in subjects assigned to the evening-before regimen of SPMC vs. subjects assigned to the evening-before PEG, when evaluating the two individual components for treatment success, there were significant differences in the ease of completion but not in the quality of preparation. The same-day SPMC regimen was superior to both the evening-before regimen of SPMC and PEG in terms of the quality of preparation, especially regarding the proximal colon. CONCLUSIONS: An evening-before regimen of SPMC is superior to an evening-before regimen of PEG in terms of subject's acceptability. The same-day SPMC regimen provides better cleansing levels in the proximal colon.

Esophageal capsule endoscopy for screening and surveillance of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension.

UNLABELLED: Bleeding from esophageal varices (EV) is a serious consequence of portal hypertension. Current guidelines recommend screening patients with cirrhosis with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to detect varices. However, the unpleasantness and need for sedation of EGD may limit adherence to screening programs. Pilot studies have shown good performance of esophageal capsule endoscopy in detecting varices. This multicenter trial was designed to assess the diagnostic performance of capsule endoscopy in comparison with EGD. Patients undergoing EGD for screening or surveillance of EV underwent a capsule study previously. The study was designed as an equivalence study, assuming that a difference of

Complications, limitations, and failures of capsule endoscopy: a review of 733 cases.

BACKGROUND: Although a variety of technical and clinical problems of capsule endoscopy have been reported, their incidence and clinical importance are unknown. The objective was to evaluate the incidence and the type of such events. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 733 consecutive examinations at 4 large referral centers. The main outcome measurements were that the problems were classified as "technical," i.e., related to the functioning of the equipment, and "clinical," i.e., related to patient characteristics. For each type of event, the causes and the impact on the ability to reach a diagnosis were examined. RESULTS: A total of 183 problems were recorded in 174 patients (23.7%): one problem occurred in 165 patients, two in 9 patients. In 8.46% of patients, technical limitations or failures, or clinical complications prevented or hampered diagnosis. Technical problems (e.g., gaps in the recordings, short duration of capsule batteries, failure of downloading) occurred in the early phase of capsule use in 8.6% of examinations and prevented or hampered diagnosis in 2.9%. Clinical problems (difficulty/inability to swallow the capsule, incomplete small-bowel examination) occurred in 16.4% of examinations and hampered or prevented diagnosis in 6.4%. Capsule retention that required surgical or endoscopic retrieval occurred in 1.9% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Technical problems were rare and hampered or prevented the diagnosis in a very small number of cases. The majority of clinical failures were related to an incomplete small-bowel examination.

Effects of celecoxib on acid-challenged gastric mucosa of rats: comparison with metamizol and piroxicam.

Selective COX-2 inhibitors have been shown to produce fewer gastrointestinal adverse reactions than classical NSAIDs. Nevertheless, these new agents may worsen and delay the healing of experimentally induced gastric ulcers in animals. In this study, we compared the effects of a selective COX-2 inhibitor (celecoxib), a preferential COX-1 inhibitor (piroxicam), and a nonnarcotic analgesic (metamizol) on normal gastric mucosa of rats and, on the other hand, in a setting of preexisting acute gastric lesions induced by 0.6 N hydrochloric acid. Under normal conditions, only piroxicam produced appreciable gastric lesions. However, after acid challenge the three assayed drugs induced significant macroscopic and microscopic damage. Myeloperoxidase activity as an index of neutrophil infiltration was elevated with celecoxib and piroxicam on normal gastric mucosa. On inflamed mucosa, celecoxib augmented enzymatic activity at the lower dose, which was parallelled by an increase in the interleukin 1beta level. Acid instillaton produced a significant rise in PGE2 content at 7 hr. Drug treatment after acid challenge decreased prostaglandin values in all cases, although to a lesser extent than after single drug dose administration. COX-2 mRNA expression was visible 1 hr after acid application, whereas COX-2 protein could only be detected at 7 hr. Piroxicam increased both expression levels. All NSAIDs enhanced transforming growth factor alpha and epidermal growth factor receptor immunoreactivity around the acid-induced lesions. It is concluded that selective COX-2 inhibitors, like conventional NSAIDs, impair the healing of gastric damage, and therefore special attention should be paid in patients with gastric pathologies.

Mucosal damage induced by preferential COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitors: role of prostaglandins and inflammatory response.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are well known to induce gastric mucosal damage including bleeding, ulceration and perforation in humans and animals too. These effects are related with the inhibition of the enzyme cyclooxygenase, which is the main established mechanism of action for these drugs. Fasted rats were given piroxicam, preferential COX-1 inhibitor (10-20 mg/kg) or meloxicam, preferential COX-2 inhibitor (7.5-15 mg/kg) orally. Six or nine hours (h) later, respectively, the stomach was excised, the severity of the damage assessed and myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity measured, as well as prostaglandin PGE(2) content. Furthermore, in order to assess the effects of these oxicams over previously damaged gastric mucosa, 1 ml of 0.6 N HCl was administered p.o. followed, 1 h after, of the correspondent dose of each NSAID, and the same parameters were determined. Oral administration of both drugs dose-dependently caused acute gastric haemorrhage erosions. Myeloperoxidase activity was significantly increased by piroxicam administration. In addition, PGE(2) content was significantly reduced. The association between the administration of the acid and NSAID caused a worsening of the damage and, while myeloperoxidase activity did not modify by both piroxicam and meloxicam, PGE(2) levels were reduced. These results suggest that the PG derived from both COX-1 and COX-2 pathway plays a beneficial role in the gastroprotection, and thus caution should be exercise in the clinical use of preferential COX-2 inhibitors.