Clinical Presentation of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth from Aerodigestive Tract Bacteria Versus Colonic-Type Bacteria: A Comparison Study.

BACKGROUND: Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO) is a heterogenous syndrome from excessive bacteria in the small intestine lumen. It is unknown if differences in type of bacterial overgrowth lead to differences in symptoms. METHODS: Patients with suspected SIBO were recruited prospectively. Exclusion criteria were probiotics, antibiotics, or bowel prep in preceding 30 days. Clinical characteristics, risk factors, and labs were collected. Proximal jejunal aspiration via upper enteroscopy was performed. Aerodigestive tract (ADT) SIBO was defined as > 105 CFU/mL of oropharyngeal and respiratory bacteria. Colonic-type SIBO was defined as > 104 CFU/mL of distal small bowel and colon bacteria. Aims were to compare symptom profiles, clinical complications, labs, and underlying risk factors between ADT and colonic-type SIBO. KEY RESULTS: We consented 166 subjects. Aspiration was not obtained in 22 and SIBO was found in 69 (49%) of 144 subjects. Daily abdominal distention trended towards more prevalent in ADT SIBO versus colonic-type SIBO (65.2% vs 39.1%, p = 0.09). Patient symptom scores were similar. Iron deficiency was more prevalent in ADT SIBO (33.3% vs 10.3%, p = 0.04). Subjects with colonic-type SIBO were more likely to have a risk factor for colonic bacteria colonization (60.9% vs 17.4%, p = 0.0006). Subjects with ADT SIBO were more likely to have a risk factor for diminished gastric acid (91.3% vs 67.4%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: We found differences in iron deficiency and underlying risk factors between ADT and colonic-type SIBO. However, distinct clinical profiles remained elusive. Future research is needed to develop validated symptom assessment tools and distinguish cause from correlation.

Impact of withdrawal time on adenoma detection rate: results from a prospective multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Performing a high-quality colonoscopy is critical for optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Colonoscopy withdrawal time (a surrogate measure) of ≥6 minutes is recommended; however, a threshold of a high-quality withdrawal and its impact on ADR are not known. METHODS: We examined withdrawal time (excluding polyp resection and bowel cleaning time) of subjects undergoing screening and/or surveillance colonoscopy in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We examined the relationship of withdrawal time in 1-minute increments on ADR and reported odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the maximal inspection time threshold that impacts the ADR. RESULTS: A total of 1142 subjects (age, 62.3 ± 8.9 years; 80.5% men) underwent screening (45.9%) or surveillance (53.6%) colonoscopy. The screening group had a median withdrawal time of 9.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.3) with an ADR of 49.6%, whereas the surveillance group had a median withdrawal time of 9.3 minutes (IQR, 4.3) with an ADR of 63.9%. ADR correspondingly increased for a withdrawal time of 6 minutes to 13 minutes, beyond which ADR did not increase (50.4% vs 76.6%, P < .01). For every 1-minute increase in withdrawal time, there was 6% higher odds of detecting an additional subject with an adenoma (OR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.10; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter, randomized controlled trial underscore the importance of a high-quality examination and efforts required to achieve this with an incremental yield in ADR based on withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03952611.).

High-Definition Colonoscopy Compared With Cuff- and Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy: Results From a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices including distal attachments such as the cuff and cap have shown variable results in improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with high-definition white light colonoscopy (HDWLE). METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy comparing HDWLE to 2 different types of distal attachments: cuff (CF) (Endocuff Vision) or cap (CP) (Reveal). The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rate, right-sided ADR, withdrawal time, and adverse events. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test using statistical software Stata version16. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1203 subjects were randomized to either HDWLE (n = 384; mean 62 years of age; 81.3% males), CF (n = 379; mean 62.7 years of age; 79.9% males) or CP (n = 379; mean age 62.1 years of age; 80.5% males). No significant differences were found among 3 groups for ADR (57.3%, 59.1%, and 55.7%; P = .6), adenomas per colonoscopy (1.4 ± 1.9, 1.6 ± 2.4, and 1.4 ± 2; P = .3), advanced adenoma (7.6%, 9.2%, and 8.2%; P = .7), sessile serrated lesion (6.8%, 6.3%, and 5.5%; P = .8), or right ADR (48.2%, 49.3%, and 46.2%; P = .7). The number of polyps per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CF group compared with HDWLE and CP group (2.7 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.5, and 2.2 ± 2.3; P = .013). In a multivariable model, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, withdrawal time, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, there was no impact of device type on the primary outcome of ADR (P = .77). In screening patients, CF resulted in more neoplasms per colonoscopy (CF: 1.7 ± 2.6, HDWLE: 1.3 ± 1.7, and CP: 1.2 ± 1.8; P = .047) with a shorter withdrawal time. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter randomized controlled trial do not show any significant benefit of using either distal attachment devices (CF or CP) over HDWLE, at least in high-detector endoscopists. The Endocuff may have an advantage in the screening population. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03952611).

Delayed Gastric Emptying Is Not Associated with a Microbiological Diagnosis of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth.

BACKGROUND: Clinical symptoms of patients with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) may overlap with symptoms of gastroparesis. Prior studies suggest delayed small intestinal transit is associated with SIBO, but have not shown an association between delayed gastric emptying and SIBO. However, these studies have generally relied on the indirect method of breath testing to diagnose SIBO. AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine the association between a microbiological diagnosis of SIBO and delayed gastric emptying by scintigraphy. METHODS: In a single-center retrospective study of previous research participants who presented for small bowel enteroscopy for diagnostic evaluation of SIBO, we identified 73 participants who underwent gastric emptying study by scintigraphy. A microbiological diagnosis of SIBO was made in patients based on culture results of jejunal aspirates. Clinical symptoms were assessed using the total gastroparesis cardinal symptom index (GCSI) score. We compared delayed gastric emptying, 2- and 4-h gastric retention, and gastroparesis symptoms between patients with and without a microbiological diagnosis of SIBO. KEY RESULTS: Among 29 participants with SIBO and 44 without SIBO, 33 (45%) had evidence of delayed gastric emptying. There was no significant association between a microbiological diagnosis of SIBO and delayed gastric emptying by scintigraphy. Percent retained at 2 and 4 h, and total GCSI scores did not differ significantly between those with and without SIBO. CONCLUSIONS: Although delayed gastric emptying is common in patients with suspected SIBO, gastric emptying is not associated with a microbiological diagnosis of SIBO.

Impact of a ring-fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring-fitted cap (EndoRings; EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate, insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon. RESULTS: EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, P = .025), but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or sessile serrated polyp detection rate. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with Endo-Rings and contributed substantially to the overall results. CONCLUSIONS: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without a significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. The use of EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418662.).

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) is a device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (standard deviation 2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision (P = .535). The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (P = .008). There was no difference between the arms for mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision on which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE with Endocuff by other investigators are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03560128.).

Correction to: Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Capsules with Targeted Colonic Versus Gastric Delivery in Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Comparative Cohort Analysis of High and Low Dose.

The original version of the article unfortunately contained an error in article title. The corrected title is 'Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Capsules with Targeted Colonic Versus Gastric Delivery in Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Comparative Cohort Analysis of High and Low Dose'.

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Capsules with Targeted Colonic Versus Gastric Delivery in Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Comparative Cohort Analysis of High and Lose Dose.

BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective therapy for recurrent Clostridium. difficile infection (rCDI). FMT capsules have emerged, and it is unknown if delivery location and dose impact efficacy. METHODS: We compared two cohorts of patients receiving two capsule formulations: gastric release (FMTgr) and targeted colonic release (FMTcr) at two different sites. Cohort A received FMTgr at (1) high dose: 60 capsules and low dose: 30 capsules. Patients in Cohort B received FMTcr at (1) high dose: 30 capsules (2) low dose: 10 capsules. Clinical cure rates and adverse events were monitored through week 8. Paired t-tests were used to compare diversity pre- and post-FMT. RESULTS: 51 rCDI patients were enrolled. Cohort A contained n = 20 and Cohort B contained n = 31. Overall cure at week 8 for FMTgr was 75% (15/20) compared to 80.6% for FMTcr, (25/31), p = 0.63. Both formulations were safe with no serious adverse events. FMTcr was superior at increasing gut microbial diversity. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare targeted delivery of FMT capsules. While both capsules were safe and efficacious, microbial engraftment patterns were superior in FMTcr.