A new artificial intelligence system for both stomach and small bowel capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) image reading, information on its application in the stomach and SB CE is lacking. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective diagnostic study, gastric imaging data were added to the deep learning (DL)-based SmartScan (SS), which has been described previously. A total of 1,069 magnetically controlled gastrointestinal (GI) CE examinations (comprising 2,672,542 gastric images) were used in the training phase for recognizing gastric pathologies, producing a new AI algorithm named SS Plus. 342 fully automated, magnetically controlled CE (FAMCE) examinations were included in the validation phase. The performance of both senior and junior endoscopists with both the SS Plus-Assisted Reading (SSP-AR) and conventional reading (CR) modes was assessed. RESULTS: SS Plus was designed to recognize 5 types of gastric lesions and 17 types of SB lesions. SS Plus reduced the number of CE images required for review to 873.90 (1000) (median, IQR 814.50-1,000) versus 44,322.73 (42,393) (median, IQR 31,722.75-54,971.25) for CR. Furthermore, with SSP-AR, endoscopists took 9.54 min (8.51) (median, IQR 6.05-13.13) to complete the CE video reading. In the 342 CE videos, SS Plus identified 411 gastric and 422 SB lesions, whereas 400 gastric and 368 intestinal lesions were detected with CR. Moreover, junior endoscopists remarkably improved their CE image reading ability with SSP-AR. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the newly upgraded DL-based algorithm SS Plus can detect GI lesions and help improve the diagnostic performance of junior endoscopists in interpreting CE videos.

Symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease is associated with a high short-term risk of gallstone-related complications: a contemporary cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease is largely unknown. We examined the risk of progressing from symptomatic uncomplicated to complicated gallstone disease in a large regional cohort of patients, where disruptions in elective surgical capacities have led to the indefinite postponement of surgery for benign conditions, including cholecystectomies. METHODS: Patients with radiologically diagnosed incident symptomatic and uncomplicated gallstone disease were identified from outpatient clinics and emergency departments on the Island of Funen, Denmark. The absolute risk of complications (cholecystitis, cholangitis, pancreatitis, acute cholecystectomy for unremitting pain) was calculated using death and elective cholecystectomies as competing risks using the Aalen-Johansen method. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of gallstone complications associated with patient and gallstone characteristics. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients diagnosed with incident symptomatic, uncomplicated gallstone disease from 1 January 2020 to 1 July 2023 were identified. During 79,170 person-years of observation, 176 (61.5%) patients developed a gallstone-related complication. The 6-, 12- and 24-month risk of developing gallstone-related complications were 36%, 55% and 81%. The risk of developing complications related to common bile duct stones was lowest with larger stones (aHR per millimeter increase = 0.89 (0.82-0.97), p < 0.01), while no covariates were statistically significantly associated with the risk of cholecystitis. Eighty-five (30%) patients underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with one patient (1.2%) developing a gallstone-related complication afterward. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing complications to symptomatic gallstones in a general Scandinavian population is high, and prophylactic cholecystectomy should be considered.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Faecal haemoglobin concentrations are associated with all-cause mortality and cause of death in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces all-cause and CRC-related mortality. New research demonstrates that the faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) may indicate the presence of other serious diseases not related to CRC. We investigated the association between f-Hb, measured by a faecal immunochemical test (FIT), and both all-cause mortality and cause of death in a population-wide cohort of screening participants. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2018, 1,262,165 participants submitted a FIT for the Danish CRC screening programme. We followed these participants, using the Danish CRC Screening Database and several other national registers on health and population, until December 31, 2018. We stratified participants by f-Hb and compared them using a Cox proportional hazards regression on all-cause mortality and cause of death reported as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). We adjusted for several covariates, including comorbidity, socioeconomic factors, demography and prescription medication. RESULTS: We observed 21,847 deaths in the study period. Our multivariate analyses indicated an association relationship between increasing f-Hb and the risk of dying in the study period. This risk increased steadily from aHR 1.38 (95% CI: 1.32, 1.44) in those with a f-Hb of 7.1-11.9 µg Hb/g faeces to 2.20 (95% CI: 2.10, 2.30) in those with a f-Hb ≥60.0 µg Hb/g faeces, when compared to those with a f-Hb ≤7.0 µg Hb/g faeces. The pattern remained when excluding CRC from the analysis. Similar patterns were observed between incrementally increasing f-Hb and the risk of dying from respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and cancers other than CRC. Furthermore, we observed an increased risk of dying from CRC with increasing f-Hb. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the hypothesis that f-Hb may indicate an elevated risk of having chronic conditions if causes for the bleeding have not been identified. The mechanisms still need to be established, but f-Hb may be a potential biomarker for several non-CRC diseases.

Retention of small bowel capsule endoscopy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Capsule endoscopy is widely recognized as a safe and effective procedure to evaluate the small bowel and/or the colon noninvasively. Although infrequent, capsule retention is the most feared adverse event related to this technique. A better knowledge of risk factors, improvement of patients' selection and precapsule patency assessment may further contribute to reducing the incidence of capsule retention, even in patients at increased risk for this complication. RECENT FINDINGS: This review addresses the main risk factors for capsule retention, strategies for risk reduction such as patients' selection, dedicated cross-sectional imaging and rational use of the patency capsule, as well as management options and outcomes in the case of capsule retention. SUMMARY: Capsule retention is infrequent, and it is usually manageable conservatively with favorable clinical outcomes. Patency capsules and dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional techniques such as CT or MR enterography should be used selectively and are both effective in decreasing the rate of capsule retention. However, none of them can completely eliminate the risk of retention.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

How a managed service for colon capsule endoscopy works in an overstretched healthcare system.

Lower gastrointestinal diagnostics have been facing significant capacity constraints, which the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated due to significant reductions in endoscopy procedures. Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) provides a safe, viable solution to offset ongoing demand and could be a valuable tool for the recovery of endoscopy services post-COVID. NHS Scotland has already begun a country-wide rollout of CCE as a managed service, and NHS England have committed to a pilot scheme of 11,000 capsules via hospital-based delivery. Here, we outline a proven method of CCE delivery that ensures the CCE and results are delivered in an efficient, clinically robust manner with high patient acceptability levels through a managed service. Delivering CCE without a managed service is likely to be slower, more costly, and less effective, limiting the many benefits of CCE as an addition to the standard diagnostic pathway for bowel cancer.

Feasibility and diagnostic yield of small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy: the SAGA study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Little is known about small-bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients with a history of gastric surgery. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic yield (DY) of orally ingested SB-CE in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy. METHODS: Twenty-four European centers retrospectively identified patients who had SB-CE after total or subtotal gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the DY of SB-CE (intermediate P1 to highly P2 relevant findings). Secondary outcomes were gastric and SB transit times, completion, cleanliness, and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Studied were 248 procedures from 243 patients (mean age, 62 years) with a history of partial gastrectomy (Billroth I, 13.1%; Billroth II, 34.6%), total gastrectomy (7.4%), Whipple procedure (12.8%), sleeve gastrectomy (7.2%), or gastric bypass surgery (24.7%). Obscure GI bleeding was the most frequent indication (85.1%). SB completion rate was 84.3%. One capsule retention in the SB was noted (adverse event rate, .4%). Median SB transit time was 286 minutes (interquartile range [235; 387]). Cleanliness was rated as adequate in 92.1% of procedures. After exclusion of abnormalities found at the upper anastomotic site, the DY was 43.6%, with inflammatory/ulcerated lesions observed more frequently (23.4%) than vascular lesions (21.0%). CONCLUSIONS: SB-CE seems to be feasible and safe in selected patients with a history of major gastric surgery and comes with a high DY. The spectrum of abnormal SB findings in these patients may be different from what is known from the literature in nonoperated patients.

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.

Artificial intelligence in small bowel capsule endoscopy - current status, challenges and future promise.

Neural network-based solutions are under development to alleviate physicians from the tedious task of small-bowel capsule endoscopy reviewing. Computer-assisted detection is a critical step, aiming to reduce reading times while maintaining accuracy. Weakly supervised solutions have shown promising results; however, video-level evaluations are scarce, and no prospective studies have been conducted yet. Automated characterization (in terms of diagnosis and pertinence) by supervised machine learning solutions is the next step. It relies on large, thoroughly labeled databases, for which preliminary "ground truth" definitions by experts are of tremendous importance. Other developments are under ways, to assist physicians in localizing anatomical landmarks and findings in the small bowel, in measuring lesions, and in rating bowel cleanliness. It is still questioned whether artificial intelligence will enter the market with proprietary, built-in or plug-in software, or with a universal cloud-based service, and how it will be accepted by physicians and patients.

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.

Mapping the distribution of small bowel angioectasias.

Background: Angioectasias are a prominent cause of small bowel (SB) bleeding frequently identified during capsule endoscopy (CE). Subsequent management depends upon grade/severity and location. There is increasing evidence that the location of SB angioectasias is not random. We aimed to map the distribution of SB angioectasias, and assess whether this impacted clinical outcomes. Materials and methods: Retrospective study examining CEs performed over a 10-year period at a tertiary referral centre. Information regarding number, location, and Saurin classification (P0-2) of SB angioectasias was collected. Clinically significant angioectasias (P1/P2) and active SB bleeding were analysed further. Outcomes of patients with P2 angioectasias or active SB bleeding were recorded. Results: 164 SBCE examinations reported angioectasias. 554 P1-2 angioectasias and active bleeds were seen, 435 (78.52%) within the first tertile of SB transit time (SBTT). 277 (50%) angioectasias were identified within the first 10% of SBTT. 40/75 (53.3%) patients with >1 P2 angioectasia and/or active bleed were referred for intervention. Of initial interventions, 24 patients underwent upper GI endoscopy; 13 underwent double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). 9/37(24.3%) had no identifiable angioectasias on endoscopy. Of those receiving ablative therapy, 20/28 (71.4%) re-presented with iron-deficiency anaemia or bleeding. In this group, average angioectasia position was 15.6% of SBTT, compared with 7.9% in those who did not re-represent (p = 0.344). Patients who re-presented had an average 1.6 additional P1 angioectasias, compared with 7.6 amongst those who did not return (p = 0.017). Conclusions: Clinically significant angioectasias are overwhelmingly located within the proximal SB. The majority are within reach of conventional endoscopy. However, AEs are often multiple and many patients re-present following intervention.

Small bowel tumours: update in diagnosis and management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to summarize the role of recently developed diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis and management of patients with small bowel tumours (SBTs). RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies show that the overall SBT incidence is increasing. The introduction of small bowel dedicated diagnostic tools [i.e. capsule endoscopy, device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), computed tomography (CT) and MRI-enterography] might partially explain this trend. In patients with SBT, DAE might represent an ideal tool by coupling careful mucosal inspection with sampling capability. Unfortunately, DAE is an invasive procedure and seldom allows complete small bowel evaluation in a single setting. Therefore, DAE is more often used in clinical practice as confirmatory tool, when other less invasive and readily available tests (i.e. capsule endoscopy or radiological tests) identify relevant findings. Nevertheless, in patients with SBT, capsule endoscopy is burdened by an increased risk of capsule retention and/or missing proximal small bowel lesions, whereas dedicated cross-sectional imaging techniques often identify nonspecific findings of limited clinical significance. SUMMARY: Despite recent technical improvements, in patients with SBT, the result of a single diagnostic procedure is often insufficient to provide a definite diagnosis. A balanced combination of different tests allows reaching a final diagnosis and drive further management.

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.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy with panoramic view: results of the first multicenter, observational study (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The first small-bowel video-capsule endoscopy (VCE) with 360° panoramic view has been developed recently. This new capsule has wire-free technology, 4 high-frame-rate cameras, and a long-lasting battery life. The aim of the present study was to assess the performance and safety profile of the 360° panoramic-view capsule in a large series of patients from a multicenter clinical practice setting. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing a 360° panoramic-view capsule procedure in 7 European Institutions between January 2011 and November 2015 were included. Both technical (ie, technical failures, completion rate) and clinical (ie, indication, findings, retention rate) data were collected by means of a structured questionnaire. VCE findings were classified according to the likelihood of explaining the reason for referral: P0, low; P1, intermediate; P2, high. RESULTS: Of the 172 patients (94 men; median age, 68 years; interquartile range, 53-75), 142 underwent VCE for obscure (32 overt, 110 occult) GI bleeding (OGIB), and 28 for suspected (17) or established (2) Crohn's disease (CD). Overall, 560 findings were detected; 252 were classified as P2. The overall diagnostic yield was 40.1%; 42.2% and 30.0% in patients with OGIB and CD, respectively. The rate of complete enteroscopy was 90.2%. All patients but one, who experienced capsule retention (1/172, 0.6%), excreted and retrieved the capsule. VCE failure occurred in 4 of 172 (2.3%) patients because of technical problems. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study, conducted in the clinical practice setting and based on a large consecutive series of patients, showed that the diagnostic yield and safety profile of the 360° panoramic-view capsule are similar to those of forward-view VCEs.

Clinical outcomes of negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy for small-bowel bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Small-bowel bleeding is the primary indication for capsule endoscopy (CE). Many experts advocate a "watch-and-wait" policy in negative CE. This meta-analysis examines the odds of rebleeding after negative index CE and the impact on long-term follow-up. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search identified articles examining the rebleeding rate after negative CE. Demographic and clinical information with emphasis on outcomes was retrieved, pooled, and analyzed. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. A random effects model was used as the pooling method because of high heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The primary outcome evaluated was the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for rebleeding after a negative CE for obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 3657 patients were included. The pooled rate of rebleeding after negative CE was .19 (95% CI, .14-.25; P < .0001). The pooled OR of rebleeding was .59 (95% CI, .37-.95; P < .001). The effect was more pronounced in studies with a short follow-up (OR, .47; 95% CI, .24-.94; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in rebleeding after CE for occult and overt OGIB. Prospective studies showed a lower OR of rebleeding of .24 (95% CI, .08-.73; P = .01). Most studies were high quality. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that negative CE provides adequate evidence of a subsequently low risk of rebleeding. Such patients can therefore be safely managed with watchful waiting. However, patients who rebleed after 2 years may need to be investigated for a new source of blood loss.