Usefulness of virtual chromoendoscopy in the evaluation of subtle small bowel ulcerative lesions by endoscopists with no experience in videocapsule.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In videocapsule endoscopy examination (VCE), subtle variations in mucosal hue or pattern such as those seen in ulcerations can be difficult to detect, depending on the experience of the reader. Our aim was to test whether virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) techniques, designed to enhance the contrast between the lesion and the normal mucosa, could improve the characterization of ulcerative mucosal lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen trainees or young gastroenterologists with no experience in VCE were randomly assigned to evaluate 250 true ulcerative and 100 false ulcerative, difficult-to-interpret small bowel lesions, initially as white light images (WLI) and then, in a second round, with the addition of one VC setting or again as WLI, labeling them as real lesions or artifacts. RESULTS: On the overall image evaluation, an improvement in lesion characterization was observed by adding any chromoendoscopy setting, especially Blue mode and FICE 1, with increases in accuracy of 13 % [95 %CI 0.8, 25.3] and 7.1 % [95 %CI - 17.0, 31.3], respectively. However, when only false ulcerative images were considered, with the same presets (Blue mode and FICE 1), there was a loss in accuracy of 10.7 % [95 %CI - 10.9, 32.3] and 7.3 % [95 %CI - 1.3, 16.0], respectively. The interobserver agreement was poor for both readings. CONCLUSIONS: VC helps beginner VCE readers correctly categorize difficult-to-interpret small bowel mucosal ulcerative lesions. However, false lesions tend to be misinterpreted as true ulcerative with the same presets. Therefore care is advised in using VC especially under poor bowel preparation.

Time for individualized colonoscopy bowel-prep regimens? A randomized controlled trial comparing sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate versus 4-liter split-dose polyethylene glycol.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Good bowel cleansing is essential to achieving optimal endoscopic evaluation of the colon. There are many different regimens available, but none have shown consistently superior results in achieving a clean colon. We compared the efficiency of two regimens with regard to bowel cleansing and patient satisfaction. The study also aimed to identify patient-related factors that influenced the quality of the bowel cleansing. METHODS: We conducted a single-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate versus 4-liter split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG). Consecutive patients presenting for colonoscopy at two tertiary referral centers were invited to participate. The main outcomes were colon cleanliness and patient satisfaction with the preparation regimen. The quality of bowel cleansing was assessed by the endoscopist with the use of a 4-grade scale. Patients completed questionnaires evaluating their experience during the preparation process. Multivariate analysis was conducted in order to compare the two regimens and identify patient-related factors that influenced the main outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients were randomized and 165 completed the trial (91.1%). PEG was slightly superior to sodium picosulphate with regard to bowel cleansing (p=0.01), while patient satisfaction was higher with sodium picosulphate (p=0.008). Patients with higher education and patients reporting high adherence to instructions achieved better colon cleansing using PEG. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be no clear advantage for one bowel preparation solution over the other. However, by taking into account individual patient characteristics, opting for a particular regimen could increase the likelihood of achieving a cleaner colon.