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.

Screening and surveillance of oesophageal varices in patients with HCV-positive liver cirrhosis successfully treated by direct-acting antiviral agents.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: limited evidence is available to guide hepatologists regarding endoscopic surveillance of oesophageal varices (EV) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)-positive cirrhotic patients achieving a sustained virologic response. To address these issues, we conducted a long-term prospective study on 427 HCV-positive cirrhotic patients successfully treated by Direct Antiviral Agents (DAAs). METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups according to their baseline Baveno VI status: Group 1 (92, 21.5%, favourable Baveno VI status) and Group 2 (335, 78.5%, unfavourable Baveno VI status). Each patient underwent baseline endoscopy and was endoscopically monitored for a median follow-up of 65.2 months according to Baveno VI recommendations. RESULTS: About 4.3% of Group 1 patients showed baseline EV compared with 30.1% of Group 2 patients (p < .0001). No patients belonging to Group 1 without baseline EV developed EV at follow-up endoscopy compared with 6.5% in Group 2 patients (p = .02); 69/107 (64.5%) patients with baseline EV showed small varices. During the endoscopic follow-up, EV disappeared/improved in 36 (33.6%), were stable in 39 (36.4%) and worsened in 32 (29.9%) patients, all belonging to Group 2 (p = .001). Improvement in Baveno VI status was observed in 118/335 (35.2%, p < .0001) of Group 2 patients and among those without pre-therapy EV, none developed EV throughout the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HCV-positive cirrhotic patients cured by DAAs showing baseline favourable Baveno VI status and no worsening during follow-up can safely avoid endoscopic screening and surveillance. Patients having unfavourable Baveno VI status without baseline EV who improve their status may suspend further endoscopic surveillance.

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. RESULTS: 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. CONCLUSION: CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced neoplasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) has shown promising accuracy for the diagnosis of overall neoplasia. Advanced neoplasia (AN) represents the main target of colorectal cancer screening programs. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CCE-2 for the detection of AN in patients with a positive result for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) who are undergoing screening. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 69 years with a positive result for the FIT in 4 population screening programs in Italy and Spain were enrolled. Screenees were asked to undergo CCE-2, followed by traditional colonoscopy (TC). TC was performed the same day or the following morning. Bowel preparation included a split-dose polyethylene glycol-based regimen, with sodium phosphate (NaP) with gastrografin as boosters. The CCE-2 video was read by an endoscopist blinded to the results of TC. The main outcomes were CCE-2 accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for AN when using 2 different size thresholds for TC referral (ie, polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled, and 178 patients completed both CCE-2 and TC (87.7%). Overall, 59 cases of AN were detected at TC. CCE-2 sensitivity was 90%, specificity was 66.1%, PPV was 57.4%, and NPV was 92.9% for AN when using a 6-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 52.8%) and 76.7%, 90.7%, 80.7%, and 88.4% when using a 10-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 32%), respectively. CCE-2 detected that 8 of 9 already developed colorectal cancers. Among the 41 false positives at the 6-mm cut-off, 34 (82.9%) presented with a nonadvanced adenoma at TC. Mean transit time was 4 hours and 4 minutes, and ≥70% of patients excreted the capsule within 5 hours. CONCLUSIONS: In an enriched disease setting, we showed the high sensitivity of CCE-2 for the diagnosis of AN at a 6-mm cut-off. The apparently low CCE-2 specificity is related to the choice of AN as the main outcome. (Clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN 62158762.).

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.

Preventing incomplete and inadequately cleansed capsule endoscopy examinations. Is it possible?

The introduction in clinical practice of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) represented, not only for doctors specifically dealing with diseases of the small intestine, an epochal diagnostic progression. Since 2001, the year of its first clinical use, numerous scientific studies have shown its utility as a non-invasive technique for the diagnosis of small-bowel disorders. The term "capsule endoscopy" return more than 4,000 items in PubMed, but the most robust scientific evidence for the use of the SBCE is for patients with suspected small bowel bleeding, Crohn's disease and small bowel neoplasms. New diagnostic algorithms for diagnosing these disorders have been developed.

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.

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

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). It addresses the roles of small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends small-bowel video capsule endoscopy as the first-line investigation in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, ESGE recommends performing small-bowel capsule endoscopy as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, optimally within 14 days, in order to maximize the diagnostic yield (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE does not recommend the routine performance of second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy; however whether to perform second-look endoscopy before capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding or iron-deficiency anaemia should be decided on a case-by-case basis (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 In patients with positive findings at small-bowel capsule endoscopy, ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by capsule endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends ileocolonoscopy as the first endoscopic examination for investigating patients with suspected Crohn's disease (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).ESGE does not recommend routine small-bowel imaging or the use of the PillCam patency capsule prior to capsule endoscopy in these patients (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In the presence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, ESGE recommends that dedicated small bowel cross-sectional imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance enterography/enteroclysis or computed tomography enterography/enteroclysis should be used first (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 6 In patients with established Crohn's disease, based on ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends dedicated cross-sectional imaging for small-bowel evaluation since this has the potential to assess extent and location of any Crohn's disease lesions, to identify strictures, and to assess for extraluminal disease (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from such cross-sectional imaging of the small bowel, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation, if deemed to influence patient management (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). When capsule endoscopy is indicated, ESGE recommends use of the PillCam patency capsule to confirm functional patency of the small bowel (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 7 ESGE strongly recommends against the use of small-bowel capsule endoscopy for suspected coeliac disease but suggests that capsule endoscopy could be used in patients unwilling or unable to undergo conventional endoscopy (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Utility of 3-dimensional image reconstruction in the diagnosis of small-bowel masses in capsule endoscopy (with video).

BACKGROUND: In small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), differentiating masses (ie, lesions of higher probability for neoplasia) requiring more aggressive intervention from bulges (essentially, false-positive findings) is a challenging task; recently, software that enables 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction has become available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether "coupling" 3D reconstructed video clips with the standard 2-dimensional (s2D) counterparts helps in distinguishing masses from bulges. DESIGN: Three expert and 3 novice SBCE readers, blind to others and in a random order, reviewed the s2D video clips and subsequently the s2D clips coupled with their 3D reconstruction (2D+3D). SETTING: Multicenter study in 3 community hospitals in Italy and a university hospital in Scotland. PATIENTS: Thirty-two deidentified 5-minute video clips, containing mucosal bulging (19) or masses (13). INTERVENTION: 3D reconstruction of s2D SBCE video clips. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Differentiation of masses from bulges with s2D and 2D+3D video clips, estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); interobserver agreement. RESULTS: AUC for experts and novices for s2D video clips was .74 and .5, respectively (P = .0053). AUC for experts and novices with 2D+3D was .70 (compared with s2D: P = .245) and .57 (compared s2D: P = .049), respectively. AUC for experts and novices with 2D+3D was similar (P = .1846). The interobserver agreement was good for both experts and novices with the s2D (k = .71 and .54, respectively) and the 2D+3D video clips (k = .58 in both groups). LIMITATIONS: Few, short video clips; fixed angle of 3D reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunction of a 3D reconstruction to the s2D video reading platform does not improve the performance of expert SBCE readers, although it significantly increases the performance of novices in distinguishing masses from bulging.

CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has previously been shown to have advantages over air insufflation in terms of procedure-related pain and oral insertion depth during double-balloon enteroscopy. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the performance of CO2 vs. air insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a randomized European multicenter trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01524055). Patients and endoscopists were blinded to the type of insufflation gas used. Patient discomfort during and after the procedure was scored using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the study (52 in the CO2 group and 55 in the air group). Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean (±SD) oral intubation depth was not significantly deeper in the CO2 group vs. the air group (254±80 vs. 238±55 cm; P=0.726). However, in patients with previous abdominal surgery, oral intubation depth was significantly higher in the CO2 group compared with the air group (258±84 vs. 192±42 cm; P<0.05). In patients undergoing SBE via the anal approach, CO2 showed no significant difference in intubation depth compared with air insufflation (86±67 vs. 110±68 cm; P=0.155). The diagnostic yield was comparable (CO2 67%; air 73%). Procedure times, dosage of sedation, and therapeutic interventions did not differ between the two groups. Patients in the CO2 group reported less pain than those in the air group. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated an advantage of using CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery. Overall, single-balloon enteroscopy was a well-tolerated procedure that may benefit from the use of CO2 insufflation to reduce post-procedural pain.

Surveillance of the small-bowel by capsule endoscopy in Lynch syndrome - A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The role of small-bowel (SB) cancer surveillance by capsule endoscopy (CE) in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients has been investigated in recent years, with contradicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic yield (DY) of CE as a screening tool in asymptomatic LS patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for all studies reporting the results of SB cancer screening in patients with LS. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the DY of CE in this setting for consecutive screening rounds. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 428 patients and CE 677 procedures were included for data extraction and statistical analysis. The estimated pooled DY for CE-identified pathological findings was 8% in the first screening round and 6% in the second. Limiting the analysis to histologically-confirmed pathological findings, the pooled DY of second-round screening dropped to 0%. The included studies showed a significantly different prevalence of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair (path_MMR) genes, which underlie different cumulative incidences of extracolonic cancers. CONCLUSIONS: SB surveillance by CE with a 2-year interval in asymptomatic LS individuals does not appear to be an effective screening strategy. Confirmatory prospective studies in this context are needed, considering the different cumulative incidence of SB tumors according to underlying path_MMR defects.

The Role of Capsule Endoscopy in the Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Tumors: A Narrative Review.

Small bowel tumors (SBT) are relatively rare, but have had a steadily increasing incidence in the last few decades. Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy are the main endoscopic techniques for the study of the small bowel, the latter additionally providing sampling and therapeutic options, and hence acting complementary to SBCE in the diagnostic work-up. Although a single diagnostic modality is often insufficient in the setting of SBTs, SBCE is a fundamental tool to drive further management towards a definitive diagnosis. The aim of this paper is to provide a concise narrative review of the role of SBCE in the diagnosis and management of SBTs.

Diagnosis and management of small-bowel bleeding.

Small-bowel (SB) bleeding is a challenging problem for the clinician, presenting many pitfalls in both diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) have revolutionized the approach to the patient with SB bleeding, allowing for the endoscopic diagnosis and management of what was previously only a surgical matter. The patients' assessment in SB bleeding is of foremost importance, as treatment success relies on a detailed evaluation of clinical history, suspicion for underlying lesions, and a careful selection and timing of diagnostic and therapeutic tools. This review will summarize current state-of-the-art evidence and practice points, to provide the clinician with a comprehensive guide towards the management of SB bleeding.

The evolving role of device-assisted enteroscopy: The state of the art as of August 2023.

Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in particular, has become a routine endoscopic procedure which has revolutionized our approach to small-bowel disease. Evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of BAE spans over 22-years of experience, making it an established pillar of minimally invasive care. The robust evidence for BAE's safety and efficacy has now been incorporated into international clinical guidelines, technical reviews, benchmarking performance measures and curricula. The more recently introduced motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) which had replaced the previous manual version, abruptly ended its 7-year stint in clinical practice, when it was withdrawn and recalled from the market by its manufacturing company in July 2023, due to several associated serious adverse events (including fatalities). This article, written by the original developer of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and other recognized international experts and pioneers in this field, focuses mainly on the technical aspects, evolving indications, and equipment-related technological advances. Despite the very recent withdrawal of MSE from clinical practice, for completeness, this technology and its technique is still briefly covered here, albeit importantly, along with a short description of reported, associated, serious adverse events which have contributed to its withdrawal/recall from the market and clinical practice.

Small bowel cleansing for capsule endoscopy, systematic review and meta- analysis: Timing is the real issue.

BACKGROUND: The optimal small bowel preparation modality before capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is still uncertain, regarding preparation type, dose and timing of administration. AIM: The aim of the study is to evaluate the small bowel cleansing in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy after fasting alone or active treatment with purgative solutions. METHODS: We searched 4 major scientific databases from inception to December 2021 for studies evaluating small bowel preparation before SBCE. Different preparation efficacy was compared using fasting as reference. Main variables evaluated in the current study were: preparation type, administration schedule and timing. RESULTS: 17 studies (27 treatment arms) with 2372 patients (male 47,4%) were included, mean age 54 years. Fasting alone VS overall purgative preparations pooled rate difference (RD) was 0.15 I2=81.5% p: 0.000. Sub-analysis for preparation schedule (day-before, split and same-day) and the time lapse showed that administration of PEG after the ingestion of capsule had the highest rate of adequate small bowel cleansing with a RD 0.33, administration between 1 and 6 h before SBCE had a RD 0.28, 6 to 12 h had a RD 0.21 and ≥12 h had a RD 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of ingestion was found to be critical for bowel cleansing; the shorter time laps between the ingestion last dose of laxative and SBCE, the better was the mucosal visualization.

Clinical impact of videocapsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy in non-bleeding small bowel lesions.

Background: Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are part of the diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of indications other than suspected small bowel bleeding (OSBB). The literature is currently lacking studies describing these procedures in this particular setting. Objectives: We assessed the clinical impact of VCE and DBE in a large monocentric cohort of OSBB patients, as compared to a control group of suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB) patients who underwent enteroscopy over the same period. Design: Monocentric, retrospective, cohort study. Methods: We collected the data of consecutive patients with OSBB undergoing VCE and/or DBE from March 2001 to July 2020. The demographic and clinical parameters of the patients, technical characteristics, and adverse events for each procedure were collected. The impact of VCE and DBE was defined in terms of diagnostic yield (DY). The patients were subdivided according to the main indication into four groups: celiac disease, Crohn's disease (CD), neoplasia, and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. Results: A total of 611 VCEs and 387 DBEs were performed for OSBB. The main indications were complicated celiac disease and CD. The DYs of VCE and DBE overall were 53 and 61.7%, respectively, with some variance among the four groups. We report no statistical differences in the DY of VCE and DBE in SSBB vs OSBB (57.7% vs 53%, p = 0.0859 and 68.8% vs 61.7%, p = 0.0582, respectively). OSBB patients were significantly younger than those with SSBB. However, similarly to SSBB (k = 0.059), poor agreement between the enteroscopic techniques was found in the OSBB population (k = 0.109). The safety of both procedures in OSBB was comparable to that in SSBB patients. Conclusion: VCE and DBE are effective and safe in suspected OSBB, where their role is similar to that in SSBB, their main indication.

Enteroscopy in diagnosis and treatment of small bowel bleeding: A Delphi expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: Enteroscopy plays an important role in the management of small bowel bleeding. However, current guidelines are not specifically designed for small bowel bleeding and recommendations from different international societies do not always align. Consequently, there is heterogeneity in the definitions of clinical entities, clinical practice policies, and adherence to guidelines among clinicians. This represents an obstacle to providing the best patient care and to obtain homogeneous data for clinical research. AIMS: The aims of the study were to establish a consensus on the definitions of bleeding entities and on the role of enteroscopy in the management of small bowel bleeding using a Delphi process. METHODS: A core group of eight experts in enteroscopy identified five main topics of small bowel bleeding management and drafted statements on each topic. An expert panel of nine gastroenterologists participated in three rounds of the Delphi process, together with the core group. RESULTS: A total of 33 statements were approved after three rounds of Delphi voting. CONCLUSION: This Delphi consensus proposes clear definitions and a unifying strategy to standardize the management of small bowel bleeding. Furthermore, it provides a useful guide in daily practice for both clinical and technical issues of enteroscopy.