Nuevas aplicaciones de la cápsula endoscópica: PILLCAM™ ESO

ABSTRACT Capsule endoscopy has opened a new era in small bowel examination. Its indications are now welldefined and currently, wireless capsule endoscopy is considered as the first-line imaging tool for the diagnosis of small bowel diseases. ECE has been shown to be feasible, safe and a good alternative technique in patients refusing conventional endoscopy. Although results reported in both GERD and cirrhotic patients are encouraging, great differences in terms of accuracy (particularly in GERD patients) have been found in published studies. These differences have been attributed to study designs, the lack of adequate experience and inconvenience of ingestion protocols. In summary, more large-scale studies evaluating the new 14-fps capsule, adequate ECE-experience and new modified ingestion protocols are still needed

Capsule endoscopy interpretation: the role of physician extenders

Background and aims: capsule endoscopy (CE) allows for a new era in small-bowel examination. Nevertheless, physicians’ time for CE-interpretation remains longer than desirable. Alternative strategies to physicians have not been widely investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of physician extenders in CE-interpretation. Material and methods: one CE-experienced gastroenterologist and two physician extenders reviewed independently 20 CEprocedures. Each reader was blinded to the findings of their colleagues. A consensus formed by the readers and a second CE-experienced gastroenterologist was used as gold standard. Number, type and location of images selected, character of CEexams and their relationship with indications were recorded. Gastric emptying time (GEt), small-bowel transit time (SBTt) and time spent by readers were also noted. Results: sensitivity and specificity for “overall” lesions was 79 and 99% for the gastroenterologist; 86 and 43% for the nurse; and 80 and 57% for the resident. All 34 “major” lesions considered by consensus were found by the readers. Agreement between consensus and readers for images classification and procedures interpretation was good to excellent (κ from 0.55 to 1). No significant differences were found in the GEt and SBTt obtained by consensus and readers. The gastroenterologist was faster than physician extenders (mean time spent was 51.9 ± 13.5 minutes versus 62.2 ± 19 and 60.9 ± 17.1 for nurse and resident, respectively; p < 0.05). Conclusions: physician extenders could be the perfect complement to gastroenterologists for CE-interpretation but gastroenterologists should supervise their findings. Future cost-efficacy analyses are required to assess the benefits of this alternative

Gastroduodenal injury after radioembolization of hepatic tumors

Radioembolization is a new tool for the treatment of hepatic tumors that consists in the injection of biocompatible microspheres carrying radioisotopes into the hepatic artery or its branches. METHODS: We have performed radioembolization in 78 patients with hepatic tumors using resin-based microspheres loaded with yttrium-90. All patients were previously evaluated to minimize the risk of hazardous irradiation to nontarget organs and to obtain the data needed for dose calculation. RESULTS: We report a complication found in three cases (3.8%) that consists of abdominal pain resulting from gastroduodenal lesions and that had a chronic, insidious course. Microscopically, microspheres were detected in the specimens obtained from all affected gastric areas. Since these gastroduodenal lesions do not appear when nonradiating microspheres are injected in animals, lesions are likely to be due to radiation and not to an ischemic effect of vascular occlusion by spheres. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that a pretreatment evaluation that includes a more thorough scrutiny of the hepatic vascularization in search of small collaterals connecting to the gastroduodenal tract can help prevent this awkward complicatio

Evaluation of different bowel preparations for small bowel capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

To obtain an adequate view of the whole small intestine during capsule endoscopy (CE) a clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is recommended. However, intestinal content can hamper vision in spite of these measures. Our aim was to evaluate tolerance and degree of intestinal cleanliness during CE following three types of bowel preparation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Two-hundred ninety-one patients underwent one of the following preparations: 4 L of clear liquids (CL) (group A; 92 patients); 90 mL of aqueous sodium phosphate (group B; 89 patients); or 4 L of a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (group C; 92 patients). The degree of cleanliness of the small bowel was classified by blinded examiners according to four categories (excellent, good, fair or poor). The degree of patient satisfaction, gastric and small bowel transit times, and diagnostic yield were measured. RESULTS: The degree of cleanliness did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.496). Interobserver concordance was fair (k = 0.38). No significant differences were detected between the diagnostic yields of the CE (P = 0.601). Gastric transit time was 35.7 +/- 3.7 min (group A), 46.1 +/- 8.6 min (group B) and 34.6 +/- 5.0 min (group C) (P = 0.417). Small-intestinal transit time was 276.9 +/- 10.7 min (group A), 249.7 +/- 13.1 min (group B) and 245.6 +/- 11.6 min (group C) (P = 0.120). CL was the best tolerated preparation. Compliance with the bowel preparation regimen was lowest in group C (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: A clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is sufficient to achieve an adequate level of cleanliness and is better tolerated by patients than other forms of preparation

Accuracy of Capsule Colonoscopy in Detecting Colorectal Polyps in a Screening Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Capsule colonoscopy is a minimally invasive imaging method. We measured the accuracy of this technology in detecting polyps 6 mm or larger in an average-risk screening population. METHODS: In a prospective study, asymptomatic subjects (n = 884) underwent capsule colonoscopy followed by conventional colonoscopy (the reference) several weeks later, with an endoscopist blinded to capsule results, at 10 centers in the United States and 6 centers in Israel from June 2011 through April 2012. An unblinded colonoscopy was performed on subjects found to have lesions 6 mm or larger by capsule but not conventional colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among the 884 subjects enrolled, 695 (79%) were included in the analysis of capsule performance for all polyps. There were 77 exclusions (9%) for inadequate cleansing and whole-colon capsule transit time fewer than 40 minutes, 45 exclusions (5%) before capsule ingestion, 15 exclusions (2%) after ingestion and before colonoscopy, and 15 exclusions (2%) for site termination. Capsule colonoscopy identified subjects with 1 or more polyps 6 mm or larger with 81% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 77%-84%) and 93% specificity (95% CI, 91%-95%), and polyps 10 mm or larger with 80% sensitivity (95% CI, 74%-86%) and 97% specificity (95% CI, 96%-98%). Capsule colonoscopy identified subjects with 1 or more conventional adenomas 6 mm or larger with 88% sensitivity (95% CI, 82%-93) and 82% specificity (95% CI, 80%-83%), and 10 mm or larger with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 82%-97%) and 95% specificity (95% CI, 94%-95%). Sessile serrated polyps and hyperplastic polyps accounted for 26% and 37%, respectively, of false-negative findings from capsule analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk screening population, technically adequate capsule colonoscopy identified individuals with 1 or more conventional adenomas 6 mm or larger with 88% sensitivity and 82% specificity. Capsule performance seems adequate for patients who cannot undergo colonoscopy or who had incomplete colonoscopies. Additional studies are needed to improve capsule detection of serrated lesions. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01372878