Assessment of the Role of a Second Evaluation of Capsule Endoscopy Recordings to Improve Diagnostic Yield and Patient Management

Introduction: The diagnostic yield (DY) of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) varies considerably according to its indication. Some strategies have been used to increase DY with varying results. The intention of this study was to identify whether evaluation of the SBCE recordings by a second reviewer can increase DY and change patient management. Methods: One hundred SBCEs with different indications, already read by an endoscopist were read by a second blinded endoscopist. When the results of the 2 readings were different, the images were discussed by the endoscopists; if no consensus was reached, they took the opinion of a third endoscopist into account. All the participating endoscopists had experience in reading SBCEs (i.e., >50 per year). The SBCE findings were divided into positive (vascular lesions, ulcers, and tumors), equivocal (erosions or red spots), and negative. The interobserver agreement and the increase in DY were assessed as well as the percentage of false-negatives (FNs) in the first evaluation. Results: The indications for SBCE were small-bowel bleeding (SBB) in 48 cases, Crohn’s disease (CD) in 30, and other causes (iron-deficiency anemia, small-bowel tumors, and diarrhea) in 22. There was substantial interobserver agreement between evaluations (κ = 0.79). The findings in the first evaluation were positive in 60%, equivocal in 20% and, negative in 20%. In the second evaluation, 66% were positive, 18% were equivocal, and 16% were negative. The increase in DY with the second reading was 6% (p = 0.380), i.e., 6.3% for SBB, 4.4% for CD and 9.2% for other indications, resulting in a change in management of 4% of the patients. FNs in the first SBCE reading were found in 4% of the SBCEs. Discussion: A second evaluation of the SBCE recordings identified significant pathology that the first evaluation had missed, resulting in a nonsignificant 6% increase in DY and a change in the management of 4% of the patients

Adherence to recommendations for endoscopy practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America: how are we doing it?

Background and aims Digestive endoscopy is considered a high-risk procedure for COVID-19. Recommendations have been made for its practice during the pandemic. This study was conducted to determine adherence to recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America (LA).Methods A survey was conducted of endoscopists from LA consisting of 43 questions for the evaluation of four items: general and sociodemographic features, and preprocedure, intraprocedure and postprocedure aspects.Results A response was obtained from 338 endoscopists (response rate 34.5%) across 15 countries in LA. In preprocedure aspects (hand washing, use of face masks for patients, respiratory triage area, training for the placement/removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) and availability of specific area for the placement/removal of PPE), there was adherence in <75%. Regarding postprocedure aspects, 77% (261/338) had reused PPE, mainly the N95 respirator or higher, and this was with a standardised decontamination procedure only in 32% (108/338) of the time. Postprocedure room decontamination was carried out by 47% on >75% of occasions. In relationship to intraprocedure aspects (knowledge of risk and type of endoscopic procedures, use of PPE, airway management in patients and infrastructure), there was adherence in >75% for all the parameters and 78% of endoscopists only performed emergencies or time-sensitive procedures.Conclusions Adherence to the recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic is adequate in the intraprocedure aspect. However, it is deficient in the preprocedure and postprocedure aspects