Comparaison de la valeur diagnostique de la Vidéo-Capsule oesophagienne (VCO) et de la Fibroscopie Oeso-Gastro-Duodénale (FOGD) dans le dépistage des varices oesophagiennes (VO) chez les patients atteints de cirrhose – Etude d’équivalence prospective

This file is the study draft of the following reference: Sacher-Huvelin S, Cales P, Bureau C, Valla D, Vinel JP, Duburque C, Attar A, et al. Screening of esophageal varices by esophageal capsule endoscopy: results of a French multicenter prospective study. Endoscopy 2015;47:486-49

Large oesophageal varice screening by a sequential algorithm using a cirrhosis blood test and optionally capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large oesophageal varice (LEV) screening is recommended in cirrhosis. We performed a prospective study to improve non-invasive LEV screening. DESIGN: 287 patients with cirrhosis had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (LEV reference), oesophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE), liver elastography and blood marker analyses. CirrhoMeter (cirrhosis blood test), the most accurate non-invasive LEV test, was segmented for cirrhosis (reference comparator) or LEV. VariScreen, a sequential and partially minimally invasive diagnostic algorithm, was developed by multivariate analysis. It uses CirrhoMeter first, then ECE if CirrhoMeter cannot rule LEV out or in, and finally endoscopy if CirrhoMeter+ECE combination remains uninformative. RESULTS: Diagnostic effectiveness rates for LEV were: cirrhosis-segmented CirrhoMeter: 14.6%, LEV-segmented CirrhoMeter: 34.6%, ECE: 60.6% and VariScreen: 66.4% (P ≤ .001 for overall or pair comparison). The respective missed LEV rates were: 2.8%, 5.6%, 8.3% and 5.6% (P = .789). Spared endoscopy rates were, respectively: 15.6%, 36.0%, 70.6% and 69%, (P < .001 for overall or paired comparison except ECE vs VariScreen: P = .743). VariScreen spared 38% of ECE and reduced missed LEV by 87% compared to classical ECE performed in all patients. Excepting cirrhosis-segmented CirrhoMeter, these spared endoscopy rates were significantly higher than that of the Baveno VI recommendation (using platelets and Fibroscan): 18.4% (P < .001). Ascites and Child-Pugh class independently predicted endoscopy sparing by VariScreen: from 86.0% in compensated Child Pugh class A to 24.1% in Child-Pugh class C with ascites. CONCLUSION: VariScreen algorithm significantly reduced the missed LEV rate with ECE by 87%, ECE use by 38% and endoscopy requirement by 69%, and even 86% in compensated cirrhosis

Screening of esophageal varices by esophageal capsule endoscopy: results of a French multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Esophageal video capsule endoscopy (ECE) is a new technique that allows examination of the esophagus using a noninvasive approach. The aim of this study was to compare ECE with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for the diagnosis of esophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 330 patients with cirrhosis and with no known esophageal varices were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent ECE first, followed by EGD (gold standard). The endoscopists who performed EGD were blind to the ECE result. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a visual analog scale (maximum score 100). RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were excluded from the analysis because they did not undergo any endoscopic examinations. Patients (mean age 56 years; 216 male) had mainly alcoholic (45 %) or viral (27 %) cirrhosis. The diagnostic indices of ECE to diagnose and correctly stage esophageal varices were: sensitivity 76 % and 64 %, specificity 91 % and 93 %, positive predictive value 88 % and 88 %, and negative predictive value 81 % and 78 %, respectively. ECE patient satisfaction scored significantly higher than EGD (87 ± 22 vs. 58 ± 35; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ECE was well tolerated and safe in patients with liver cirrhosis and suspicion of portal hypertension. The sensitivity of ECE is not currently sufficient to replace EGD as a first exploration in these patients. However, due to its excellent specificity and positive predictive value, ECE may have a role in cases of refusal or contraindication to EGD. ECE might also improve compliance to endoscopic follow-up and aid important therapeutic decision making in the prophylaxis of bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT (ID RCB 2009-A00532-55) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00941421)

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. PATIENTS: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. INTERVENTION: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are >/=6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps >/=6 mm and >/=10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. RESULTS: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps >/=6 mm and >/=10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. CONCLUSION: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging

Wireless capsule endoscopy versus ileocolonoscopy for the diagnosis of postoperative recurrence of Crohn's disease: a prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Following ileocolonic resection for Crohn's disease (CD), early endoscopic recurrence predicts recurrence of symptoms. The aim of the study was to compare ileocolonoscopy and wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) for the detection of postoperative recurrence in CD. METHODS: WCE and ileocolonoscopy were performed within six months following surgery in 32 prospectively enrolled patients. Two independent observers interpreted the results of WCE. Recurrence in the neoterminal ileum was defined by a Rutgeerts score ⩾1. When observers at WCE did not concur, WCE results were considered as either true negative or true positive and sensitivity and specificity were calculated according to both assumptions. RESULTS: Recurrence occurred in 21 patients (68%) and was detected by ileocolonoscopy in 19 patients. Sensitivity was 90% and specificity 100%. Sensitivity of WCE was 62% and 76% and specificity was 100% and 90%, respectively, depending on assumptions. There was a correlation between the severity of the lesions measured by both methods (p<0.05). Lesions located outside the scope of conventional endoscopy were detected by WCE in two thirds of patients with excellent interobserver agreement (kappa >0.9) for all lesions with the exception of ulceration (kappa = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of WCE in detecting recurrence in the neoterminal ileum was inferior to that of ileocolonoscopy. In contrast, WCE detected lesions outside the scope of ileocolonoscopy in more than two thirds of patients. Additional follow up studies are needed to assess the clinical relevance of such lesions. At the present time, it seems that WCE cannot systematically replace ileocolonoscopy in the regular management of patients after surgery