Modeling lengthy work-ups in gastrointestinal bleeding

The future of capsule endoscopy in clinical practice: from diagnostic to therapeutic experimental prototype capsules

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is indicated as a first-line clinical examination for the detection of small-bowel pathology, and there is an ever-growing drive for it to become a method for the screening of the entire gastrointestinal tract (GI). Although CE's main function is diagnosis, the research for therapeutic capabilities has intensified to make therapeutic capsule endoscopy (TCE) a target within reach. This manuscript presents the research evolution of CE and TCE through the last 5 years and describes notable problems, as well as clinical and technological challenges to overcome. This review also reports the state-of-the-art of capsule devices with a focus on CE research prototypes promising an enhanced diagnostic yield (DY) and treatment. Lastly, this article provides an overview of the research progress made in software for enhancing DY by increasing the accuracy of abnormality detection and lesion localisation.

Earlier use of capsule endoscopy in inpatients with melena or severe iron deficiency anemia reduces need for colonoscopy and shortens hospital stay

Background and study aims  Capsule endoscopy(CE) is a well-established investigation for iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and melena, usually following negative upper and lower endoscopy. We aimed to study the effect of earlier CE in the investigative pathway for inpatients with IDA or melena at a large tertiary referral centre. Patients and methods  We analyzed inpatients undergoing CE for IDA or melena from 2005 to 2017, without signs/symptoms suggesting lower gastrointestinal tract pathology. Patients underwent CE following negative upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (Group 1), or negative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) only (Group 2). Results  One hundred and seventy inpatients underwent CE for IDA (n = 44) and melena (n = 126). In Group 1, 46/95 (48.4%) patients had small bowel (SB) findings. CE found 16/95 (16.8 %) gastric and 12/95 (12.6 %) colon findings. Three of 12 patients with colon findings required repeat colonoscopy. One hundred and three colon investigations were carried out for 95 admissions. In Group 2, 33/75 (44.0%) patients had SB findings. There were 12/75 (16.0 %) gastric and 11/75 (14.7 %) colon findings. In patients with positive CE, significant colonic findings led to colonoscopy in 10 of 39 patients (diagnostic yield 6/10). Thirty-six patients had negative CE; 15 underwent colonoscopy (diagnostic yield 9/15). The remaining 21 of 36 patients with no further colonoscopy did not develop adverse outcomes related to colonic pathology. Twenty-six colon investigations were carried out in 75 admissions. Patients in Group 2 had shorter mean times from admission to CE (5.08 ± 3.80 vs. 6.38 ± 3.80 days; P  = 0.02) and hospital stays (10.5 ± 9.58 vs. 12.5 ± 11.4 days; P  = 0.04) compared to Group 1. Conclusion  Earlier use of CE in inpatients with melena or IDA, no signs of lower gastrointestinal pathology and negative UGIE resulted in shortened hospital stays, significant DY from both small bowel and upper gastrointestinal tract, and two-thirds less unnecessary colon investigations without affecting clinical outcomes.

Length of endoscopic workup in gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

The number of procedures utilized in the general management of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) has not been investigated previously. We used the National Endoscopic Database of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative for an observational study to analyze the average length of workup in GIB.

METHODS

The electronic database was queried for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent an endoscopic evaluation for any bleeding indication between 2000 and 2014. Data were stratified by indication, type, and number of endoscopies per patient, and length of workup.

RESULTS

A total of 603 807 endoscopic procedures among 451 470 individual patients were used in the workup of GIB, with 152 337 procedures among 113 030 patients (25%) being performed as a secondary procedure. The average length was 2.4±0.9 procedures per workup in procedural sequences involving multiple endoscopies. The length of workup was independent of the initial type of GIB. An esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD), followed by a colonoscopy or a colonoscopy, followed by an EGD were the most frequent combinations. In another substantial fraction of two consecutive procedures, the first and the second procedure were identical. This pattern applied not only to EGD and colonoscopy but also to flexible sigmoidoscopy, enteroscopy, and video capsule endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients with GIB require only one type of endoscopy to manage their bleeding. However, in a quarter of patients, on average, 2.4 procedures are needed. Previous trials assessing the outcomes of individual types of endoscopy may have exaggerated their overall success rates in diagnosing and treating GIB.