Virtual chromoendoscopy improves the diagnostic yield of small bowel capsule endoscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

Virtual Chromoendoscopy in Capsule Endoscopy: A Narrative Review

The usefulness of virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) in capsule endoscopy (CE) isa controversial issue, with conflicting studies regarding its efficacy. FICE and a blue filter were embedded in the PillCamTM software, with the aim to assist readers in identifying the source of obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (OGIB), coeliac disease mucosal changes and other small and large bowel lesions, including polyps and tumors. This review aims to summarize the existing evidence on the value of VC in the visualization and identification of different types of pathology. Overall, VC in CE with FICE 1 and 2 can be a useful adjunctive tool and may increase the visibility of pigmented lesions, such as angiectasias and ulcers. However, it does not appear to improve the detection of polyps or tumors. On the other hand, the role of FICE 3 and the blue filter appears to be limited. FICE may also be helpful in differentiating hyperplastic and adenomatous colonic polyps during colon capsule endoscopy, although more evidence is needed.

Role of Video Capsule in Small Bowel Bleeding

Video capsule endoscopy has an essential role in the diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding and is the first-line study recommended for this purpose. This article reviews the risk factors for small bowel bleeding, optimal timing for video capsule endoscopy testing, and algorithms recommended for evaluation. Used primarily for the assessment of nonacute gastrointestinal blood loss, video capsule endoscopy has an emerging role for more urgent use in emergency settings and in special populations. Future software incorporation of neural networks to enhance lesion detection will likely result in an augmented role of video capsule endoscopy in small bowel bleeding.

Clinical Performance of New Software to Automatically Detect Angioectasias in Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

Background

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) revolutionized the diagnosis and management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, though the rate of detection of small bowel lesions by the physician is still disappointing. Our group developed a novel algorithm (CMEMS-Uminho) to automatically detect angioectasias which display greater accuracy in VCE static frames than other methods previously published. We aimed to evaluate the algorithm overall performance and assess its diagnostic yield and usability in clinical practice.

Methods

Algorithm overall performance was determined using 54 full-length VCE recordings. To assess its diagnostic yield and usability in clinical practice, 38 VCE examinations with the clinical diagnosis of angioectasias consecutively performed (2017-2018) were evaluated by three physicians with different experiences. The CMEMS-Uminho algorithm was also applied. The performance of the CMEMS-Uminho algorithm was defined by a positive concordance between a frame automatically selected by the software and a study independent capsule endoscopist.

Results

Overall performance in complete VCE recordings was 77.7%, and diagnostic yield was 94.7%. There were significant differences between physicians in regard to global detection rate (p < 0.001), detection rate per capsule (p < 0.001), diagnostic yield (p = 0.007), true positive rate (p < 0.001), time (p < 0.001), and speed viewing (p < 0.001). The application of CMEMS-Uminho algorithm significantly enhanced all readers' global detection rate (p < 0.001) and the differences between them were no longer observed.

Conclusion

The CMEMS-Uminho algorithm detained a good overall performance and was able to enhance physicians' performance, suggesting a potential usability of this tool in clinical practice.

Video Capsule Endoscopy: Technology, Reading, and Troubleshooting

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) has completed the endoscopic visualization of the entire luminal gastrointestinal tract. VCE can be performed in inpatients and outpatients, requires appropriate bowel preparation before the study, and can be administered via oral swallowing or endoscopic device placement into the small bowel based on outlined patient-dependent factors. Current commercially available VCE systems were reviewed and compared for individual features and attributes. This article focuses on preparation for VCE, currently available VCE technology, how to read a VCE study, and risks and contraindications to VCE.

Efficacy of repeat review with flexible spectral imaging color enhancement in patients with no findings by capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIM

The efficacy of flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) ch. 1 (F1) for the detection of ulcerative lesions and angioectasias in the small intestine with capsule endoscopy (CE) has been reported. In the present study, we evaluated whether F1 could detect incremental findings in patients with no findings in a standard review mode.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 52 patients (age: 60.1 ± 15.3 years; 30 males) with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) who underwent CE and in whom no lesion was detected in the small intestine in the standard mode (first review) were enrolled. Two experienced endoscopists independently reviewed CE videos again by F1 (second review). The following findings were defined to be significant: Ulcers, erosions, aphthas, angioectasias, tumors, and bleeding. Incremental findings at the second review were checked at F1 and in standard mode by the two reviewers (third review). Finally, the findings were confirmed by the agreement of the two reviewers at the third review.

RESULTS

F1 detected five significant lesions in three patients with overt OGIB; three erosions, one aphtha, and one angioectasia. For nonsignificant lesions, F1 detected 12 red mucosas and 16 red spots. Moreover, 29 patients with 71 findings were considered false positives.

CONCLUSION

F1 detected incremental significant findings in a small percentage of patients with no findings in the standard review mode. In addition, F1 showed many false-positive findings. The incremental effect of a repeated review by F1 in patients with no findings in the first review is limited.