Video Capsule Endoscopy: Technology, Reading, and Troubleshooting

Quality indicators for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

DISCUSSION

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Effect of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Agents on Small Intestinal Injuries as Evaluated by Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Currently, because the population is aging, use of medications has been increasing, including use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antithrombotic agents.

AIMS

This study aims to investigate whether NSAIDs can cause damage to the small bowel (SB) mucosa.

METHODS

Endoscopic videos of subjects who had undergone capsule endoscopy (CE) were evaluated by three experts in order to identify SB injury. All medications taken within 2 weeks from the time of CE were investigated. Cases with a final diagnosis of intestinal tuberculosis, inflammatory bowel disease, Behcet's disease, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, small bowel lymphoma, or Henoch-Schönlein purpura were excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 273 subjects, 125 (45.8%) had SB erosions or ulcers (erosion group) and the remaining 148 (54.2%) did not (no erosion group). SB erosions or ulcers were more common in females, patients aged > 60 years, and subjects taking NSAIDs (p = 0.048, 0.032, and < 0.001, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in the following variables: history of cancer and GI surgery, reasons for the test, comorbidities, and use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents. Multivariate analysis showed that use of NSAIDs [OR 4.191 (95% CI 1.858-9.458), p < 0.001] was an independent risk factor for SB erosions or ulcers.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NSAIDs is the only independent risk factor for SB injury identified in this study. Antithrombotic agents do not cause or exacerbate damage to the SB, according to our results.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

KCT0004795.

Training, Reading, and Reporting for Small Bowel Video Capsule Endoscopy

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is an established modality for examining the small bowel. Formal training in interpretation and reporting of VCE examinations, along with assessment of performance metrics, is advocated for all gastroenterology fellowship programs. This review provides an overview of VCE minimum training requirements and competency assessment, cognitive and technical aspects of interpretation, and standardized reporting of findings. In order to optimize and advance the clinical utility of VCE, efforts must continue to promote and encourage consensus and standardization of training, definition and assessment of competence, enhancements of VCE reading tools, and use of appropriate nomenclature in VCE reports.

How should we do colon capsule endoscopy reading: a practical guide

In this article, we aim to provide general principles as well as personal views for colonic capsule endoscopy. To allow an in-depth understanding of the recommendations, we also present basic technological characteristics and specifications, with emphasis on the current as well as the previous version of colonic capsule endoscopy and relevant software. To date, there is no scientific proof to support the optimal way of reading a colonic capsule endoscopy video, or any standards or guidelines exist. Hence, any advice is a mixture of recommendations by the capsule manufacturer and experts’ opinion. Furthermore, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of term(s) (pre-reader/reader-validator) in colonic capsule endoscopy. We also include a couple of handy tables in order to get info at a glance.

The Clinician's Guide to Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding

Small bowel bleeding accounts for 5-10% of gastrointestinal bleeding. With the advent of capsule endoscopy, device-assisted enteroscopy, and multiphase CT scanning, a small bowel source can now be found in many instances of what has previously been described as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. We present a practical review on the evaluation and management of small bowel bleeding for the practicing clinician.

Current Status of Interpretation of Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE) has revolutionized direct small bowel imaging and is widely used in clinical practice. Remote visualization of bowel images enables painless, well-tolerated endoscopic examinations. Small bowel CE has a high diagnostic yield and the ability to examine the entire small bowel. The diagnostic yield of CE relies on lesion detection and interpretation. In this review, issues related to lesion detection and interpretation of CE have been addressed, and the current status of automated reading software development has been reviewed. Clinical significance of an external real-time image viewer has also been described.

Does the PillCam SB3 capsule endoscopy system improve image reading efficiency irrespective of experience? A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 The aim of this study was tp compare the diagnostic efficiency of the PillCam SB3 capsule endoscopy (CE) system with the older system, PillCam SB2, taking into consideration the experience of the image reader.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Small intestinal CE was conducted on 64 patients around May 2014 when the SB3 was introduced in our hospital. Data obtained from 20 patients (SB2: 10 and SB3: 10) based on transit time were assessed by junior (experience: 20 images), intermediate (> 50), and expert readers (> 600).

RESULTS

 Reading time with the CE down to the end of the small intestine was shorter in the SB3 group for each reader (SB2 vs. SB3: junior, 40.2 ± 10.1 vs. 23.7 ± 6.7 [ P  = 0.0009]; intermediate, 21.4 ± 4.9 vs. 10.3 ± 2.9 [ P  = 0.0003]; expert, 23.2 ± 5.6 vs. 11.1 ± 2.9 min [ P  = 0.0002]). Interpretation agreement rates between the findings by junior and intermediate readers and those by the expert reader were 84.6 % and 92.3 %, respectively. For the junior reader, rates of agreement using the SB2 and SB3 systems with those by the expert reader were 85.7 % and 83.3 %, respectively; no significant difference was noted between the two systems. Similarly, for the intermediate reader, the respective agreement rates using the SB2 and SB3 systems were 85.7 % and 100 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

 The PillCam SB3 reduces the time burden on readers irrespective of their experience.

Animal experimental studies using small intestine endoscope

AIM

To assess the feasibility and safety of a novel enteroscope, negative-pressure suction endoscope in examining the small intestine of a porcine model.

METHODS

In vitro experiments in small intestinal loops from 20 pigs and in vivo experiments in 20 living pigs were conducted.

RESULTS

In in vitro experiments, a negative pressure of > 0.06 MPa was necessary for optimal visualization of the intestine, and this pressure did not cause gross or histological damage to the mucosa. For satisfactory examination of the small intestine in vivo, higher negative pressure (> 1.00 MPa) was required. Despite this higher pressure, the small intestine did not show any gross or microscopic damage in the suctioned areas. The average time of examination in the living animals was 60 ± 7.67 min. The animals did not experience any apparent ill effects from the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Small intestine endoscope was safely performed within a reasonable time period and enabled complete visualization of the intestine in most cases.