Gastrografin as an alternative booster to sodium phosphate in colon capsule endoscopy: safety and efficacy pilot study

Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan

Objectives

To investigate patient acceptance and preference for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) over colonoscopy.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a nationwide multicenter trial in Japan to assess the accuracy of CTC detection. They were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy after CTC with common bowel preparation on the same day. Some were administered sedative drugs during colonoscopy, depending on the referring clinician and participant's preferences. The participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the acceptability of bowel preparation, examinations, and preference for future examinations.

Results

Of the 1,257 enrolled participants, 1,180 (mean age: 60.6 years; women: 43.3%) completed the questionnaire. Sedative drugs were not administered in 687 participants (unsedated colonoscopy group) and were administered intravenously during colonoscopy in 493 participants (sedated colonoscopy group). Before propensity score matching, the mean participants' age, percentages of asymptomatic participants, insufflation of gas during colonoscopy, and number of participants with a history of abdominal/pelvic operation significantly differed between the groups. After propensity score matching, 912 participants from each group were included in the analysis. In the unsedated colonoscopy group, CTC was answered as significantly easier than colonoscopy (p<0.001). Conversely, CTC was significantly more difficult than colonoscopy in the sedated colonoscopy group (p<0.001). In the unsedated colonoscopy group, 48% preferred CTC and 22% preferred colonoscopy for future examinations, whereas in the sedated colonoscopy group, 26% preferred CTC and 38% preferred colonoscopy (p<0.001).

Conclusions

CTC has superior participant acceptability compared with unsedated colonoscopy. However, our study did not observe the advantages of CTC acceptance over sedative colonoscopy.

What Is the Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Colonoscopy and Pan-intestinal Capsule Endoscopy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The rate of adequate cleansing (ACR) and complete examinations (CR) are key quality indicators in capsule colonoscopy (CC) and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE).

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of bowel preparation protocols regarding ACR and CR.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, search terms regarding colon capsule preparation, publication date from 2006/01, and date of search 2021/12, in six bibliographic databases. Multiple steps of the cleansing protocol were assessed: diet, adjunctive laxatives, purgative solution, use of prokinetic agents, and "booster". The meta-analytical frequency of ACR and CR was estimated, and subgroup analyses performed. Strategies associated with higher ACR and CR were explored using meta-analytical univariable and multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies and five RCTs included (n = 4072 patients). The pooled rate of ACR was 72.5% (95% C.I. 67.8-77.5%; I2 = 92.4%), and the pooled rate of CR was 83.0% (95% C.I. 78.7-87.7%; I2 = 96.5%). The highest ACR were obtained using a low-fibre diet [78.5% (95% C.I. 72.0-85.6%); I2 = 57.0%], adjunctive laxatives [74.7% (95% C.I. 69.8-80.1%); I2 = 85.3%], and split dose < 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) as purgative [77.5% (95% C.I. 68.4-87.8%); I2 = 47.3%]. The highest CR were observed using routine prokinetics prior to capsule ingestion [84.4% (95% C.I. 79.9-89.2%); I2 = 89.8%], and sodium phosphate (NaP) as "booster" [86.2% (95% C.I. 82.3-90.2%); I2 = 86.8%]. In univariable models, adjunctive laxatives were associated with higher ACR [OR 1.81 (95% C.I. 1.13; 2.90); p = 0.014]. CR was higher with routine prokinetics [OR 1.86 (95% C.I. 1.13; 3.05); p = 0.015] and split-dose PEG purgative [OR 2.03 (95% C.I. 1.01; 4.09), p = 0.048].

CONCLUSIONS

Main quality outcomes (ACR, CR) remain suboptimal for CC and PCE. Despite considerable heterogeneity, our results support low-fibre diet, use of adjunctive sennosides, split dose < 4L PEG, and routine prokinetics, while NaP remains the most consistent option as booster.

Efficacy of the Castor Oil-Filled Capsule Method as Preparation for Colon Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is useful as an alternative examination for patients in whom colonoscopy is difficult. The Japanese Association for Capsule Endoscopy has published a recommended regimen for CCE using castor oil, which is becoming a standard examination method for CCE in Japan. However, castor oil has an unpleasant flavor. Therefore, patient acceptance is not good.

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to develop a castor oil-filled capsule and evaluate its feasibility and patient acceptance in a retrospective, comparative study.

METHOD

A dissolution study of pig-derived gelatin capsules filled with castor oil was performed using artificial gastric juice. The CCE excretion rates within battery lifetime, CCE examination times, endoscopic colonic cleansing levels, and patient acceptability between CCE boosters with a castor oil-filled capsule and without castor oil were retrospectively compared using medical information, clinical data, and endoscopic findings at Takada Chuo Hospital from September 2016 to August 2019.

RESULTS

The castor oil-filled capsules were completely disintegrated at approximately 1-3 min in artificial gastric juice. Bowel preparation with oil-filled capsules and without castor oil was performed in 27 and 24 patients, respectively. CCE excretion rates within battery life were 100% and 91.7% (p = 0.217), small bowel transit times were 115 min and 143 min (p = 0.046), colon transit times were 168 min and 148 min (p = 0.733), and adequate colonic cleansing rates were 85.2% and 86.3% (p = 1.000) in patients using bowel preparation with and without oil-filled capsules, respectively. Regarding acceptance, the taste was not problematic in 85.2%, and tolerability for the next CCE was 96.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE using a castor oil-filled capsule method achieved high examination performance and sufficient patient tolerability.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Colon Polyps: Who Needs a Colonoscopy?

Colon screening programs have reduced colon cancer mortality. Population screening should be minimally invasive, safe, acceptably sensitive, cost-effective, and scalable. The range of screening modalities include guaiac or immunochemical fecal occult blood testing and CT colonography and colonoscopy. A number of carefully controlled studies concur that second-generation capsule endoscopy has excellent sensitivity for polyp detection and a high negative predictive value. Colon capsules fulfill the screening expectation of safety, high sensitivity for polyp detection, and patient acceptance, and appear to straddle the divide between occult blood testing and colonoscopy. While meeting these criteria, there remains the challenges of scaling, capsule practitioner training, resource allocation, and implementing change of practice. Like CT colonography, capsule screening presents the clinician with a decision on the threshold for colonoscopy referral. Overall, colon capsules are an invaluable tool in polyp detection and colon screening and offer a filter that determines “who needs a colonoscopy?”.

Review: Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable disruption in healthcare services and has had a substantial impact on the care of patients with chronic diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease. Endoscopy services were significantly restricted, resulting in long waiting lists. There has been a growing interest in the use of capsule endoscopy in the diagnostic pathway and management of these patients. This review explores the published literature on the role of colon capsule endoscopy in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as a method for mucosal assessment of extent, severity, and response to treatment. Colon capsule preparation regimens and scoring systems are reported. The studies indicate that, despite inherent limitations of minimally invasive capsule endoscopy, there is increasing evidence to support the use of the second-generation colon capsule in inflammatory bowel disease evaluation, providing an additional pathway to expedite investigation of appropriate patients especially during and after the pandemic.

Predictors of Gastrointestinal Transit Times in Colon Capsule Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Optimizing the accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires high completion rates. To prevent incomplete CCE, we aimed to identify predictors associated with slow CCE transit times.

METHODS

In this population-based study, participants received CCE with a split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation and booster regimen (0.5 L oral sulfate solution and 10 mg metoclopramide if capsule remained in stomach for > 1 hour). The following predictors were assessed: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking, coffee and fiber intake, diet quality, physical activity, dyspeptic complaints, stool pattern, history of abdominal surgery, medication use, and CCE findings. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions with backward elimination were performed.

RESULTS

We analyzed 451 CCE procedures with a completion rate of 51.9%. The completion rate was higher among older participants (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-2.28, P = 0.03) and participants with a changed stool pattern (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.20-4.30, P = 0.01). Participants with a history of abdominal surgery had a lower completion rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.80, P = 0.003). Participants with higher BMI had faster stomach, small bowel, and total transit times (β = -0.10, P = 0.01; β = -0.14, P = 0.001; β = -0.12, P = 0.01). A faster small bowel transit was found in participants with a changed stool pattern (β = -0.08, P = 0.049) and the use of metoclopramide (β = -0.14, P = 0.001). Participants with high fiber intake had a slower colonic transit (β = 0.11, P = 0.03).

DISCUSSION

Younger age, unchanged stool pattern, history of abdominal surgery, low BMI, and high fiber intake resulted in slower CCE transit times and lower completion rates. In future practice, these factors can be considered to adjust preparation protocols.

Efficacy of bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. Patients and methods  We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Results  Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764-0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820-0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735-0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896-0.979). Conclusions  In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen.

Feasibility of patency capsule and colon capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected gastrointestinal stenosis: a prospective study

Patency capsule (PC) can evaluate the patency of gastrointestinal (GI) tract. We hypothesized preceding patient selection using PC would improve the successful rate of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Therefore, a prospective single-arm study using PC followed by CCE was conducted with a control group of CCE alone. Patients with suspected or known GI stenosis scheduled for CCE were enrolled. CCE was performed only when the PC was excreted out of the body within 33 hours of ingestion. Primary endpoint was the rate of observation of the entire GI tract within the duration of examination. The secondary endpoints were complications and CCE findings. Twenty-three patients (17 men) were enrolled. The mean age was 50.5±19.8 years. Suspected stenotic sites were 8, 5, and 10 in the small, large, and small and large bowel, respectively. Sixteen, 12, and 10 patients had abdominal pain, active inflammatory bowel disease, and history of surgery for suspected stenosis, respectively. Patency of GI tract was confirmed in 96% (22/23) of the patients by administered PC. Of the 22 patients who underwent CCE, the entire GI tract was observed in 86% (19/22). No complications were observed. The median transit times in the small bowel and colon were 99 (21–682) and 160 (5–328) minutes, respectively. CCE findings revealed ulcers, erosions, and diverticula in 5, 9, and 4 patients, respectively. In conclusion, CCE with PC might be a safer and useful modality to observe the large colon for patients with suspected GI stenosis.

Lavage, Simethicone, and Prokinetics-What to Swallow with a Video Capsule

The development of new capsules now allows endoscopic diagnosis in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract and comes with new needs for differentiated preparation regimens. Although the literature is steadily increasing, the results of the conducted trials on preparation are sometimes conflicting. The ingestion of simethicone before gastric and small bowel capsule endoscopy for prevention of air bubbles is established. The value of a lavage before small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended, although not supported by all studies. Ingestion in the morning before the procedure seems useful for the improvement of mucosa visualization. Lavage after swallowing of the capsule seems to improve image quality, and in some studies also diagnostic yield. Prokinetics has been used with first generation capsules to shorten gastric transit time and increase the rate of complete small bowel visualization. With the massively prolonged battery capacity of the new generation small bowel capsules, prokinetics are only necessary in significantly delayed gastric emptying as documented by a real-time viewer. Lavage is crucial for an effective colon capsule or pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy. Mainly high or low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) is used. Apart from achieving optimal cleanliness, propulsion of the capsule by ingested boosts is required to obtain a complete passage through the colon within the battery lifetime. Boosts with low volume sodium picosulfate (NaP) or diatrizoate (gastrografin) seem most effective, but potentially have more side effects than PEG. Future research is needed for more patient friendly but effective preparations, especially for colon capsule and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy.

Castor oil as booster for colon capsule endoscopy preparation reduction: A prospective pilot study and patient questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Preparation for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires a large liquid laxative volume for capsule excretion, which compromises the procedure's tolerability.

AIM

To assess the safety and utility of castor oil-boosted bowel preparation.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study including 20 patients (age range, 16-80 years; six men and 14 women) suspected of having colorectal disease was conducted at Kindai University Hospital from September 2017 to August 2019. All patients underwent CCE because of the following inclusion criteria: previous incomplete colonoscopy in other facility (n = 20), history of abdominal surgery (n = 7), or organ abnormalities such as multiple diverticulum (n = 4) and adhesion after surgery (n = 6). The exclusion criteria were as follows: Dysphagia, history of allergic reactions to the drugs used in this study (magnesium citrate, polyethylene glycol, metoclopramide, and castor oil), possibility of pregnancy, possibility of bowel obstruction or stenosis based on symptoms, or scheduled magnetic resonance imaging within 2 wk after CCE. The primary outcome was the capsule excretion rate within the battery life, as evaluated by the total large bowel observation rate, large bowel transit time, and bowel creasing level using a five-grade scale in different colorectal segments. The secondary outcomes were complications, colorectal lesion detection rates, and patients’ tolerability.

RESULTS

The castor oil-based regimen was implemented in 17 patients. Three patients cancelled CCE because they could tolerate castor oil, but not liquid laxatives. The capsule excretion rate within the battery life was 88% (15/17). The mean large bowel transit time was 236 min. Approximately 70% of patients had satisfactory colon cleansing levels. CCE detected colon polyps (14/17, 82%) and colonic diverticulum (4/12, 33%). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy rates for detecting colorectal polyps (size ≥ 6 mm) were 76.9%, 75.0%, and 76.4%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy rates for detection of diverticulum were 100% each. Twelve patients (71%) rated CCE as more than “good”, confirming the new regimen’s tolerability. No serious adverse events occurred during this study.

CONCLUSION

The castor oil-based regimen could reduce bowel preparation dose and improve CCE tolerability.

Current status of colon capsule endoscopy

While both the annual incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer are slowly but steadily decreasing in the United States, the incidence of such malignancy is increasing in Japan. Thus, controlling colorectal cancer in Japan is a major concern. In 2006, colon capsule endoscopy was first introduced by Eliakim et al. First-generation colon capsule endoscopy had a moderate sensitivity for detecting polyps of more than 6 mm. Thus, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy was developed to achieve higher sensitivity. Colonoscopy is the gold standard tool for colorectal cancer surveillance. With an improvement in the imaging function, the performance of second-generation colon capsule endoscopy is almost as satisfactory as that of colonoscopy. Certain situations, such as incomplete colonoscopy and contraindication for use of sedation, can benefit from colon capsule endoscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy requires a more extensive bowel preparation than colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography because it requires laxatives not only for bowel cleansing but also for promoting the excretion of the capsule. Another problem with colon capsule endoscopy includes the burden of reading and interpretation and overlook of the lesions. Currently, the development of automatic diagnosis of colon capsule endoscopy using artificial intelligence is still under progress. Although the available guidelines do not support the use of colon capsule endoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease, the possible application of colon capsule endoscopy is ulcerative colitis. This review article summarizes and focuses on the current status of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and the possibility for its applicability on inflammatory bowel disease.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Multicenter feasibility study of bowel preparation with castor oil for colon capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Extensive use of laxatives and incomplete excretion rates are problematic for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The aim of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of castor oil as a booster.

METHODS

At four Japanese hospitals, 319 examinees undergoing CCE were enrolled retrospectively. Before and after the introduction of castor oil, other preparation reagents were unchanged.

RESULTS

Of 319 examinees who underwent CCE, 152 and 167 examinees took regimens with castor oil (between November 2013 and June 2016) and without castor oil (between October 2015 and September 2017), respectively. Capsule excretion rates within its battery life in the groups with and without castor oil were 97% and 81%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that ages younger than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.00; P = 0.0048), male gender (adjusted OR, 3.20; P = 0.0051), and use of castor oil (adjusted OR, 6.29; P = 0.0003) were predictors of capsule excretion within its battery life. Small bowel transit time was shorter and total volume of lavage and fluid intake was lower with castor oil than without (P = 0.0154 and 0.0013, respectively). Overall adequate cleansing level ratios with and without castor oil were 74% and 83%, respectively (P = 0.0713). Per-examinee sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm with and without castor oil was 83% and 85%, respectively, with specificities of 80% and 78%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation with castor oil was effective for improving capsule excretion rate and reducing liquid loading.

Booster medication to achieve capsule excretion in colon capsule endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of three regimens

Background and study aims  To achieve a complete colon capsule endoscopy, the entire colon must be visualized, clean and filled with clear fluids. The primary aim was to compare three booster regimens in colon capsule endoscopy in achieving capsule excretion within recording time. Secondary aims were quality of bowel cleansing and completion rate (both adequate cleansing and capsule excretion). Patients and methods  Patients scheduled for follow-up colonoscopy due to previous neoplastic findings or familial history of colorectal cancer aged 18 to 70 years were eligible. Bowel preparation was 2-L split doses of polyethylene glycol. Patients were randomized to three booster regimens of either polyethylene glycol (Group A), sulfate-based solution (Group B) or polyethylene glycol with iodine oral contrast (Group C). Results  One hundred eighty participants were included and randomized into three groups of 60. Capsule excretion was 70 % (95 % CI: 58 - 80) in Group A, 73 % (95 % CI: 61 - 83) in Group B and in 68 % (95 % CI: 56 - 79) in Group C, no statistically significant differences. Bowel cleansing grade was statistically significant better in Group B compared to Group A ( P  = 0.03), but there were no statistically significant differences between Groups C and A ( P  = 0.40). Complete examination rate was 65 % (95 % CI: 53 - 77), 72 % (95 % CI: 61 - 83) and 62 % (95 % CI: 50 - 74) in Group A, B and C respectively, not statistically significant different. Conclusions  Sulfate-based solution resulted in statistically significant better bowel cleansing compared to polyethylene glycol. Overall the excretion and completion rate was suboptimal. Achieving a high completion rate using patient-tolerable and low-risk compounds is still a challenge.

Colon capsule endoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is designed for direct visualization of the colonic mucosa through passive propulsion. The role of CCE in the detection of colonic polyps has been extensively evaluated. As mucosal healing has emerged as a pivotal target for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there is increasing data to suggest that CCE can also be used in the monitoring of mucosal inflammation in patients with active IBD, particularly in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Despite advantages such as its non-invasive nature, patient's comfort, safety, and access to anatomical regions not easily reached by conventional endoscopy, CE has limitations including the lack of ability to obtain biopsies or therapeutic capabilities and no control over movement. In this review, the role and diagnostic value of CCE on diagnosis and monitoring of UC and CD patients, its safety and limitations are discussed.

Can coffee or chewing gum decrease transit times in Colon capsule endoscopy? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A high rate of complete colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations is required for a more widespread use of CCE. The objective of this study was to assess if coffee or chewing gum can increase excretion of the colon capsule within battery life time (excretion rate).

METHODS

One hundred eighty six screening participants with a positive immunochemical fecal occult blood test were included in this single-centre randomized controlled trial with blinding of the investigators to the randomization. Participants received instant coffee, chewing gum or nothing in addition to the standard bowel preparation.

RESULTS

The intention was to include 57 participants in the coffee group, 61 in the chewing gum group and 60 in the control group, on 8 participants data were missing. A total of 165 participants were included in a per protocol analysis. Exclusion was due to not receiving the allocated intervention (8 coffee, 4 chewing gum) and technical failure of the capsule (1 coffee). The excretion rate was 58% in the coffee group (n = 48), 63% in the chewing gum group (n = 57) and 55% in the control group (n = 60, p > 0.2). Transit times were similar in all groups. The excretion rate was low in participants who had transit times over 10 h (14%). A strong correlation was found between adequate cleansing and excretion of the capsule. There were no serious adverse events related to the interventions or CCE investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

Chewing gum and coffee did not improve excretion rate in this study. An effect of chewing gum could not be proven, possibly due to sample size. Since chewing gum might improve excretion rates, is cheap and has no known side effects, it needs to be considered in future bowel preparation trials for CCE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02303756 , registered on December 1st 2014.

Back-to-back colon capsule endoscopy and optical colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening individuals

AIM

The aim was to determine the polyp detection rate and per-patient sensitivity for polyps > 9 mm of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) compared with colonoscopy as well as the diagnostic accuracy of CCE.

METHOD

Individuals who had a positive immunochemical faecal occult blood test during screening had investigator blinded CCE and colonoscopy. Participants underwent repeat endoscopy if significant lesions detected by CCE were considered to have been missed by colonoscopy.

RESULTS

There were 253 participants. The polyp detection rate was significantly higher in CCE compared with colonoscopy (P = 0.02). The per-patient sensitivity for > 9 mm polyps for CCE and colonoscopy was 87% (95% CI: 83-91%) and 88% (95% CI: 84-92%) respectively. In participants with complete CCE and colonoscopy examinations (N = 126), per-patient sensitivity of > 9 mm polyps in CCE (97%; 95% CI: 94-100%) was superior to colonoscopy (89%; 95% CI: 84-94%). A complete capsule endoscopy examination (N = 134) could detect patients with intermediate or greater risk (according to the European guidelines) with an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positivity rate of 79%, 93%, 69% and 58% respectively, using a cut-off of at least one polyp > 10 mm or more than two polyps.

CONCLUSION

CCE is superior to colonoscopy in polyp detection rate and per-patient sensitivity to > 9 mm polyps, but only in complete CCE examinations. The rate of incomplete CCE examinations must be improved.

Multicenter, randomized study to optimize bowel preparation for colon capsule endoscopy

AIM

To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam^® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1^st and 2^nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution (“diatrizoate solution”) (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ≤ 12 h.

RESULTS

Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups.

CONCLUSION

A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.

Diagnostic capability of colon capsule endoscopy for advanced colorectal cancer: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a safe and effective method for detecting lesions in the colon. However, the sensitivity of CCE in detecting advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been sufficiently evaluated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the sensitivity of CCE in detecting advanced CRC.

METHODS

Patients previously diagnosed with advanced CRC by conventional colonoscopy underwent CCE. Primary outcome measure was the sensitivity of CCE in detecting advanced CRC per patient and per lesion. Secondary parameters measured were the sensitivity of CCE in detecting polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm in size in a per-lesion analysis and the safety of CCE.

RESULTS

Of the 21 advanced CRC lesions in 20 patients, 17 were detected by CCE. The per-patient and per-lesion sensitivities of CCE for detecting advanced CRC lesions were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62-97%) and 81% (95% CI: 58-95%), respectively. All advanced CRC lesions were diagnosed in the accessible region by CCE while the capsule was still functional. A significant association was found between incomplete CCE and failure to diagnose advanced CRC. No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic capability of CCE in detecting advanced CRC was limited in cases of procedure incompletion. Refining procedures to increase CCE procedure completion rates are required to enhance CRC detection.

Is capsule colonoscopy the solution for incomplete conventional colonoscopy?

The era of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) started in 2007. Few years later second-generation CCE (CCE-2) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) was launched, featuring an improved optical system allowing for nearly 360° coverage via two 172° angle cameras, and adaptive frame rate function (ranging from 4 to 35 images per second depending on capsule motion). At present the main clinical indications for CCE are: a) completion of incomplete colonoscopy; b) polyp detection; and c) investigation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Colon capsule endoscopy: toward the future

Colon capsule endoscopy is a wireless and minimally invasive technique for visualization of the whole colon. With recent improvements of technical features in second-generation systems, a more important role for colon capsule endoscopy is rapidly emerging. Although several limitations and drawbacks are yet to be resolved, its usefulness as a tool for colorectal cancer screening and monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel diseases has become more apparent with increased use. Further investigations, including multicenter trials, are required to evaluate the substantial role of the colon capsule in managing colorectal diseases.

Contraindications for video capsule endoscopy

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) has been applied in the last 15 years in an increasing field of applications. Although many contraindications have been put into perspective, some precautions still have to be considered. Known stenosis of the gastrointestinal tract is a clear contraindication for VCE unless surgery is already scheduled or at least has been considered as an optional treatment modality. In patients with a higher incidence of stenosis, as in an established diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, clinical signs of obstruction, prior radiation or surgical small bowel resection, a preceding test with the self-dissolving patency capsule can override this contraindication. Endoscopic placement of the capsule should be considered in patients with swallowing disorders to avoid aspiration. Esophageal or gastric motility disorders may require endoscopic capsule transport or application of prokinetics if the real-time viewer proofs delayed transit. In pregnant women, VCE should be restricted to urgent cases where diagnosis cannot be postponed after delivery, as data on safety are missing. There is theoretical and clinical evidence that patients with implanted cardiac devices such as a pacemaker, cardioverters or left heart assist devices, can safely undergo VCE in spite of still existing contraindication by manufacturers. Children from the age of 2 years have safely undergone VCE. Although video capsules are not proven safe with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), first single cases of patients incidentally undergoing MRI with an incorporated capsule have been reported, showing susceptibility artifacts but no signs of clinical harm.

Review: capsule colonoscopy-a concise clinical overview of current status

The colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was first introduced in 2007. Currently, the main clinical indications for CCE are completion of incomplete colonoscopy, polyp detection and investigation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Although conventional colonoscopy is the gold standard in bowel cancer screening, incomplete colonoscopy remains a problem as lesions are missed. CCE compares favourably to computer tomography colonography (CTC) in adenoma detection and has therefore been proposed as a method for completing colonoscopy. However the data on CCE remains sparse and current evidence does not show its superiority over CTC or conventional colonoscopy in bowel cancer screening. CCE also seems to show good correlation with conventional colonoscopy when used to evaluate IBD, but there are not many published studies at present. Other significant limitations include the need for aggressive bowel preparation and the labour-intensiveness of CCE reading. Therefore, much further software and hardware development is required to enable CCE to fulfill its potential as a minimally-invasive and reliable method of colonoscopy.