Short article: Aspiration of capsule endoscopes: a comprehensive review of the existing literature

Review article: Current status and future directions of ingestible electronic devices in gastroenterology

BACKGROUND

Advances in microelectronics have greatly expanded the capabilities and clinical potential of ingestible electronic devices.

AIM

To provide an overview of the structure and potential impact of ingestible devices in development that are relevant to the gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

We performed a detailed literature search to inform this narrative review.

RESULTS

Technical success of ingestible electronic devices relies on the ability to miniaturise the microelectronic circuits, sensors and components for interventional functions while being sufficiently powered to fulfil the intended function. These devices offer the advantages of being convenient and minimally invasive, with real-time assessment often possible and with minimal interference to normal physiology. Safety has not been a limitation, but defining and controlling device location in the gastrointestinal tract remains challenging. The success of capsule endoscopy has buoyed enthusiasm for the concepts, but few ingestible devices have reached clinical practice to date, partly due to the novelty of the information they provide and also due to the challenges of adding this novel technology to established clinical paradigms. Nonetheless, with ongoing technological advancement and as understanding of their potential impact emerges, acceptance of such technology will grow. These devices have the capacity to provide unique insight into gastrointestinal physiology and pathophysiology. Interventional functions, such as sampling of tissue or luminal contents and delivery of therapies, may further enhance their ability to sharpen gastroenterological diagnoses, monitoring and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of miniaturised ingestible microelectronic-based devices offers exciting prospects for enhancing gastroenterological research and the delivery of personalised, point-of-care medicine.

Capsule endoscopy retention in the upper esophagus: A comprehensive literature review

Capsule endoscopy is the first-line investigation for small bowel disorders. Capsule retention in the small bowel is the most common adverse event. Retention has also been reported in the upper esophagus; however, guidance for diagnosis and management is lacking. This review aims to summarize the diagnostic workup and management of this complication. We conducted a systematic literature review by searching 5 databases; relevant keywords and MeSH terms were used. Exclusion criteria included publications of non-adult patients in non-English languages. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using IBM SPSS 29. Twelve case reports were found (9 males, median age of 76 years); 10 capsule retentions in Zenker's diverticulum and 2 in the cricopharyngeus. Most patients were asymptomatic before capsule endoscopy. Capsule retention was symptomatic in half of the patients (6/12). A neck X-ray confirmed the diagnosis in all patients. Endoscopic capsule retrieval was achieved by different tools (9/12) (Roth's net was the most used tool, 6 patients); retrieval required rigid endoscopy in a few cases (3/12). Endoscopic capsule re-insertion was successful; using an overtube to bypass the upper esophagus was the safest method. In conclusion, capsule retention in the upper esophagus is uncommon yet exposes patients to the risk of unnecessary procedures. Symptoms of swallowing and medium-to-large size Zenker's diverticulum should be considered contra-indications for capsule endoscopy. Neck and chest X-rays are required for elderly patients who do not pass the capsule 2 weeks after ingestion. Endoscopic retrieval using Roth's net and re-insertion through an overtube should be considered first-line management.

Efficacy and safety of capsule endoscopy in octogenarian patients: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Life expectancy and the number of ultra-octogenarians increased significantly, thus making crucial the appropriateness of several endoscopic procedures in elderly patients. The aim of our study was to provide a retrospective analysis of the efficacy and safety of capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients aged over 80 years.

METHODS

In this single-centre study, 900 patients underwent capsule endoscopy between 2002 and 2015 for different indications; of these 106 patients aged ≥80 years (group A) and 99 patients aged 40-60 years (control group B) were retrospectively selected.

RESULTS

Occult gastrointestinal bleeding accounted for 62.1% of all indications for capsule endoscopy in group B, compared to 95.2% in group A (P<0.001). Although not statistically significant, the diagnostic yield was higher in group A (71%) vs. group B (62%). The percentages of reaching the cecum and the median gastric transit time were uniform within the two groups. In contrast, small bowel transit time was longer in group A vs. B. Small bowel preparation was similar in the two groups. The exam was generally well tolerated in both groups, with capsule aspiration being one of the main adverse events, which occurred in two elderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data expand previous findings confirming that capsule endoscopy can be performed safely even in very old patients and show that the diagnostic yield is similar to that of younger patients.

Tubeless field anaesthesia for surgical removal of an aspirated endoscopy capsule

Capsule endoscopy is a safe, minimally invasive procedure used to investigate gastrointestinal bleeding of unknown origin that persists or recurs after a negative initial endoscopy. The most common adverse effects of capsule endoscopy include abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. Capsule pulmonary aspiration, although a rare complication, has been reported in the literature. Most reported cases resolve without further medical intervention. In these cases, the capsule is either expelled by coughing, or it re-enters the oropharynx and is then swallowed. In a small number of cases, the capsule remains in the lung, unable to be expectorated. This requires prompt diagnosis and emergency bronchoscopic removal under general anaesthesia. Due to the smooth, rounded surfaces of the capsule, it may be difficult to grasp, and consequently extraction may be technically challenging. The existing literature contains limited documentation on anaesthetic and surgical approaches for managing an aspirated endoscopy capsule. In this case report, we present the management of an aspirated endoscopy capsule in a district general hospital, in which thoracic surgery was not available. Local resources were used to manage this potentially life-threatening complication without patient transfer. In our case, we provided a tubeless field to optimise surgical access. This facilitated the successful surgical extraction of the endoscopy capsule from the left main bronchus.

Cost comparison of oral, transnasal and magnet assisted capsule endoscopy in the examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract in patients with dyspepsia

Introduction

Conventional oral upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy can obe uncomfortable. By comparison, transnasal endoscopy (TNE) and magnet assisted capsule endoscopy (MACE) have superior tolerability. A cost comparison of competing upper GI endoscopic modalities have yet to be performed.

Methods

We performed a cost comparison study of oral, TNE and MACE by a combination of activity-based costing and averaging of fixed costs over 24 481 upper GI endoscopies performed for dyspepsia over a 10-year period.

Results

On average, 9.4 procedures were performed daily. TNE was cheapest at €125.90 per procedure, costing 30% less than oral endoscopy at €184.10 and threefold cheaper than MACE at €407.10. Flexible endoscope reprocessing cost €53.80. TNE was cheaper than oral endoscopy as sedation was not required. Oral endoscopies have a further rate of infectious complications, estimated to cost €16.20 per oral procedure in inpatient admissions. Oral and TNE equipment are more expensive to purchase and maintain than MACE costing €79 330 and €81 819, respectively compared with MACE at €15 420 per annum. However, capsule endoscopes cost significantly more per procedure at €369.00 than the consumables for flexible endoscopy (per oral €12.30, TNE €5.30).

Conclusions

TNE cost less to perform than conventional per oral endoscopy. The cost of capsule endoscopes will need to be reduced significantly if routine use is to be expected.

Comparison of patient tolerance and acceptability of magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy and flexible endoscopy in the investigation of dyspepsia

Background and study aims  Oropharyngeal intubation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is uncomfortable, associated with aerosol generation and transmission of airborne microbes. Less-invasive alternatives may be better tolerated. In this study, patient tolerance and acceptability of EGD and transnasal endoscopy (TNE) have been compared with magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy (MACE). Patients and methods  A comparison of MACE with EGD and TNE in the investigation of dyspepsia was performed. Factors affecting patient tolerance and acceptability were examined using the Endoscopy Concerns Scale (ECS) and Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). Results  Patients were significantly more distressed (scoring least to most distress: 1-10) by gagging (6 vs 1), choking (5 vs 1), bloating (2 vs 1), instrumentation (4 vs 1), discomfort during (5 vs 1) and after (2 vs 1) EGD compared to MACE (all P  < 0.0001). Patients were more distressed by instrumentation (5 vs 1) and discomfort during (5 vs 1) TNE compared to MACE ( P  = 0.001). Patients were more accepting of MACE than EGD and TNE with a UPC-Q score (scoring least to most acceptable: 0-100) lower for EGD (50 vs 98, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (75 vs 88, P  = 0.007) than MACE, and a post-procedure ECS score (scoring most to least acceptable: 10-100) higher for EGD (34 vs 11, P  < 0.0001) and TNE (25 vs 10.5, P  = 0.001) than MACE. MACE would be preferred by 83 % and 64 % of patients even if EGD or TNE respectively was subsequently recommended to obtain biopsies in half of examinations. Conclusions  Gagging and choking during instrumentation, the main causes of patient distress during EGD, occurred less during TNE but tolerance, acceptability and patient experience favored MACE.

Aspiration of a Video Capsule Placed Endoscopically Into the Duodenum Under General Anesthesia

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Small Bowel Malignancies in Patients Undergoing Capsule Endoscopy for Iron Deficiency Anemia

Small bowel malignancies are rare and usually asymptomatic or symptoms are nonspecific. Therefore, small bowel tumors are difficult to diagnose. In patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) who have negative bidirectional endoscopy results, the small bowel may be considered the source of bleeding. However, in asymptomatic IDA patients with negative bidirectional endoscopy results, evidence supporting the routine use of capsule endoscopy (CE) is insufficient. CE can be considered in selected patients with recurrent or persistent IDA. The frequency of small bowel malignancies is low in patients undergoing CE for IDA, but the usefulness of CE for the diagnosis of small bowel malignancies in younger age groups with IDA has been reported. For patients with risk factors for small bowel malignancy, investigation of the small bowel should be considered. Efforts should be made to prevent adverse events, such as capsule retention or capsule aspiration, through meticulous history taking and endoscopic capsule delivery as necessary.

A Descriptive Analysis of Capsule Endoscopy Events in the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database

Introduction

The malfunction of capsule endoscopy (CE) devices is a significant reason for the failure of CE procedures, which could hinder and prevent diagnosis. Unfortunately, malfunction-related adverse events (AEs) caused by CE devices are rarely reported in publications. Although most malfunction-related AEs could not lead to physical harm, they could reduce the efficiency of medical care and increase medical costs. The manufacturer and user facility device experience (MAUDE) database, a publicly accessible resource for patient safety, contains not only the common complications of CE but also valuable malfunction-related AEs, which have been underutilized. Therefore, the study aims to discover and analyze the possible AEs associated with CE and demonstrate the utility of the MAUDE reports to promote patient safety.

Materials and Methods

We acquired MAUDE reports of CE systems from January 01, 2008, to July 31, 2020, through a systematic search strategy. We utilized the manufacturers, brand names, and product codes as search terms from which medical device reports including structured data and narrative texts were extracted, followed by a manual review of the narrative texts, reporter occupation, device involved, event type and the phase of the event; finally, patient outcomes were recorded and analyzed as per CE categories and characteristics.

Results

A total of 377 CEs medical device reports were retrieved, and 342 reports were included after reviewing. There were 327 mandatory reports (96%) and 15 voluntary reports (4%). These reports referred to capsule endoscope (n = 213), sensing system (n = 66), patency capsule (n = 38), and capsule delivery device (n = 26). A total of 349 CE-related AEs were identified, including complications (n = 228), malfunction-related AEs (n = 109), and other events (n = 12). The composition of AEs was not the same for the CE devices. Complications were major AEs of capsule endoscope and patency capsule, but malfunction-related AEs were the most common in AEs of sensing systems and capsule delivery devices.

Conclusion

MAUDE serves as an invaluable data source for investigating malfunction-related AEs. In addition to common complications, malfunction of CE devices could threaten patient safety in CE procedures. Improving awareness of the malfunction of CE devices and raising adequate training for staff working in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic units could be critical and beneficial in preventing malfunction-related AEs.

TeleInGEstion Remote Video Capsule Endoscope

We describe 2 cases in which video capsule endoscopy was performed remotely using TeleInGEstion Remote Video Capsule Endoscopy (TIGER VCE), given limited access to endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The patients ingested the CapsoCam capsule during a televisit, and the video was subsequently reviewed remotely by the physician. TIGER VCE was used to diagnose a benign etiology of melena and used to confirm a diagnosis of Crohn's disease before the initiation of biologic therapy. These cases demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TIGER VCE. We feel that this technique may be considered as a standard ingestion technique in the future.

Adverse events of video capsule endoscopy over the past two decades: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A full spectrum of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) adverse events over the past two decades has not been evaluated. We aimed to determine pooled rates, predictors and temporal-trend of VCE adverse events over the past two decades.

METHODS

Systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE for English-language publications reporting VCE adverse events (January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2019). Data were extracted independently by two investigators. Pooled VCE adverse event rates were calculated using the random or fixed model as appropriate. Predictors and temporal-trend of each adverse event were performed by meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 402 studies were identified, including 108,079 VCE procedures. Rate of retention, swallow disorder, aspiration, technical failure, and procedural adverse events were 0.73% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.89%), 0.75% (95% CI 0.43-1.13%), 0.00% (95% CI 0.00-0.00%), 0.94% (95% CI 0.65-1.28%), 0.67% (95% CI 0.32-1.10%), respectively; incomplete examination rate of esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and colon were 9.05%, 7.69%, 12.08%, 19.19%, respectively. Patency capsule reduced retention rate by 5.04%, whereas known inflammatory bowel disease increased retention rate by 4.29%. Elder was the risk and protective factor for small bowel incomplete examination (0.30%) and swallow disorder (- 0.72%), respectively. Rates of retention and small bowel incomplete examination significantly declined over time (P = .0006 and P < .0001)..

CONCLUSIONS

VCE adverse event rates were generally low, and retention and small bowel incomplete examination rates declined over the past two decades. Patients with known inflammatory bowel disease or elder should be alerted to high risk of retention or small bowel incomplete examination (PROSPERO: CRD42019139595).

Use of prokinetics and other quality factors in capsule endoscopy - old and new insights (Review)

Despite the extensive recent development of different techniques for endoscopic evaluation for both diagnostic and therapeutic reasons, the small bowel remains quite difficult to visualize. Capsule endoscopy and device assisted enteroscopy are presently considered the best diagnostic tools for examination of small bowel disorders, assessing diverse pathologies such as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, iron deficiency anemia, Crohn disease, small bowel tumors and polyposis syndromes. Like any other imagistic method, it has specific indications, and contraindications, and possibly it is more important to consider limitations. In order to obtain a better result, it is necessary to respect the procedural quality indicators. Among them the use of prokinetics - diverse pharmacological substances increasing the success rate of capsule endoscopy have raised debates. Capsule endoscopy small bowel evaluation is a reliable, non-invasive and safe with many advantages and minimum risks, with a proper selection of patients, and can be used as first line investigation.

Small bowel capsule endoscopy: where do we stand after 20 years of clinical use?

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) was introduced into clinical practice almost 20 years ago and, nowadays, it is an essential tool for the study of the small bowel. SBCE allows a radiation-free examination of the entire mucosal surface of the small bowel with high-quality images, limited invasivity and a good safety profile. Nevertheless, the main limitation of SBCE is the lack of any possible direct therapeutic intervention. Indications for SBCE have evolved throughout the years, from "old" ones such as suspected small bowel bleeding (still the main indication for SBCE) to newer ones such as refractory celiac disease, hereditary polyposis syndromes and Crohn's disease. Thus, nowadays SBCE has a key role in the diagnostic algorithms in many conditions. Furthermore, the introduction in the SBCE field of cutting-edge technologies, as artificial intelligence systems, is likely to shorten the reading time making SBCE even more effective and easy to perform. Preliminary data are extremely promising and solid evidence is being gathered by current studies.

Clinical Use of Patency Capsule: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

The patency capsule is a radiopaque, dissolvable diagnostic tool, similar in shape and size to small bowel capsule endoscopes. It was developed to offer a simple, safe, efficient, and accurate evaluation of small bowel functional patency. Although unable to provide direct visual information regarding the presence and location of strictures, masses, or luminal narrowing of the small bowel, a successful patency test minimizes the risk of retention and allows the safe administration of a capsule endoscope. However, its use entails a low risk of potentially harmful adverse events, which in their majority are indolent and resolve spontaneously. Abdominal pain and symptomatic retention are accountable for the majority of reported adverse events, whereas a limited number of reports describe life-threatening complications, namely intestinal obstruction, perforation, and intestinal ischemia. Computed tomography is the modality of choice for the identification of the exact position of an impacted patency capsule, whilst the use of plain abdominal radiographs should be avoided for the evaluation of the patency capsule position, as they provide false information. Hereby, we present a comprehensive review of the available literature regarding the characteristics, indications, clinical use, effectiveness, and adverse events of the patency capsule.10.1093/ibd/izy152_video1izy152.video15777752348001.