PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (PCCE) in colonic diseases

Feasibility of a second-generation colon capsule in visualization of the upper gastrointestinal tract

Background

Capsule endoscopy for visualization of the entire gastrointestinal tract is a challenge. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (CCE-2) performed well in the colon and small intestine, but its utility in the upper gastrointestinal duct is not clear. We evaluated the use of the CCE-2 in the visualization of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study and further evaluated CCE-2 images using the typical landmarks of esophagus and stomach. The two imagers located at each end of the CCE-2 system were defined as imager1 (green) and imager2 (yellow). Two endoscopists read the images, and they were blinded to the other reader’s results. All of the images from the two imagers were separately reviewed.

Results

Images from 127 subjects were analyzed. This study demonstrated the comprehensive visualization of 71.7% of esophageal landmarks and 89.8% of gastric landmarks using the CCE-2. The two CCE-2 imagers were not identical, and the lighter imager (imager2, yellow) was superior to the heavier imager (imager1, green) (78% vs. 33.1%) in the stomach. Compared with the use of one imager, the use of two imagers was superior (two-imager vs. imager1, 89.8% vs. 33.1%; two-imager vs. imager2, 89.8% vs. 78%) in the stomach. Two-imager combination analysis detected a total of 160 positive findings. In contrast, single-imager analysis with imager1 and imager2 detected 133 and 137 findings, respectively. Two-imager combination analysis provided 20.3% and 16.8% more findings than imager1 and imager2, respectively. The two imagers complemented each other to detect more lesions.

Conclusions

The CCE-2 system is feasible for use in the upper gastrointestinal tract and may be considered an optional tool for upper gastrointestinal imaging. This system may represent a good choice for complete gastrointestinal duct screening. Compared with the use of one imager, the two-imager combination provided improved upper gastrointestinal tract mucosal visualization.

Economic analysis of the adoption of capsule endoscopy within the British NHS

Objective

Identification of a cost-effective treatment strategy is an unmet need in Crohn’s disease (CD). Here we consider the patient outcomes and cost impact of pan-intestinal video capsule endoscopy (PVCE) in the English National Health Service (NHS).

Design

An analysis of a protocolized CD care pathway, informed by guidelines and expert consensus, was performed in Microsoft Excel. Population, efficacy and safety data of treatments and monitoring modalities were identified using a structured PubMed review with English data prioritized. Costs were taken from the NHS and Payer Provided Services (PSS) 2016–17 tariffs for England and otherwise literature. Analysis was via a discrete-individual simulation with discounting at 3.5% per annum.

Setting

NHS provider and PSS perspective

Participants

4000 simulated CD patients

Interventions

PVCE versus colonoscopy ± magnetic resonance enterography (MRE)

Main outcome measures

Costs in 2017 GBP and quality-adjusted life years (QALY)

Results

The mean, total 20-year cost per patient was £42 266 with colonoscopy ± MRE and £38 043 with PVCE. PVCE incurred higher costs during the first 2 years due to higher treatment uptake. From year 3 onwards, costs were reduced due to fewer surgeries. Patients accrued 10.67 QALY with colonoscopy ± MRE and 10.96 with PVCE. PVCE dominated (less cost and higher QALY) colonoscopy ± MRE and was likely (>74%) to be considered cost-effective by the NHS. Results were similar if a lifetime time horizon was used.

Conclusions

PVCE is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to colonoscopy ± MRE for CD surveillance. Switching to PVCE resulted in lower treatment costs and gave patients better quality of life.

Update on Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Computed Tomographic Colonography, and Capsule Colonoscopy

This article reviews alternative colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, including flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), computed tomography (CT) colonography, and colon capsule endoscopy. FS has abundant and convincing evidence supporting its use for CRC screening and is a commonly used CRC test worldwide. CT colonography has demonstrated convincing results for CRC screening, but concerns regarding cost, accuracy for flat or sessile neoplasia, reproducibility, extracolonic findings, and lack of coverage have limited its use and development. Colon capsule endoscopy has demonstrated encouraging results for polyp detection in average-risk individuals, but is not approved for CRC screening at the current time.

Safety of wireless capsule endoscopy in patients with implantable cardiac devices

Background and Aim

Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) has become an increasingly utilized imaging modality for the evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding. There is a paucity of data evaluating the safety and use of WCE in patients with implantable cardiac devices.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all patients who had a WCE at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, IL, USA completed between January 2007 and December 2016 identified patients with internal cardiac devices and obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Patient WCE footage was viewed in its entirety before creating a final report to ensure no gaps in footage and video quality.

Results

No patient complaints were documented during the 8‐h procedure duration, and there were no cardiac abnormalities noted on telemetry. There were no device‐related complications documented in the 30‐day postprocedure time period. Postprocedure analysis of the WCE recordings demonstrated no interference in WCE image quality (loss of images or gaps in video) or duration.

Conclusions

There is no significant interference between WCE and implantable cardiac devices, and it appears to be safe to use.

A global perspective on capsule endoscopy

A search of the internet today to quantify the estimated value of capsules from a global perspective, easily delivers figures stating around $200 million in 2014 to about $400 million by 2020, which would be approximately 10% of the gastrointestinal endoscopic market. Is this a steep rise within just six years or could the capsule market do even better? What chances does this offer and what are the key aspects for future success? By 2020, more than 1 billion people are aged sixty or older and around one third of them will live in what the UN calls "more developed regions". Naturally, this brings an increased demand for colorectal cancer screening and surgery. But keeping in mind that basically every healthcare system, in any country, is already operating at its limits, how do we secure future treatment for a growing community? Surely more competition will steadily bring down prices for capsules. However, that does not ease the amount of time that is spent to properly read any video and issue a valid diagnosis for every patient. This article intends to give an overview about the current global market for capsule endoscopy (CE) with a perspective on typical patients, their indications, and how the capsules are used and by whom. Further aspects, such as standardization of training, reading and future trends will also be elaborated on.

Video capsule colonoscopy in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers direct mucosal visualisation without sedation or gas insufflation required in conventional colonoscopy (CC). However, evidence for the role of CCE as an adjunct or alternative to CC remains equivocal. In this observational cohort study, we report our experience of using CCE to investigate patients with suspected colon pathology at a tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

From 2007-2015, consecutive patients requiring colonoscopy were recruited from a tertiary care centre in Malmo, Sweden. Data collected: patient demographics, indication for CCE, findings, bowel cleansing, colon transit time (CTT) and completeness of colon examination.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (57 F/20 F, median age 56 years) were included. The reason for CCE was previously incomplete or refused CC in 39 and 26 cases, and follow up of previous findings in 12 cases, respectively. The main clinical indications were gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n=28; 36%) and suspected inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or follow-up of known IBD (n=23; 30%). CCE was complete in 58/77 (75%) patients. In 3 patients the colon was not reached; in the other 16, the capsule reached the rectum (n=4), sigmoid (n=6), descending colon (n=5) and transverse colon (n=1). Findings were: normal CCE (n=15; 19%) colonic diverticula (n=29; 38%), polyps (n=17; 22%), active IBD (n=12; 16%), haemorrhoids (n=8; 10%), colonic angioectasia (n=4; 5%) and cancer (n=1; 1%). Small-bowel findings were recorded in 8 (10%) patients. All patients tolerated bowel preparation and CCE well. Two patients with an ulcerated small-bowel stricture and cancer respectively experienced temporary capsule retention with spontaneous resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE is a well-tolerated alternative to CC, but requires technological improvement and optimisation of clinical practice to meet current reference standards. Although further technical development is required, CCE may complement or even replace CC for certain clinical indications.

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.