The Effect of Prucalopride on the Completion Rate and Polyp Detection Rate of Colon Capsule Endoscopies

Effect of chewing gum in bowel preparation for patients undergoing small bowel and colon capsule endoscopy: Systematic review with meta-analysis

Background and study aims Quality of bowel preparation and successful transit are critical factors for complete small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to assess the impact of chewing gum as part of the bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate in both SBCE and CCE. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase. Data were extracted upon quality assessment of included studies. Two reviewers conducted the screening process according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Eighty-four studies met the search criteria and four randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, these were assessed for bias using Minors. Pooled completion rate of SBCE studies was defined as the primary outcome. Results Three randomized controlled trials were SBCE studies and one was a CCE study. The pooled completion rate (91%) was not significantly higher in SBCE patients who were given chewing gum after capsule ingestion compared to those who were not (85%). Variance information was not reported in all studies, and therefore, pooled transit time estimates could not be calculated. Conclusions Chewing gum has a good safety profile but has only been used as a booster in one CCE study and a few SBCE studies. More prospective randomized controlled trials, therefore, are needed to investigate the efficacy of chewing gum for achieving complete capsule examination.

Conference Report: The FutuRE oF MinimalLy InvasivE GI and Capsule DiagnosTics (REFLECT) Nyborg, Denmark, October 2023

The gastrointestinal (GI) tract, particularly the small bowel (SB), can be challenging for novel investigation tools [...].

Associations between patient factors and successful colon capsule endoscopy - A prospective cohort study

AIM

To establish patient factors associated with a successful colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) test.

METHOD

This prospective cohort study used data collected from patients who underwent CCE as part of the ScotCap evaluation prior to April 2020. A CCE was defined as successful if the capsule visualized the whole colon and rectum (complete test) with sufficient bowel cleansing to permit assessment of the colonic mucosa (adequate bowel preparation). Factors from patients in symptomatic and surveillance groups were analysed for associations with a successful test, complete test, adequate bowel preparation and requirement for further procedure using univariate, multivariate logistic, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression.

RESULTS

Data from 263 symptomatic and 137 surveillance patients were analysed. There was an association between a symptomatic patient's age and a successful test (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99), adequate bowel preparation (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94-1.00) and further procedure requirement (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06). An association was found, for symptomatic patients, between a faecal immunochemical test result in the range 10-399 μg/g and a further procedure (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.23-4.48). In patients undergoing surveillance for previous colorectal cancer (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18-0.97), had previous bowel resection surgery (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19-0.98) or took a beta blocker medication (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.88), an association was found with further procedure requirement.

CONCLUSIONS

Among symptomatic patients, younger age was associated with obtaining a successful CCE test. Clinicians could consider patient selection based on these results to improve the rate of successful testing in clinical practice.

Clinical utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a moving target?

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of white light colon capsule endoscopy's current clinical application, concentrating on its most recent developments. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE2) is approved by the FDA for use as an adjunctive test in patients with incomplete colonoscopy and within Europe in patients at average risk, those with incomplete colonoscopies or those unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopies. Since the publication of European Society of GI Endoscopy guidelines on the use of CCE, there has been a significant increase in comparative studies on the diagnostic yield of CCE. This paper discusses CCE2 in further detail. It explains newly developed colon capsule system and the current status on the use of CCE, it also provides a comprehensive summary of systematic reviews on the implementation of CCE in colorectal cancer screening from a methodological perspective. Patients with ulcerative colitis can benefit from CCE2 in terms of assessing mucosal inflammation. As part of this review, performance of CCE2 for assessing disease severity in ulcerative colitis is compared with colonoscopy. Finally, an assessment if CCE can become a cost-effective clinical service overall.

Colon CApsule endoscopy compared to conventional COlonoscopy in patients with colonic DIverticulitis: the study protocol for a randomised controlled superiority trial (CACODI trial)

INTRODUCTION

Follow-up after an episode of colonic diverticulitis is a common indication for colonoscopy, even though studies have shown a low risk of positive findings in this population. Our objective is to investigate colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as a follow-up examination in patients with colonic diverticulitis compared with colonoscopy, particularly regarding patient satisfaction and clinical performance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients seen at Odense University Hospital with acute diverticulitis confirmed by CT will be included and randomised to either follow-up by colonoscopy or CCE. Detection of suspected cancer, more than two polyps or any number of polyps larger than 9 mm in CCE will generate an invitation to a diagnostic colonoscopy for biopsies or polyp removal. We will compare colonoscopy and CCE regarding patient satisfaction and tolerance, the number of complete examinations, the number of patients referred to a subsequent colonoscopy after CCE and the prevalence of diverticula, polyps, cancers and other abnormal findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Informed consent will be obtained from all participants before randomisation. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee (ref. S-20210127) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (ref. 22/43235). After completion of the trial, we plan to publish two articles in high-impact journals. One article on both primary and secondary outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05700981.

An evaluation of a novel bowel preparation regimen and its effect on the utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective cohort study with historical controls

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel bowel preparation and booster regimen for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) using macrogol, phospho-soda and gastrografin, compared with a control regimen consisting of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study using historical controls. Symptomatic patients undergoing CCE between 11/07/2021 and 21/12/2021 using the novel regimen were included. Symptomatic patients who underwent CCE in the ScotCap evaluation using the control regimen were used as historical controls. We measured the rate of complete test (visualisation of the whole colon and rectum), adequate bowel preparation, successful test (complete and adequate bowel preparation) and need for further test following CCE. The rate of adverse events was also collected.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing CCE using the new and control regimen were 200 and 316, respectively. The median age, age range and proportion of female patients in the new and control regimen cohorts was 61 vs 60 years, 16-86 vs 20-83 years, and 60.5% vs 56.6%. The rate of complete test, adequate bowel reparation and successful test for the new and control regimen was 69% vs 72.2%, 86.6% vs 80.7% and 60.5% vs 65.8%. Comparing the new and control regimen, 39.5% vs 37.3% of patients required no test following CCE, 26% vs 32.6% required a colonoscopy, 31.5% vs 21.5% required a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 3% vs 2.9% required a computed tomography colonogram. No adverse events were reported using the new regimen compared to 2 (0.6%) in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of adequate bowel preparation has improved following the introduction of a new regimen. However, further work is needed to increase the complete test rate. A significant proportion of patients continue to avoid colonoscopy following CCE.

Robotic Colonoscopy and Beyond: Insights into Modern Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis and removal of colonic polyps. Delays in colonoscopy following a positive fecal immunochemical test increase the likelihood of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence. However, patients may refuse to undergo conventional colonoscopy (CC) due to fear of possible risks and pain or discomfort. In this regard, patients undergoing CC frequently require sedation to better tolerate the procedure, increasing the risk of deep sedation or other complications related to sedation. Accordingly, the use of CC as a first-line screening strategy for CRC is hampered by patients' reluctance due to its invasiveness and anxiety about possible discomfort. To overcome the limitations of CC and improve patients' compliance, several studies have investigated the use of robotic colonoscopy (RC) both in experimental models and in vivo. Self-propelling robotic colonoscopes have proven to be promising thanks to their peculiar dexterity and adaptability to the shape of the lower gastrointestinal tract, allowing a virtually painless examination of the colon. In some instances, when alternatives to CC and RC are required, barium enema (BE), computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be options. However, BE and CTC are limited by the need for subsequent investigations whenever suspicious lesions are found. In this narrative review, we discussed the current clinical applications of RC, CTC, and CCE, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different endoscopic procedures, with a particular focus on RC.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy - Shining the Light through the Colon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a non-invasive, wireless capsule endoscope. In this article, we review its current applications, compare its performance with optical colonoscopy (OC) and alternative imaging modalities like CT colonography (CTC), and highlight developments that may increase potential future use.

RECENT FINDINGS

By comparison to OC both CCE and CTC have a good sensitivity and specificity in detecting colonic polyps. CCE is more sensitive in detecting sub centimetre polyps. CCE is capable of detecting colonic inflammation and anorectal pathologies, commonly missed by CTC. However, rates of complete CCE examinations are limited by inadequate bowel preparation or incomplete colonic transit, whereas CTC can be performed with less bowel purgatives. Patients tolerate CCE better than OC, however patient preference between CCE and CTC vary. CCE and CTC are both reasonable alternatives to OC. Strategies to improve completion rates and adequacy of bowel preparation will improve cost and clinical effectiveness of CCE.

The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a very low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative to a conventional high-volume laxative. We carried out a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study including patients referred for CCE. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis, with eighty-three patients in each group. We found a CR and ACR of 77% and 67% in the high-volume group and 72% and 75% in the very low-volume group, respectively. In the high-volume group, 54% had complete transit and adequate cleansing, whereas this was the case for 63% in the very low-volume group. No statistically significant difference in CR, ACR, or a combination of the two was found. A very low-volume bowel preparation regimen was non-inferior to a high-volume regimen before CCE in terms of CR and ACR.

Colon capsule endoscopy following incomplete colonoscopy in routine clinical settings

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was introduced in our department on two indications; following incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to CT colonography, and in patients with a history of incomplete colonoscopy as an alternative to anesthesia-assisted (AA) colonoscopy. We aimed to compare the quality of CCE, defined by completion rate and polyp detection rate (PDR), with that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy, respectively.

METHODS

Patients referred for CCE from May 2020 until November 2021 were consecutively included in this prospective cohort study. Demographics, indication and CCE outcomes were registered from the electronic patient record. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to CT colonography were compared with those of a historical cohort undergoing CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy. Completion rate and PDR in CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy were compared with those of a time true parallel cohort undergoing AA colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In 65 patients undergoing CCE, 36 (57%) were referred as an alternative to CT colonography. The completion rate in this group was 44% compared to 96% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 75% in CCE compared to 20% in CT colonography (p < 0.001). The remaining 27 (43%) of the sample were referred for CCE as an alternative to AA colonoscopy. The completion rate in this group was 33% compared to 100% in AA colonoscopy (p < 0.001). The PDR in complete CCE in this group was 78% in CCE compared to 35% in AA colonoscopy (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The completion rate of CCE following incomplete colonoscopy is inferior to that of CT colonography and AA colonoscopy. The PDR of CCE was high, indicating an acceptable sensitivity in complete investigations, but in our settings the completion rate of CCE on this indication is unacceptably low.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04307901 (ClinicalTrials.gov, March 13, 2020).

The optimal use of colon capsule endoscopes in clinical practice

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been available for nearly two decades but has grappled with being an equal diagnostic alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, CCE has gained more foothold in clinical practice. In this cutting-edge review, we aim to present the existing knowledge on the pros and cons of CCE and discuss whether the modality is ready for a larger roll-out in clinical settings. We have included clinical trials and reviews with the most significant impact on the current position of CCE in clinical practice and discuss the challenges that persist and how they could be addressed to make CCE a more sustainable imaging modality with an adenoma detection rate equal to OC and a low re-investigation rate by a proper preselection of suitable populations. CCE is embedded with a very low risk of severe complications and can be performed in the patient's home as a pain-free procedure. The diagnostic accuracy is found to be equal to OC. However, a significant drawback is low completion rates eliciting a high re-investigation rate. Furthermore, the bowel preparation before CCE is extensive due to the high demand for clean mucosa. CCE is currently not suitable for large-scale implementation in clinical practice mainly due to high re-investigation rates. By a better preselection before CCE and the implantation of artificial intelligence for picture and video analysis, CCE could be the alternative to OC needed to move away from in-hospital services and relieve long-waiting lists for OC.

Castor Oil in Bowel Preparation Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Completing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations rely on successful transit and acceptable bowel preparation quality. We investigated the effect of adding castor oil to the CCE bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate using a meta-analysis of existing literature. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates for excretion rate and acceptable bowel preparation rate were calculated. We identified 72 studies matching our search criteria, and six were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the studies had control groups, although two used historical cohorts. The pooled excretion rate (92%) was significantly higher in patients who received castor oil than in those who did not (73%). No significant difference in acceptable colonic cleanliness was observed. Castor oil has been used in a few studies as a booster for CCE. This meta-analysis shows the potential for this medication to improve excretion rates, and castor oil could be actively considered in conjunction with other emerging laxative regimens in CCE. Still, prospective randomized trials with appropriate control groups should be conducted before any conclusions can be drawn. Prospero ID: CRD42022338939.

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?”.

Capsule endoscopy - a non-invasive modality to investigate the GI tract: out with the old and in with the new?

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy has had significant development since it was introduced into the field of medicine in 2000. It is non-invasive, well tolerated, does not require sedation and is a first-line small bowel investigative modality. As it transits through the entire gastrointestinal (GI) tract, it has the potential to provide a pan-enteric examination.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we will discuss the new diagnostic modalities along with traditional methods which have been used for examination of the gastro intestinal (GI) tract. The main focus of this review will be on the use of capsule endoscopy for pan-enteric examination.

EXPERT OPINION

Capsule endoscopy is an accepted first-line investigation for the small bowel. Diagnostic sensitivity of the colon capsule is comparable to colonoscopy in controlled trials and is being evaluated in high-risk patients in routine clinical practice in national programs. Preliminary data suggest that a magnetic-controlled examination of the upper GI tract could be developed to enable a complete upper GI examination.