Obscure recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding: a revealed mystery?

Capsule endoscopy: beyond the small bowel

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is considered the first-line for the investigation of OGIB after conventional non-diagnostic endoscopic examinations. A detection rate of lesions outside the small bowel segment has been reported to range from 3.5% to >30%. Our primary objective was to analyze the role of CE in identifying lesions outside the small bowel segment that were not identified on conventional endoscopy in patients suspected of OGIB. In our study, CE appears to be effective and safe in diagnosing OGIB, also proving to be a tool in identifying lesions outside the small intestine segment.

Enteroscopy in diagnosis and treatment of small bowel bleeding: A Delphi expert consensus

BACKGROUND

Enteroscopy plays an important role in the management of small bowel bleeding. However, current guidelines are not specifically designed for small bowel bleeding and recommendations from different international societies do not always align. Consequently, there is heterogeneity in the definitions of clinical entities, clinical practice policies, and adherence to guidelines among clinicians. This represents an obstacle to providing the best patient care and to obtain homogeneous data for clinical research.

AIMS

The aims of the study were to establish a consensus on the definitions of bleeding entities and on the role of enteroscopy in the management of small bowel bleeding using a Delphi process.

METHODS

A core group of eight experts in enteroscopy identified five main topics of small bowel bleeding management and drafted statements on each topic. An expert panel of nine gastroenterologists participated in three rounds of the Delphi process, together with the core group.

RESULTS

A total of 33 statements were approved after three rounds of Delphi voting.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi consensus proposes clear definitions and a unifying strategy to standardize the management of small bowel bleeding. Furthermore, it provides a useful guide in daily practice for both clinical and technical issues of enteroscopy.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Non-small-bowel lesions identification by capsule endoscopy: A single centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Capsule endoscopy has been considered the first-line approach for the investigation of obscure gastro-intestinal bleeding since its approval in 2001. Our study aims to evaluate the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy in the investigation of this condition. We also analyse the incidence of non-small-bowel lesions missed after conventional endoscopy and later detected by capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected obscure bleeding.

METHODS

A total of 290 patients with negative conventional endoscopy referred to our centre to undergo a capsule endoscopy examination for the investigation of obscure gastro-intestinal bleeding. We considered as non-small-bowel lesions those outside the tract between the second duodenal portion and the ileocecal valve. We also looked for actively bleeding lesions at the time of the exam.

RESULTS

Intestinal preparation was good, adequate or poor in 74.1%, 8.4%, and 17.5% of the tests, respectively. Caecum was reached in 92.4%. Capsule retention occurred in 0.7%. Mean small bowel transit time was 5hours and 13minutes. Diagnostic yield was 73.8%. An actively bleeding lesion was noticed in 39.3% of positive tests. Capsule endoscopy revealed clinically significant non-small-bowel lesions missed at gastroscopy or colonoscopy in 30.3% of patients, 43.2% of which were bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Capsule endoscopy has high diagnostic yield and safety in the investigation of obscure gastro-intestinal bleedings. Given the high percentage of non-small-bowel lesions detected, it may be appropriate to consider an endoscopic second look before performing a capsule endoscopy study.

Standing-type magnetically guided capsule endoscopy versus gastroscopy for gastric examination: multicenter blinded comparative trial

AIM

To compare feasibility and safety after gastrointestinal checkup by standing-type magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (SMCE) and conventional gastroscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter, blinded study that compared SMCE with gastroscopy in patients from April 2018 to July 2018. All patients first underwent SMCE and then subsequently had gastroscopy with i.v. anesthesia. We calculated the compliance rates of gastric lesion detection by SMCE using gastroscopy as the standard. Capsule retention rate, incidence of adverse events, and patient satisfaction were documented throughout the study.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-one patients who completed SMCE and gastroscopy were included in the analysis. Positive compliance rate among SMCE and gastroscopy was 92.0% (95% CI: 80.77%-97.78%). Negative compliance rate was 95.5% (89.80%, 98.52%). Moreover, overall compliance rate was 94.41% (89.65%, 97.41%). Sixty-four pathological outcomes were identified. Of these 64 outcomes, 50 were detected by both procedures. The gastroscopy method neglected seven findings (such as five erosions, one polyp, and one ulcer). Furthermore, SMCE also overlooked seven lesions (i.e. one erosion, two polyps, one atrophy, and three submucosal tumors). Capsule retention or related adverse events were not reported.

CONCLUSION

Standing-type magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy provides equivalent agreement with gastroscopy and may be useful for screening of gastric illnesses without any anesthesia.

Safety, Feasibility, and Efficacy of Pancolonic Retroflexed Viewing Using a Short-turn Radius Colonoscope

GOALS

The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of routine segmental retroflexed withdrawal viewing (RV) of the colon with the RetroView colonoscope.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, 2-stage diagnostic trial. After cecal intubation, mucosal evaluation by forward viewing (FV) and RV was performed by segment (right, transverse, left, and sigmoid colon, and rectum). Lesions detected during FV were removed and/or marked before retroflexion. Safety and feasibility were measured through adverse event and technical success rates. All lesions detected and removed endoscopically were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-five patients underwent colonoscopy with the RetroView colonoscope. Retroflexion by segment was successful in the right, transverse, left, and sigmoid colon, and rectum in 98.9%, 100%, 100%, 82.6%, and 100% of cases, respectively. The mean total procedure time was 16.6 minutes. Ninety-four lesions were detected through retroflexion evaluation, for an increase in the lesions' detection rate of 30.7%. The per-adenoma miss rate of standard colonoscopy (FV) was 35.71%. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) for FV was 16%, whereas, when performing FV and RV, the ADR increased to 24.9%. Adverse events were recorded in 0.4% of cases. Therapeutic procedures were performed successfully through the retroflexed position in 81/225 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine retroflexion evaluation of the colonic mucosa by segment using the RetroView colonoscope is safe and feasible. Retroflexion evaluation increases the detection rate of colonic lesions behind folds, including the number of adenomas per colonoscopy and ADR, offering a complete screening colonoscopy. All therapeutic procedures are feasible through retroflexion.

The impact of inpatient capsule endoscopy on the need for therapeutic interventions in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND/AIM

There are limited data evaluating the impact of inpatient video capsule endoscopy (VCE) on the need for therapeutic interventions in hospitalized patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). The objective of this study was to determine the impact of inpatient VCE on the need for therapeutic interventions and rehospitalization for recurrent bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Hospitalized patients who underwent VCE for OGIB indication were retrospectively included. Clinical data were collected including therapeutic interventions performed after VCE. Specific therapeutic interventions were defined as the medical, endoscopic, or surgical treatment directly targeting the cause of OGIB. Patients were followed up to determine the rate of rehospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 48 inpatient VCE were identified, of which 43 VCE were performed for OGIB indication and were included for analysis. The completion rate and the diagnostic yield were 78.5% and 55.8%, respectively. Subsequent specific therapeutic interventions were performed in 65.2% and 5.8% of patients with positive and negative VCE, respectively (P < 0.001). After a median follow up of 30 months (minimum 12, maximum 58), rehospitalization for recurrent bleeding occurred in 30.4% and 17% of patients with positive and negative VCE, respectively. Patients with angiodysplasia on VCE were significantly more likely to be readmitted (P = 0.02). Throughout the course of the follow-up, only 2 (11.7%) patients with negative VCE underwent specific therapeutic interventions.

CONCLUSION

Inpatient VCE is an effective tool to identify patients who need specific therapeutic interventions. Patients with negative VCE are unlikely to be readmitted or require specific therapeutic interventions in the index admission.

Non-small bowel lesion detection at small bowel capsule endoscopy: A comprehensive literature review

Small bowel capsule endoscopy is a minimally-invasive endoscopic investigation that is often used in clinical practice to investigate overt or occult gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding among other clinical indications. International guidance recommends small bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line investigation to detect abnormalities in the small bowel, when gastroscopy and colonoscopy fail to identify a cause of GI bleeding. It can diagnose with accuracy abnormalities in the small bowel. However, there has been increasing evidence indicating that small bowel capsule endoscopy may also detect lesions outside the small intestine that are within the reach of conventional endoscopy and have been probably missed during prior endoscopic investigations. Such lesions vary from vascular deformities to malignancy and their detection often alters patient management, leading to further endoscopic and/or surgical interventions. The current study attempts to review all available studies in the literature and summarise their relevant findings.

Gastroduodenal lesions detected during small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact

BACKGROUND

Capsule endoscopy was primarily designed for the investigation of the small bowel. However, it may also identify lesions in other segments of the gastrointestinal tract. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the incidence of gastroduodenal abnormalities during small bowel capsule endoscopy and its impact on patient diagnosis and management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of data from 2,217 consecutive capsule endoscopy procedures performed at a single tertiary-care center between January 2008 and February 2016. Patient baseline characteristics, gastroduodenal lesions, diagnosis and management before and after capsule endoscopy were recorded and a descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Two thousands and two hundred seventeen patients were finally included in the analysis. One thousand and seventy patients were male (48.2%) and the mean age was 56.1 ± 19.5 years (range: 12-93). Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (52.3%) and inflammatory bowel disease (18.3%) were the main procedure indications. Gastroduodenal abnormalities were detected by capsule endoscopy in 696 (31.4%) of 2,217 patients. The most common types of missed gastric and duodenal lesions found were gastric erosions (35.4%), findings suggestive of chronic gastritis (22.9%), duodenal erosions (28.1%) and duodenal erythema (23.5%). This information had a clinical or diagnostic impact of 26.2% and a therapeutic impact of 15.5%.

CONCLUSION

Capsule endoscopy detects not only small bowel lesions but also some gastroduodenal lesions that may be overlooked during an initial gastroscopy. Therefore, all gastroduodenal images should be read during small bowel capsule endoscopy as it may provide relevant information that result in changes in patient management.

Colonic lesions in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, capsule endoscopy is the first-line procedure to assess the small bowel. During small bowel procedures, other segments of the gastrointestinal tract may be visualized. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the incidence of colonic abnormalities in patients undergoing small bowel capsule and its impact on patient management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of data from 526 consecutive capsule endoscopy procedures performed at a single tertiary-care centre between 2008 and 2011. Patients with incomplete procedures were excluded from the analysis. Patient baseline characteristics, colonic lesions, diagnosis and management before and after capsule endoscopy were recorded and a descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Four hundred and sixty four patients were finally included in the analysis. Two hundred and ninety three patients were male (57.3%) and the mean age was 61.3 ± 20.03 years (18-86). Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (59%) and inflammatory bowel disease (19%) were the main indications for the procedure. Colonic abnormalities were detected by capsule endoscopy in 47 (9%) of 464 patients. The most common types of missed lesions were vascular lesions (34%) and colonic ulcers (32%). This information had a clinical or diagnostic impact of 7.55% and a therapeutic impact of 6.03%.

CONCLUSION

All images of the colon should be evaluated during small bowel capsule endoscopy as they may provide relevant information that may result in changes in patient management.

Analysis of Non-Small Bowel Lesions Detected by Capsule Endoscopy in Patients with Potential Small Bowel Bleeding

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding cases in whom source cannot be identified after conventional upper and lower GI endoscopy are defined as potential small bowel bleeding. We aimed to search for lesions in the reach of conventional endoscopy in patients to whom video capsule endoscopy (VCE) had been applied for potential small bowel bleeding. 114 patients who had VCE evaluation for potential small bowel bleeding between January 2009 and August 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Mean age of the patients was 55 ± 17 years. Female/male ratio is 39/75. In 58 patients (50.9%) bleeding lesion could be determined. Among these 58 patients 8 patients' lesions were in the reach of conventional endoscopes. Overall these 8 patients comprised 7% of patients in whom VCE was performed for potential small bowel bleeding. Among these 8 patients 5 had colonic lesions (4 angiodysplasia, 1 ulcerated polypoid cecal lesion), 2 had gastric lesions (1 GAVE, 1 anastomotic bleeding), and 1 patient had a bleeding lesion in the duodenal bulbus. Although capsule endoscopy is usually performed for potential small bowel bleeding gastroenterologists should always keep in mind that these patients may be suffering from bleeding from non-small bowel segments and should carefully review images captured from non-small bowel areas.

Video capsule endoscopy as the initial examination for overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding can efficiently identify patients who require double-balloon enteroscopy

Background

Both double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) have similar diagnostic yields for patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). However, the choice of initial modality is still controversial. The aim of this study was to show the clinical outcome of the strategy of initial VCE, followed by DBE.

Methods

Eighty-nine consecutive overt OGIB patients who had undergone VCE as the initial examination were analyzed. The interpreters of VCE evaluated the necessity of performing DBE, and the antegrade or retrograde route was chosen, depending on the transit time of the capsule.

Results

Thirty-seven patients (42 %) underwent DBE depending on the findings of VCE. Of these, bleeding sites in the small bowel were identified in 29 patients with the initially selected route (21 antegrade and 8 retrograde). The remaining 8 later underwent DBE by the other route, but 7 had no bleeding lesion, which was confirmed by second-look VCE. One remaining patient had a jejunal varix found by VCE, but DBE from either side could not reach the lesion. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of VCE were 100 %, both for the presence of small bowel lesions and the requirement of hemostasis in the small bowel; this indicated that VCE never misses relevant findings in the small bowel, and that negative VCE findings correspond to the lack of necessity for further examination.

Conclusions

VCE as the initial examination can efficiently identify overt OGIB patients who require DBE. The strategy of initial VCE for overt OGIB appears to be reasonable.