Effect of small bowel transit time on accuracy of video capsule endoscopy in evaluating suspected small bowel bleeding

Diagnosis of small bowel inflammation using small bowel capsule endoscopy combined with abdominal CT scan

Background and study aims

Abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans are simple to perform and widely used in evaluating small bowel inflammation. However, detailed evaluation of small intestinal mucosa is difficult with CT. Conversely, small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is noninvasive and useful for evaluation of mucosal inflammation. We evaluated presence or absence of mucosal inflammation by SBCE in patients with CT findings of suspected small bowel inflammation and analyzed their backgrounds.

Patients and methods

The Lewis score was determined by SBCE, and scores ≥ 135 placed 65 patients in the enteritis group and scores of < 135 placed 87 patients in the pseudoenteritis group.

Results

Blood tests revealed higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in the enteritis group ( P < 0.01). Regarding comorbidities, chronic renal failure ( P < 0.01) and carcinoma ( P = 0.05) were more common in the enteritis group, as was use of proton pump inhibitors ( P = 0.02). Target sign, accordion sign, and fat stranding/centipede sign, which are known findings on CT of small intestinal inflammation, were more frequently observed in the enteritis group ( P < 0.01). Small intestinal wall thickness was greater in the enteritis group (5.3 mm vs 3.4 mm, P < 0.01) and the cut-off value was 4.15 mm.

Conclusions

Backgrounds of patients with inflammatory mucosa included high CRP, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, chronic renal failure, and cancer. If a patient with a thickened small intestinal wall (> 4.15 mm) on CT has these characteristics, it may be worth considering performing SBCE.

Clinical and demographic features of patients undergoing video-capsule endoscopy management: A descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Video-capsule endoscopy (VCE) is an efficient tool that has proven to be highly useful in approaching several gastrointestinal diseases. VCE was implemented in Colombia in 2003, however current characterization of patients undergoing VCE in Colombia is limited, and mainly comes from two investigations conducted before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period.

AIM

To describe the characteristics of patients undergoing VCEs and establish the main indications, findings, technical limitations, and other outstanding features.

METHODS

A descriptive study was carried out using data from reports of VCE (PillCam SB3 system) use in a Gastroenterology Unit in Bogotá, Colombia between September 2019 and January 2023. Demographic and clinical variables such as indication for the VCE, gastric and small bowel transit times (GTT, SBTT), endoscopic preparation quality, and limitations were described [n (%), median (IQR)].

RESULTS

A total of 133 VCE reports were analyzed. Most were in men with a median age of 70 years. The majority had good preparation (96.2%), and there were technical limitations in 15.8% of cases. The main indications were unexplained anemia (91%) or occult bleeding (23.3%). The median GTT and SBTT were 14 and 30 minutes, respectively. The frequencies of bleeding stigma (3.79%) and active bleeding (9.09%) were low, and the most frequent abnormal findings were red spots (28.3%), erosions (17.6%), and vascular ectasias (12.5%).

CONCLUSION

VCE showed high-level safety. The main indication was unexplained anemia. Active bleeding was the most frequent finding. Combined with artificial intelligence, VCE can improve diagnostic precision and targeted therapeutic interventions.

Capsule Enteroscopy Using the Mirocam® versus OMOM® Systems: A Matched Case-Control Study

Although several devices are available for small bowel capsule endoscopy, few studies have compared their visualization quality and diagnostic yield, despite users reporting subjective differences between them. This study aims to compare two widely used systems (Mirocam® MC1600 and OMOM® HD). Patients who underwent OMOM® HD capsule enteroscopy between August 2022 and February 2023 were prospectively included consecutively (cases). Controls were retrospectively selected from a database of patients who underwent Mirocam® MC1600 enteroscopy between March 2018 and July 2022 in a 1:1 ratio. Controls were matched for potential confounders (age, sex, indication, hospitalization, comorbidities, and opioid prescription). The small bowel cleanliness (global and divided by tertiles), the diagnostic yield (positive findings) and the transit times (TT) were compared. Overall, 214 patients were included (107:107). Global bowel preparation was similar between the OMOM® and Mirocam® groups. However, the average scores for each tertile were significantly higher when the OMOM® HD capsule was used (p < 0.05). Small bowel TT was shorter for OMOM® HD (265 ± 118 versus 307 ± 87 min, p = 0.020), while the diagnostic yield (55.0%) and relative distribution of lesions were similar. This study suggests that capsule characteristics, namely resolution, and illumination, systematically interfere with the perception of preparation quality. However, this did not affect the diagnostic yield.

Use of Simethicone After Capsule Ingestion and Its Impact on the Quality of Small Bowel Video Capsule Endoscopy: A Pilot Study

Background Small bowel capsule endoscopy is a tool to visualize the small bowel (SB) for conditions such as obscure bleeding. Various studies have been performed to compare various bowel preparation regimens in terms of small bowel transit time (SBTT), small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), and diagnostic yield (DY). Literature suggests that using polyethylene glycol (PEG) prep is significantly better compared to clear liquid and overnight fast in terms of SBVQ and DY. Other investigators have tried to assess the efficacy of adding simethicone to the bowel preparation regimen which seems to improve SBVQ. However, no studies have been done to assess the results of simethicone ingestion after capsule swallowing. We intend to give patients simethicone one hour after capsule ingestion for two consecutive hours and compare results for SBVQ pre-and post-ingestion groups. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of simethicone on SBVQ in pre- and post-capsule ingestion groups. Methodology This prospective, randomized controlled trial included patients who were scheduled for outpatient capsule endoscopy at Albany Medical Center (AMC) Endoscopy Suite. Patients were divided into the control group, group 1, and the treatment group (group 2). The control group followed the standard AMC pre-capsule protocol that included PEG 238 g the evening prior. Group 1 included patients who received 3 mL of simethicone (20 mg/0.3 mL) 20 minutes prior to ingesting the capsule. The treatment group (group 2) included patients who ingested simethicone 3 mL 20 minutes prior to capsule swallowing, 3 mL after one hour, and 1.5 mL after another hour, totaling 7.5 mL of simethicone. Data regarding SBVQ for every patient were evaluated as an individual zone score from 1-3 points, each in proximal, middle, and distal SB based on the SBTT. A cumulative score of 3-9 was given after adding the three zones. These scores were derived using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Data analysis was done using Microsoft Excel software. Results There were six patients in the control group, eight in group 1, and eight in the treatment group (group 2). Proximal, middle, and distal SB did not show any significant difference between their SBVQ scores. Moreover, the total combined score also showed no statistical difference in the SBVQ score. Conclusions There were no statistically significant differences in the SBVQ neither while looking at the cumulative score nor individual segmental score of the entire SB. However, this is only a pilot project with a small number of subjects and results may differ in future studies with increased power.