RESUMEN

Background: Social inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation are evident. Barriers to screening participation include discomfort from diagnostic modalities. We aimed to describe the discomfort experienced from colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and investigate the discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort stratified by socioeconomic status. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted offering half of the colorectal cancer screening invitees the choice between CCE and colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. This paper includes those who elected to undergo CCE. A positive CCE elicited referral for a therapeutic colonoscopy. Participants reported their discomfort from CCE and from any following colonoscopies in electronically distributed questionnaires. Discomfort was measured using visual analogue scales and compared between socioeconomic subgroups determined by educational level and income. Results: The experienced discomfort from CCE and colonoscopy differed significantly between educational levels but not income levels. The bowel preparation contributed the most to the experienced discomfort in both CCE and colonoscopy. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort from colonoscopy increased with increasing educational and income levels. A similar trend was seen in CCE between educational levels but not income levels. Conclusions: None of the results indicated a higher discomfort in lower socioeconomic subgroups. Regardless of the investigation modality, the bowel preparation was the main contributor to experienced discomfort. The discrepancy between expected and experienced discomfort did not seem to be larger in lower socioeconomic subgroups, indicating that this is not a major barrier causing inequalities in screening uptake. This is the first study investigating individual discomfort discrepancy in both CCE and colonoscopy, while being able to stratify by socioeconomic status.

RESUMEN

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching. Objectives: This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus. Design: A systematic qualitative study using surveys. Methods: A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis. Results: The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp. Conclusion: This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.

Creating criteria and standards for matching polyps (abnormal growth in the bowels) on colon capsule video analysis: an international expert agreement using the RAND (modified Delphi process) process Background: Doctors often use colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), a high-tech capsule with two cameras, to record and check for diseases in the small and large bowels as the capsule travels through the intestines. One of the most common conditions in the large bowel is polyps, which are abnormal growths in the lining of the bowel. Comparing and matching polyps in the same video from the capsule can be tricky as they look very similar, leading to the possibility of incorrectly reporting the same polyp twice or more. This can lead to wrong results and inaccuracies. The literature did not have any criteria or standards for matching polyps in CCE before. Aim: Using the RAND/UCLA (modified Delphi) process, this study aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. The goal is to explore each factor and create complete criteria for polyp matching based on the agreement from international experts. Method: A group of 11 international CCE experts came together to evaluate a survey with 60 statements. They anonymously rated each statement on a scale from 1 to 9 (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain, and 7-9: appropriate). After discussing the Round 1 results virtually, a Round 2 survey with the same but revised questions was created and completed before the final analysis of their agreement. Results: The main factors for matching polyps are 1) the timing when the polyp was seen, 2) where it is in the bowel, 3) its blood vessel pattern, 4) size, 5) the timing of its appearance between cameras, 6) surrounding tissue features, 7) its shape, and 8) surface features. If five or more of these factors match, the compared polyps are likely the same. Conclusion: This study establishes the first complete criteria for matching polyps in CCE. While it may not provide a definitive solution for matching challenging and small polyps, these criteria serve as a guide to help and make the process of polyp matching easier.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) often requiring endoscopic evaluations, which can be uncomfortable and costly, especially for children. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a noninvasive approach combining fecal calprotectin (FCP), colonic ultrasonography (US), and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) compared with standard ileocolonoscopy in pediatric UC. METHODS: UC children were enrolled and underwent FCP and US on Day 0, followed by CCE on Day 1 and ileocolonoscopy on Day 2. All procedures were performed by operators who were blinded to the patient's clinical history and all test results. The accuracy for disease activity and extension of each technique and their combination was assessed and compared. Tolerability and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were enrolled (15 males, mean age 13.2 ± 3.2 years). CCE showed a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 100% in detecting colonic inflammation, with positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% and 92%, respectively. US demonstrated a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 92%, with PPV and NPV of 94% and 79%. The combination of FCP, US, and CCE achieved 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with PPV of 100% and NPV of 92%. The noninvasive approach was better tolerated than colonoscopy (p < 0.05), and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The noninvasive approach combining fecal calprotectin (FCP), ultrasonography, and colon capsule endoscopy demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and better tolerability compared with standard ileocolonoscopy in pediatric ulcerative colitis follow-up. Further multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate the reproducibility of this noninvasive approach.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Gastroenterology is increasingly moving towards minimally invasive diagnostic modalities. The diagnostic exploration of the colon via capsule endoscopy, both in specific protocols for colon capsule endoscopy and during panendoscopic evaluations, is increasingly regarded as an appropriate first-line diagnostic approach. Adequate colonic preparation is essential for conclusive examinations as, contrary to a conventional colonoscopy, the capsule moves passively in the colon and does not have the capacity to clean debris. Several scales have been developed for the classification of bowel preparation for colon capsule endoscopy. Nevertheless, their applications are limited by suboptimal interobserver agreement. Our group developed a deep learning algorithm for the automatic classification of colonic bowel preparation, according to an easily applicable classification. Our neural network achieved high performance levels, with a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 97% and an overall accuracy of 95%. The algorithm achieved a good discriminating capacity, with areas under the curve ranging between 0.92 and 0.97. The development of these algorithms is essential for the widespread adoption of capsule endoscopy for the exploration of the colon, as well as for the adoption of minimally invasive panendoscopy.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: Lower gastrointestinal (GI) diagnostics have been facing relentless capacity constraints for many years, even before the COVID-19 era. Restrictions from the COVID pandemic have resulted in a significant backlog in lower GI diagnostics. Given recent developments in deep neural networks (DNNs) and the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in endoscopy, automating capsule video analysis is now within reach. Comparable to the efficiency and accuracy of AI applications in small bowel capsule endoscopy, AI in colon capsule analysis will also improve the efficiency of video reading and address the relentless demand on lower GI services. The aim of the CESCAIL study is to determine the feasibility, accuracy and productivity of AI-enabled analysis tools (AiSPEED) for polyp detection compared with the 'gold standard': a conventional care pathway with clinician analysis. METHOD: This multi-centre, diagnostic accuracy study aims to recruit 674 participants retrospectively and prospectively from centres conducting colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as part of their standard care pathway. After the study participants have undergone CCE, the colon capsule videos will be uploaded onto two different pathways: AI-enabled video analysis and the gold standard conventional clinician analysis pathway. The reports generated from both pathways will be compared for accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). The reading time can only be compared in the prospective cohort. In addition to validating the AI tool, this study will also provide observational data concerning its use to assess the pathway execution in real-world performance. RESULTS: The study is currently recruiting participants at multiple centres within the United Kingdom and is at the stage of collecting data. CONCLUSION: This standard diagnostic accuracy study carries no additional risk to patients as it does not affect the standard care pathway, and hence patient care remains unaffected.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Individual income and educational level are associated with participation rates in colorectal cancer screening. We aimed to investigate the expected discomfort from the endoscopic diagnostic modalities of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy in different socioeconomic groups as a potential barrier for participation. In a randomized clinical trial within the Danish colorectal cancer screening program, we distributed questionnaires to 2031 individuals between August 2020 and December 2022 to investigate the expected procedural and overall discomfort from investigations using visual analogue scales. Socioeconomic status was determined by household income and educational level. Multivariate continuous ordinal regressions were performed to estimate the odds of higher expected discomfort. The expected procedural and overall discomfort from both modalities were significantly higher with increasing educational levels and income, except for procedural discomfort from colon capsule endoscopy between income quartiles. The odds ratios for higher expected discomfort increased significantly with increasing educational level, whereas the differences between income groups were less substantial. Bowel preparation contributed most to expected discomfort in colon capsule endoscopy, whereas in colonoscopy, the procedure itself was the largest contributor. Individuals with prior experiences of colonoscopy reported significantly lower expected overall but not procedural discomfort from colonoscopy. The threshold for acceptable discomfort between subgroups is unknown, but the expected discomfort in colon capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy was higher in higher socioeconomic subgroups, suggesting that expected discomfort is not a significant contributor to the inequalities in screening uptake.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue, being responsible for nearly 10% of all cancer-related deaths. Since CRC is often an asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic disease until it reaches advanced stages, screening is crucial for the diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions or early CRC. AREAS COVERED: The aim of this review is to summarize the literature evidence on currently available CRC screening tools, with their pros and cons, focusing on the level of accuracy reached by each test over time. We also provide an overview of novel technologies and scientific advances that are currently being investigated and that in the future may represent real game-changers in the field of CRC screening. EXPERT OPINION: We suggest that best screening modalities are annual or biennial FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years. We believe that the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-tools in the CRC screening field could lead to a significant improvement of the screening efficacy in reducing CRC incidence and mortality in the future. More resources should be put into implementing CRC programs and support research project to further increase the accuracy of CRC screening tests and strategies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is useful as an alternative examination for patients in whom colonoscopy is difficult. The Japanese Association for Capsule Endoscopy has published a recommended regimen for CCE using castor oil, which is becoming a standard examination method for CCE in Japan. However, castor oil has an unpleasant flavor. Therefore, patient acceptance is not good. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to develop a castor oil-filled capsule and evaluate its feasibility and patient acceptance in a retrospective, comparative study. METHOD: A dissolution study of pig-derived gelatin capsules filled with castor oil was performed using artificial gastric juice. The CCE excretion rates within battery lifetime, CCE examination times, endoscopic colonic cleansing levels, and patient acceptability between CCE boosters with a castor oil-filled capsule and without castor oil were retrospectively compared using medical information, clinical data, and endoscopic findings at Takada Chuo Hospital from September 2016 to August 2019. RESULTS: The castor oil-filled capsules were completely disintegrated at approximately 1-3 min in artificial gastric juice. Bowel preparation with oil-filled capsules and without castor oil was performed in 27 and 24 patients, respectively. CCE excretion rates within battery life were 100% and 91.7% (p = 0.217), small bowel transit times were 115 min and 143 min (p = 0.046), colon transit times were 168 min and 148 min (p = 0.733), and adequate colonic cleansing rates were 85.2% and 86.3% (p = 1.000) in patients using bowel preparation with and without oil-filled capsules, respectively. Regarding acceptance, the taste was not problematic in 85.2%, and tolerability for the next CCE was 96.3%. CONCLUSIONS: CCE using a castor oil-filled capsule method achieved high examination performance and sufficient patient tolerability.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: When an optical colonoscopy is carried out, Scope Guide can assist the endoscopist in determining the localization. In colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), this support is not available. To our knowledge, the interobserver agreement on landmark identification has never been studied. This study aims to investigate the interobserver agreement on landmark identification in CCE. METHODS: An interobserver study was carried out comparing the landmark identification (the ileocecal valve, hepatic flexure, splenic flexure, and anus) in CCE investigations between an external private contractor and three in-house CCE readers with different levels of experience. All CCE investigations analyzed in this study were carried out as a part of the Danish screening program for colorectal cancer. Patients were between 50 and 74 years old with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A random sample of 20 CCE investigations was taken from the total sample of more than 800 videos. RESULTS: Overall interobserver agreement on all landmarks was 51%. Interobserver agreement on the first cecal image (ileocecal valve), hepatic flexure, splenic flexure, and last rectal image (anus) was 72%, 29%, 22%, and 83%, respectively. The overall interobserver agreement, including only examinations with adequate bowel preparation (n = 16), was 54%, and for individual landmarks, 73%, 32%, 24%, and 85%. CONCLUSION: Overall interobserver agreement on all four landmarks from CCE was poor. Measures are needed to improve landmark identification in CCE investigations. Artificial intelligence could be a possible solution to this problem.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Increased familiarity with capsule endoscopy (CE) has been associated with a growing demand for urgent inpatient procedures. Limited data exists comparing the effect of admission status on colon capsule (CCE) and pan-intestinal capsule (PIC) performance. We aimed to compare the quality of inpatient versus outpatient CCE and PIC studies. METHODS: A retrospective nested case-control study. Patients were identified from a CE database. PillCam Colon 2 Capsules with standard bowel preparation and booster regimen were used in all studies. Basic demographics and key outcome measures were documented from procedure reports and hospital patient records, and compared between groups. RESULTS: 105 subjects were included, 35 cases and 70 controls. Cases were older, were more frequently referred with active bleeding and had more PICs. The diagnostic yield was high at 77% and was similar in both groups. Completion rates were significantly better for outpatients, 43% (n = 15) v's 71% (n = 50), OR 3, NN3. Neither gender nor age affected completion rates. Completion rates and preparation quality were similar for CCE and PIC inpatient procedures. CONCLUSION: Inpatient CCE and PIC have a clinical role. There is an increased risk of incomplete transit in inpatients, and strategies to mitigate against this are needed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications have become widely popular across the healthcare ecosystem. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was adopted in the NHS England pilot project following the recent COVID pandemic's impact. It demonstrated its capability to relieve the national backlog in endoscopy. As a result, AI-assisted colon capsule video analysis has become gastroenterology's most active research area. However, with rapid AI advances, mastering these complex machine learning concepts remains challenging for healthcare professionals. This forms a barrier for clinicians to take on this new technology and embrace the new era of big data. This paper aims to bridge the knowledge gap between the current CCE system and the future, fully integrated AI system. The primary focus is on simplifying the technical terms and concepts in machine learning. This will hopefully address the general "fear of the unknown in AI" by helping healthcare professionals understand the basic principle of machine learning in capsule endoscopy and apply this knowledge in their future interactions and adaptation to AI technology. It also summarises the evidence of AI in CCE and its impact on diagnostic pathways. Finally, it discusses the unintended consequences of using AI, ethical challenges, potential flaws, and bias within clinical settings.

RESUMEN

Capsule retention is a rare complication to capsule endoscopy. It is often asymptomatic and resolves itself spontaneously. In some cases, endoscopy or surgery is necessary to remove the capsule. Cases of capsule retention in the colon are not reported very often and precautions in subsequent investigations must be considered. We present a case of a 74-year-old woman who underwent colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) due to a positive fecal immunochemical test. The CCE was incomplete, and the patient was referred to conventional colonoscopy, which was complicated by perforation of the large bowel during the procedure. This lead to a CT scan showing the capsule proximal to a stenotic colon segment which was subsequently surgically removed. In patients who report lack of capsule excretion and stenosis is not verified, colonoscopy can be carried out, but with caution.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. METHOD: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. CONCLUSION: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

Background and aims: Achieving adequate bowel cleansing is of utmost importance for the efficiency of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). However, information about predictive factors is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. Methods: In this observational study, 126 patients who underwent CCE at two tertiary care hospitals were included between June 2017 and January 2020. Participants prepared for bowel cleansing with a 1-day clear liquid diet, a 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen and boosters with sodium phosphate, sodium amidotrizoate and meglumine amidotrizoate. Domperidone tablets and bisacodyl suppositories were administered when needed. Overall and per-segment bowel cleansing was evaluated using a CCE cleansing score. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were carried out to assess poor bowel cleansing and excretion rate predictors. Results: Overall bowel cleansing was optimal in 53 patients (50.5%). Optimal per-segment bowel cleansing was achieved as follows: cecum (86 patients; 74.8%), transverse colon (91 patients; 81.3%), distal colon (81 patients; 75%) and rectum (64 patients; 66.7%). In the univariate analysis, elderly (OR, 1.03; 95% CI (1.01–1.076)) and constipation (OR, 3.82; 95% CI (1.50–9.71)) were associated with poor bowel cleansing. In the logistic regression analysis, constipation (OR, 3.77; 95% CI (1.43–10.0)) was associated with poor bowel cleansing. No variables were significantly associated with the CCE device excretion rate. Conclusion: Our results suggest that constipation is the most powerful predictor of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. Tailored cleansing protocols should be recommended for these patients.(AU)

Antecedentes y objetivos Lograr una limpieza intestinal adecuada es de gran importancia para la eficiencia de la cápsula endoscópica de colon (CEC). Se carece de información sobre factores predictivos. El objetivo fue evaluar los factores predictivos de la limpieza colónica deficiente en pacientes con CEC. Métodos: Ciento veintiséis pacientes fueron sometidos a CEC en dos hospitales de tercer nivel entre junio de 2017 y enero de 2020. La preparación consistió en un día de dieta líquida, y 4 l de polietilenglicol (dosis fraccionada), fosfato sódico, amidotrizoato de sodio y meglumina amidotrizoato. Ocasionalmente se administró domperidona y supositorios de bisacodilo. Se evaluó limpieza total y por segmentos. Se realizó un análisis de regresión logística simple y múltiple para evaluar factores de limpieza deficiente y de excreción de la CEC. Resultados: La limpieza intestinal fue óptima en 53 pacientes (50,5%). Por segmentos fue: ciego y ascendente (86 pacientes; 74,8%), transverso (91 pacientes; 81,3%), distal (81 pacientes; el 75%) y recto (64 pacientes; 66,7%). En la regresión simple, la edad avanzada (OR, 1,03, IC 95% [1,01-1,076]) y el estreñimiento (OR, 3,82; IC 95% [1,50-9,71]) se asociaron con una limpieza deficiente. El estreñimiento (OR, 3,77; IC del 95% [1,43-10,0]) fue el único factor asociado de forma independiente. Ninguna variable se asoció a la tasa de excreción de la CEC. Conclusión: Nuestros resultados sugieren que el estreñimiento es el factor más potente de la limpieza deficiente colónica en el estudio endoscópico con CEC. Protocolos de limpieza adaptados se deben recomendar en estos pacientes.(AU)

Asunto(s)