Search

Background & Aims: The role of small-bowel (SB) cancer surveillance by capsule endoscopy (CE) in Lynch syndrome (LS) patients has been investigated in recent years, with contradicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic yield (DY) of CE as a screening tool in asymptomatic LS patients., Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for all studies reporting the results of SB cancer screening in patients with LS. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the DY of CE in this setting for consecutive screening rounds., Results: Five studies comprising 428 patients and CE 677 procedures were included for data extraction and statistical analysis. The estimated pooled DY for CE-identified pathological findings was 8% in the first screening round and 6% in the second. Limiting the analysis to histologically-confirmed pathological findings, the pooled DY of second-round screening dropped to 0%. The included studies showed a significantly different prevalence of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair (path_MMR) genes, which underlie different cumulative incidences of extracolonic cancers., Conclusions: SB surveillance by CE with a 2-year interval in asymptomatic LS individuals does not appear to be an effective screening strategy. Confirmatory prospective studies in this context are needed, considering the different cumulative incidence of SB tumors according to underlying path_MMR defects., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The listed Authors declare the following potential COIs P.C.V.: lecture fees (Jinshan Ltd.) M.P.: lecture fees (Medtronic and Olympus) A.K.: co-founder and shareholder of AJM Medicaps; co-director and shareholder of iCERV Ltd.; consultancy fees (Jinshan Ltd.); travel support (Jinshan, Aquilant and Falk Pharma); research support (grant) from ESGE/Given Imaging Ltd. and (material) IntroMedic/SynMed; honoraria (Falk Pharma UK, Ferring, Jinshan, Medtronic). Member of Advisory board meetings (Falk Pharma UK, Tillots, ANKON). U.D., T.B-M., F.G., L.L.: no COIs, (Copyright © 2023 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Small bowel tumors (SBT) are relatively rare, but have had a steadily increasing incidence in the last few decades. Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy are the main endoscopic techniques for the study of the small bowel, the latter additionally providing sampling and therapeutic options, and hence acting complementary to SBCE in the diagnostic work-up. Although a single diagnostic modality is often insufficient in the setting of SBTs, SBCE is a fundamental tool to drive further management towards a definitive diagnosis. The aim of this paper is to provide a concise narrative review of the role of SBCE in the diagnosis and management of SBTs.

Background: Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are part of the diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of indications other than suspected small bowel bleeding (OSBB). The literature is currently lacking studies describing these procedures in this particular setting., Objectives: We assessed the clinical impact of VCE and DBE in a large monocentric cohort of OSBB patients, as compared to a control group of suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB) patients who underwent enteroscopy over the same period., Design: Monocentric, retrospective, cohort study., Methods: We collected the data of consecutive patients with OSBB undergoing VCE and/or DBE from March 2001 to July 2020. The demographic and clinical parameters of the patients, technical characteristics, and adverse events for each procedure were collected. The impact of VCE and DBE was defined in terms of diagnostic yield (DY). The patients were subdivided according to the main indication into four groups: celiac disease, Crohn's disease (CD), neoplasia, and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms., Results: A total of 611 VCEs and 387 DBEs were performed for OSBB. The main indications were complicated celiac disease and CD. The DYs of VCE and DBE overall were 53 and 61.7%, respectively, with some variance among the four groups. We report no statistical differences in the DY of VCE and DBE in SSBB vs OSBB (57.7% vs 53%, p  = 0.0859 and 68.8% vs 61.7%, p  = 0.0582, respectively). OSBB patients were significantly younger than those with SSBB. However, similarly to SSBB ( k  = 0.059), poor agreement between the enteroscopic techniques was found in the OSBB population ( k  = 0.109). The safety of both procedures in OSBB was comparable to that in SSBB patients., Conclusion: VCE and DBE are effective and safe in suspected OSBB, where their role is similar to that in SSBB, their main indication., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2023.)

Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in particular, has become a routine endoscopic procedure which has revolutionized our approach to small-bowel disease. Evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of BAE spans over 22-years of experience, making it an established pillar of minimally invasive care. The robust evidence for BAE's safety and efficacy has now been incorporated into international clinical guidelines, technical reviews, benchmarking performance measures and curricula. The more recently introduced motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) which had replaced the previous manual version, abruptly ended its 7-year stint in clinical practice, when it was withdrawn and recalled from the market by its manufacturing company in July 2023, due to several associated serious adverse events (including fatalities). This article, written by the original developer of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and other recognized international experts and pioneers in this field, focuses mainly on the technical aspects, evolving indications, and equipment-related technological advances. Despite the very recent withdrawal of MSE from clinical practice, for completeness, this technology and its technique is still briefly covered here, albeit importantly, along with a short description of reported, associated, serious adverse events which have contributed to its withdrawal/recall from the market and clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Author HY has patents for the double-balloon endoscopy system produced by Fujifilm Corporation and has a consultant relationship with the company. He has also received honoraria, grants, and royalties from the company. He has also received consultancy fees from Olympus. Author BGS received speaker honoraria from Olympus, Medtronic and Norgine. Author EJD has received speaker and consultant honoraria from Fujifilm, Aquilant Endoscopy, Olympus, 3-D Matrix, Ambu, Acino, Boston Scientific and unrestricted educational grants from Pentax Medical, Fujifilm, Aquilant Endoscopy, Olympus, Boston Scientific, GI Supply, Cook Medical, Diagmed Healthcare, Norgine, Takeda, Abbvie, Cantel Medical, Ardmore Medical, Apollo Endosurgery, ERBE, APR Medical, Ankon and Medtronic. None of the other authors has any conflicts of interest related to this article/work to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Small-bowel (SB) bleeding is a challenging problem for the clinician, presenting many pitfalls in both diagnosis and subsequent treatment. Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) have revolutionized the approach to the patient with SB bleeding, allowing for the endoscopic diagnosis and management of what was previously only a surgical matter. The patients' assessment in SB bleeding is of foremost importance, as treatment success relies on a detailed evaluation of clinical history, suspicion for underlying lesions, and a careful selection and timing of diagnostic and therapeutic tools. This review will summarize current state-of-the-art evidence and practice points, to provide the clinician with a comprehensive guide towards the management of SB bleeding., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Professor Ian M. Gralnek has potential COI with the following: Astra-Zeneca, Check Cap, Boston Scientific, Clexio Biosciences, Motus GI, Vifor Pharma, Medtronic., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal small bowel preparation modality before capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is still uncertain, regarding preparation type, dose and timing of administration., Aim: The aim of the study is to evaluate the small bowel cleansing in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy after fasting alone or active treatment with purgative solutions., Methods: We searched 4 major scientific databases from inception to December 2021 for studies evaluating small bowel preparation before SBCE. Different preparation efficacy was compared using fasting as reference. Main variables evaluated in the current study were: preparation type, administration schedule and timing., Results: 17 studies (27 treatment arms) with 2372 patients (male 47,4%) were included, mean age 54 years. Fasting alone VS overall purgative preparations pooled rate difference (RD) was 0.15 I2=81.5% p: 0.000. Sub-analysis for preparation schedule (day-before, split and same-day) and the time lapse showed that administration of PEG after the ingestion of capsule had the highest rate of adequate small bowel cleansing with a RD 0.33, administration between 1 and 6 h before SBCE had a RD 0.28, 6 to 12 h had a RD 0.21 and ≥12 h had a RD 0.05., Conclusions: Timing of ingestion was found to be critical for bowel cleansing; the shorter time laps between the ingestion last dose of laxative and SBCE, the better was the mucosal visualization., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: C. Carretero provides consultancy and receives speakers fees from Medtronic (ongoing). X. Dray is a founder of and shareholder in Augmented Endoscopy (May 2019 to present); he is a member of the International CApsule Endoscopy REsearch (iCARE) group (December 2021 to present); he holds four patents (shared with his institutions) related to artificial intelligence in endoscopy. E. J. Despott has received educational grants in support of conference organization, and honoraria, from Fujifilm, Pentax, and Olympus (2017–2021), and honoraria from Ambu (2021). L. Elli has held a lecture/consultancy role for Medtronic (2018-2020) and Capsocam (2016). L. Fuccio is a Co-Editor of Endoscopy journal. M. Keuchel has received speaker’s fees and travel support from and provided consultancy to Medtronic, and received speaker’s fees from Olympus (both from 2021 to present); his department has received study support from AnX Robotics (from 2021 to present). A. Koulaouzidis is a co-founder and shareholder of AJM MED-i-Caps (from 2017, ongoing) and iCERV (from 2022, ongoing), and has received consultancy fees from CHI and Jinshan Science & Technology and lecture honoraria from Medtronic (all from 2020, ongoing), travel assistance fees from Aquilant (2019), material support for clinical research from SynMed and Intromedic (2016–2020), and lecture honoraria and AB meeting fees from Dr Falk Pharma UK (2016–2020), and has participated in an advisory board for Ankon (2019); his department has received a grant from Medtronic (2016–2020); he is a founding and board member of iCARE; he or his department holds a patent related to this Guideline. D. McNamara received an iCloud Capsule Platform introductory fee waiver from Medtronic (2021–2022). T. Moreels received speaker’s fees from Olympus (2019–2022). H. Neumann is a consultant to Fujifilm, Medtronic, and Jinsha (from 2020, ongoing); his department receives study support from Fujifilm (from 2020, ongoing). M. Pennazio received speaker’s fees from Medtronic, Olympus, and Alfasigma (2015–2019). E. Perez-Cuadrado-Robles provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (2020–2021). E. Rondonotti has been an expert group member and speaker for Fujifilm (January 2021 to December 2021) and provided consultancy to Medtronic (2021); his department received a research grant from Fufifilm (January 2021 to December 2021). B. Rosa provided consultancy to Medtronic (2020–2021). C. Spada provided consultancy to Medtronic (2017–2022) and AnX Robotics (2020–2022). J. C. Saurin provided consultancy to Intromedic, Capsovision, Medtronic, and Povepharm (2021–2024), and teaching for Medtronic (2021–2024). I. Tacheci is Scientific Secretary to the Czech Society of Gastroenterology and responsible for dissemination of guidelines (2022). P. Cortegoso Valdivia, B. Gonzalez Suarez, L. Kunovsky, E. Perez-Cuadrado-Martinez, S. Piccirelli, D.S. Sanders, R. Sidhu, K. Triantafyllou, and E. Vlachou have no competing interests., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Dr. Spada is consultant for Medtronic and Norgine and received grant from AlfaSigma, Pentax, Olympus. Dr.Pennazio received speaker's honoraria from Medtronic and Olympus. Dr. Rondonotti is member of the expert group of Fujifilm, received speaker's honoraria from Fujifilm and consultancy agreement from Medtronic. Dr. Tontini is a consultant for NTC Pharma and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and received speaker's honoraria from Pentax, Medtronic and NTC Pharma., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Video-capsule endoscopy (VCE) reading is a time- and energy-consuming task. Agreement on findings between readers (either different or the same) is a crucial point for increasing performance and providing valid reports. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to provide an evaluation of inter/intra-observer agreement in VCE reading. A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed throughout September 2022. The degree of observer agreement, expressed with different test statistics, was extracted. As different statistics are not directly comparable, our analyses were stratified by type of test statistics, dividing them in groups of "None/Poor/Minimal", "Moderate/Weak/Fair", "Good/Excellent/Strong" and "Perfect/Almost perfect" to report the proportions of each. In total, 60 studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 579 comparisons. The quality of included studies, assessed with the MINORS score, was sufficient in 52/60 studies. The most common test statistics were the Kappa statistics for categorical outcomes (424 comparisons) and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous outcomes (73 comparisons). In the overall comparison of inter-observer agreement, only 23% were evaluated as "good" or "perfect"; for intra-observer agreement, this was the case in 36%. Sources of heterogeneity (high, I 2 81.8-98.1%) were investigated with meta-regressions, showing a possible role of country, capsule type and year of publication in Kappa inter-observer agreement. VCE reading suffers from substantial heterogeneity and sub-optimal agreement in both inter- and intra-observer evaluation. Artificial-intelligence-based tools and the adoption of a unified terminology may progressively enhance levels of agreement in VCE reading.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

BACKGROUND: Reading capsule endoscopy (CE) is time-consuming. The Express View (EV) (IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea) software was designed to shorten CE video reading. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EV in detecting significant small-bowel (SB) lesions. We also compared the reading times with EV mode and standard reading (SR). METHODS: 126 patients with suspected SB bleeding and/or suspected neoplasia were prospectively enrolled and underwent SB CE (MiroCam®1200, IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea). CE evaluation was performed in standard and EV mode. In case of discrepancies between SR and EV readings, a consensus was reached after reviewing the video segments and the findings were re-classified. RESULTS: The completion rate of SB CE in our cohort was 86.5% and no retention occurred. The per-patient analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of EV compared to SR were 86%, 86%, 90%, 81%, and 86%, respectively, before consensus. After consensus, they increased to 97%, 100%, 100%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. The median reading time with SR and EV was 71 min (range 26−340) and 13 min (range 3−85), respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The new-generation EV shows high diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduces CE reading times.

Background & Aims: limited evidence is available to guide hepatologists regarding endoscopic surveillance of oesophageal varices (EV) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)-positive cirrhotic patients achieving a sustained virologic response. To address these issues, we conducted a long-term prospective study on 427 HCV-positive cirrhotic patients successfully treated by Direct Antiviral Agents (DAAs)., Methods: Patients were divided into two groups according to their baseline Baveno VI status: Group 1 (92, 21.5%, favourable Baveno VI status) and Group 2 (335, 78.5%, unfavourable Baveno VI status). Each patient underwent baseline endoscopy and was endoscopically monitored for a median follow-up of 65.2 months according to Baveno VI recommendations., Results: About 4.3% of Group 1 patients showed baseline EV compared with 30.1% of Group 2 patients (p < .0001). No patients belonging to Group 1 without baseline EV developed EV at follow-up endoscopy compared with 6.5% in Group 2 patients (p = .02); 69/107 (64.5%) patients with baseline EV showed small varices. During the endoscopic follow-up, EV disappeared/improved in 36 (33.6%), were stable in 39 (36.4%) and worsened in 32 (29.9%) patients, all belonging to Group 2 (p = .001). Improvement in Baveno VI status was observed in 118/335 (35.2%, p < .0001) of Group 2 patients and among those without pre-therapy EV, none developed EV throughout the follow-up., Conclusions: HCV-positive cirrhotic patients cured by DAAs showing baseline favourable Baveno VI status and no worsening during follow-up can safely avoid endoscopic screening and surveillance. Patients having unfavourable Baveno VI status without baseline EV who improve their status may suspend further endoscopic surveillance., (© 2022 The Authors. Liver International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a widespread modality for non-invasive evaluation of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with several CE models having been developed throughout the years. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate performance measures such as completion, detection and retention rates of CE., Methods: Literature through to August 2021 was screened for articles regarding all capsule types: small bowel, double-headed capsule for the colon or PillCam ® Crohn's capsule, magnetically-controlled capsule endoscopy, esophageal capsule and patency capsule. Primary outcomes included detection rate (DR), completion rate (CR) and capsule retention rate (RR). DR, CR and RR were also analyzed in relation to indications such as obscure GI bleeding (OGIB), known/suspected Crohn's disease (CD), celiac disease (CeD), neoplastic lesions (NL) and clinical symptoms (CS)., Results: 328 original articles involving 86,930 patients who underwent CE were included. OGIB was the most common indication (n = 44,750), followed by CS (n = 17,897), CD (n = 11,299), NL (n = 4989) and CeD (n = 947). The most used capsule type was small bowel CE in 236 studies. DR, CR and RR for all indications were 59%, 89.6% and 2%, respectively. According to specific indications: DR were 55%, 66%, 63%, 52% and 62%; CR were 90.6%, 86.5%, 78.2%, 94% and 92.8%; and RR were 2%, 4%, 1%, 6% and 2%., Conclusions: Pooled DR, CR and RR are acceptable for all capsule types. OGIB is the most common indication for CE. Technological advancements have expanded the scope of CE devices in detecting GI pathology with acceptable rates for a complete examination.

Background and study aims  Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. Patients and methods  We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Results  Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764-0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820-0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735-0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896-0.979). Conclusions  In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Koulaouzidis is consultant for Jinshan. He is director of iCERV Ltd and cofounder of AJM Medicaps Ltd. He has received a Given Imaging Ltd-ESGE grant, and material support for clinical research from SynMed/Intromedic. In the last 10 years, he has received honoraria and lecture fees from Jinshan, Dr Falk Pharma UK, and Ferring. He has also received educational travel support from Aquilant, Jinshan, Dr Falk Pharma, Almirall, Ferring, and has participated in advisory board meetings for Tillots, Ankon, and Dr Falk PharmaUK. Dr. Toth has received research grant from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish ALF-agreement., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Colon capsule endoscopy as an alternative to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colonic disease may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable investigation for patients. Our aim was to examine patient-reported outcomes for colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional optical colonoscopy including preference of investigation modality, tolerability and adverse events. A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and Embase. Search results were thoroughly screened for in- and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent assessment of transparency and completeness, after which, data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates of patient preference were calculated and heterogeneity was examined including univariate meta-regressions. Patient-reported tolerability and adverse events were reviewed. Out of fourteen included studies, twelve had investigated patient-reported outcomes in patients who had undergone both investigations, whereas in two the patients were randomized between investigations. Pooled patient preferences were estimated to be 52% (CI 95%: 41-63%) for colon capsule endoscopy and 45% (CI 95%: 33-57%) for conventional colonoscopy: not indicating a significant difference. Procedural adverse events were rarely reported by patients for either investigation. The tolerability was high for both colon capsule endoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patient preferences for conventional colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy were not significantly different. Procedural adverse events were rare and the tolerability for colon capsule endoscopy was consistently reported higher or equal to that of conventional colonoscopy.

Introduction: Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool., Methods: A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included., Results: 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described., Conclusion: CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement., Competing Interests: E. Rondonotti received speaker honoraria from Fujifilm CO. C. has Hassan received loan of devices for research from Medtronic. M. Spaander received research support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. C. Spada received scientific support and paid consultant from Medtronic. F. Vuik is a paid consultant from Medtronic., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

In recent years, panintestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE) with double-headed capsules has been used to perform complete, single-sitting exploration of both small bowel and colon in different clinical conditions. Double-headed capsules for colonic examination (CCE) have been exploited first in this setting, followed by newer generations of capsules (i.e. PillCam Crohn, PCC) specifically engineered for this purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of PCE in the form of a systematic review. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify papers in which CE was specifically used for a PCE of the gastrointestinal tract. Data on CE, bowel preparation regimen, rate of cleanliness and completeness, and data on transit times were analyzed. The primary outcome was to assess the feasibility of a whole-gut exploration with CE. Sixteen (n = 16) studies including 915 CE procedures with CCE1 (n = 134), CCE2 (n = 357) and PCC (n = 424) were included. 13/16 studies were performed in the setting of Crohn's disease. Cleanliness and completeness rates were acceptable in all studies, ranging from 63.9% and 68.6% to 100%, respectively. In conclusion, PCE is a feasible technique, although further structured studies are needed to explore its full potential., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the setting of chronic liver disease, capsule endoscopy is safe and well tolerated, making it an appealing diagnostic procedure. It is used mainly for the surveillance of esophageal varices, investigation of anemia, and exploration of the small bowel for complications of portal hypertension. Capsule endoscopy is recognized as a viable alternative in patients unable or unwilling to undergo upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for investigations of esophageal varices. In evaluating the small bowel of patients with liver disease and unexplained anemia, capsule endoscopy increases recognition of mucosal abnormalities, although their clinical significance is often unclear., Competing Interests: Disclosure A.R. Robertson: nothing to disclose. A. Koulaouzidis: material support for research from SynMed, IntroMedic, and Given Imaging; travel support from Jinshan Technology, Aquiland; advisory consultation(s) from Ankon, IntroMedic; codirector of iCERV and cofounder of AJMMedicaps Ltd. E. Rondonotti: nothing to disclose; Speaker honoraria from Fujifilm Co. M. Bruno: nothing to disclose. M. Pennazio: speaker’s fee from Olympus, Medtronic., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) was introduced into clinical practice almost 20 years ago and, nowadays, it is an essential tool for the study of the small bowel. SBCE allows a radiation-free examination of the entire mucosal surface of the small bowel with high-quality images, limited invasivity and a good safety profile. Nevertheless, the main limitation of SBCE is the lack of any possible direct therapeutic intervention. Indications for SBCE have evolved throughout the years, from "old" ones such as suspected small bowel bleeding (still the main indication for SBCE) to newer ones such as refractory celiac disease, hereditary polyposis syndromes and Crohn's disease. Thus, nowadays SBCE has a key role in the diagnostic algorithms in many conditions. Furthermore, the introduction in the SBCE field of cutting-edge technologies, as artificial intelligence systems, is likely to shorten the reading time making SBCE even more effective and easy to perform. Preliminary data are extremely promising and solid evidence is being gathered by current studies.

Background and study aims  When capsule endoscopy (CE) detects a small bowel (SB) target lesion that may be manageable with enteroscopy, the selection of the insertion route is critical. Time- and progression-based CE indices have been proposed for localization of SB lesions. This systematic review analysed the role of CE transit indicators in choosing the insertion route for double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). Methods  A comprehensive literature search identified papers assessing the role of CE on the choice of the route selection for DBE. Data on CE, criteria for route selection, and DBE success parameters were retrieved and analyzed according to the PRISMA statement. Risk of bias was assessed through the STROBE assessment. The primary outcome evaluated was DBE success rate in reaching a SB lesion, measured as the ratio of positive initial DBE to the number of total DBE. Results  Seven studies including 262 CEs requiring subsequent DBE were selected. Six studies used time-based indices and one used the PillCam Progress indicator. SB lesions were identified and insertion route was selected according to a specific cut-off, using fixed landmarks for defining SB transit except for one study in which the mouth-cecum transit was considered. DBE success rate was high in all studies, ranging from 78.3 % to 100 %. Six of seven studies were high quality. Conclusions  The precise localization of SB lesions remains an open issue, and larger studies are required to determine the most accurate index for selecting the DBE insertion route. In the future, 3 D localization technologies and tracking systems will be essential to accomplish this tricky task., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Emanuele Rondonotti received speaker honoraria from Fujifilm co., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims  The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recently issued a quality performance measures document for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). The aim of this nationwide survey was to explore SBCE practice with ESGE quality measures as a benchmark. Patients and methods  A dedicated per-center semi-quantitative questionnaire based on ESGE performance measures for SBCE was created by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-eighty-one centers were invited to participate and were asked to calculate performance measures for SBCE performed in 2018. Data were compared with 10 ESGE quality standards for both key and minor performance measures. Results  Ninety-one centers (50.3 %) participated in the data collection. Overall in the last 5 years (2014-2018), 26,615 SBCEs were performed, 5917 of which were done in 2018. Eighty percent or more of the participating centers reached the minimum standard established by the ESGE Small Bowel Working Group (ESBWG) for four performance measures (indications for SBCE, complete small bowel evaluation, diagnostic yield and retention rate). Conversely, compliance with six minimum standards established by ESBWG concerning adequate bowel preparation, patient selection, timing of SBCE in overt bleeding, appropriate reporting, reading protocols and referral to device-assisted enteroscopy was met by only 15.5 %, 10.9 %, 31.1 %, 67.7 %, 53.4 %, and 32.2 % of centers, respectively. Conclusions  The present survey shows significant variability across SBCE centers; only four (4/10: 40 %) SBCE procedural minimum standards were met by a relevant proportion of the centers ( ≥ 80 %). Our data should help in identifying target areas for quality improvement programs in SBCE., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Spada is consultant for Medtronic and Norgine and received grant from AlfaSigma, Pentax, Olympus. Dr.Pennazio received speaker’s honoraria from Medtronic and Olympus. Dr. Rondonotti received speaker’s honoraria from Fujifilm., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Videocapsule endoscopy is, by far, one of the most important milestones in the technological development of endoscopy in the last twenty years. The introduction and spread of videocapsule endoscopy in clinical practice revolutionized the management of small bowel's diseases, allowing a high-quality, extensive examination of its whole mucosal surface. Because of its technical features, videocapsule endoscopy does not allow any direct therapeutic interventions but, compared to other techniques, it is minimally invasive, radiation-free and has an excellent safety profile. The most common indication for videocapsule endoscopy is suspected small bowel bleeding, although other conditions (such as coeliac disease, hereditary polyposis syndromes and, above all, Crohn's disease) may benefit from its use, as highlighted by several studies in recent years. The aim of this paper is to provide a wide overview on indications, limitations and future perspectives of videocapsule endoscopy: by 2020, this technique has become a valuable and irreplaceable tool for the study of the small bowel, changing the patients' management in many clinical scenarios.

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have NO conflict of interest to disclose.

Background: Patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome develop hamartomatous polyps in the small bowel, possibly causing anemia, intussusception, and obstruction. We aimed to evaluate the impact of an enteroscopy-based approach, including both device-assisted and intraoperative enteroscopy, on the reduction of the polyp burden in a cohort of adult Peutz-Jeghers syndrome patients., Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza in Turin, Italy. Consecutive Peutz-Jeghers syndrome patients eligible for device-assisted or intraoperative enteroscopy, between January 2003 and November 2019, were included. Enteroscopy technical issues and complications were recorded. At the time of index enteroscopy, the patients' clinical records were retrospectively reviewed, and clinical data were recorded until November 2019., Results: Overall, 24 patients were included. Before inclusion, 16/24 patients (66.7%) underwent small bowel surgery for polyp-related complications, 13 of which (81.2%) in an emergent setting. Two patients had a history of small bowel neoplasms. During the timeframe, 47 device-assisted enteroscopies and 9 intraoperative enteroscopies were performed, and 247 small bowel polyps were endoscopically removed. The overall complication rate was 12.8% (8.5% for device-assisted enteroscopy, 22.2% for intraoperative enteroscopy). The median observation time was 108 months: in this timeframe, two patients developed small bowel polyp-related complications requiring emergent surgery. No patients developed small bowel cancer, but nine extra-gastrointestinal neoplasms were recorded., Conclusion: An enteroscopy-based approach appears to be well tolerated and effective in decreasing polyp-related complications in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome patients, thus reducing the need for emergent surgery. Although the prevention of small bowel polyp-related complications remains the main goal in these patients, the high incidence of extra-gastrointestinal neoplasms appears to be a rising issue., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s), 2020.)

Background and Aims: Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) has shown promising accuracy for the diagnosis of overall neoplasia. Advanced neoplasia (AN) represents the main target of colorectal cancer screening programs. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CCE-2 for the detection of AN in patients with a positive result for the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) who are undergoing screening., Methods: Patients aged 50 to 69 years with a positive result for the FIT in 4 population screening programs in Italy and Spain were enrolled. Screenees were asked to undergo CCE-2, followed by traditional colonoscopy (TC). TC was performed the same day or the following morning. Bowel preparation included a split-dose polyethylene glycol-based regimen, with sodium phosphate (NaP) with gastrografin as boosters. The CCE-2 video was read by an endoscopist blinded to the results of TC. The main outcomes were CCE-2 accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for AN when using 2 different size thresholds for TC referral (ie, polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm)., Results: Two hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled, and 178 patients completed both CCE-2 and TC (87.7%). Overall, 59 cases of AN were detected at TC. CCE-2 sensitivity was 90%, specificity was 66.1%, PPV was 57.4%, and NPV was 92.9% for AN when using a 6-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 52.8%) and 76.7%, 90.7%, 80.7%, and 88.4% when using a 10-mm cut-off (TC referral rate, 32%), respectively. CCE-2 detected that 8 of 9 already developed colorectal cancers. Among the 41 false positives at the 6-mm cut-off, 34 (82.9%) presented with a nonadvanced adenoma at TC. Mean transit time was 4 hours and 4 minutes, and ≥70% of patients excreted the capsule within 5 hours., Conclusions: In an enriched disease setting, we showed the high sensitivity of CCE-2 for the diagnosis of AN at a 6-mm cut-off. The apparently low CCE-2 specificity is related to the choice of AN as the main outcome. (Clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN 62158762.)., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The main factor that limits wider utilization of capsule endoscopy (CE) in Crohn's disease (CD) is the potential risk of retention. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate capsule retention rates in adult and pediatric CD and determine if retention risk is reduced in established CD (ECD) with patency capsule (PC) or magnetic resonance/computed tomography (MR/CT) enterography., Methods: Studies of CD patients undergoing CE that reported retention were identified. Pooled estimates for retention rates and relative risk in ECD to suspected CD (SCD) were calculated. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided; statistical significance was set at a P value of <0.05., Results: In the overall CD cohort, retention rates were 3.32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.62%-4.2%): 4.63% (95% CI, 3.42%-6.25%) and 2.35% (95% CI, 1.31%-4.19%) in ECD and SCD, respectively. Retention rates were 3.49% (95% CI, 2.73%-4.46%) and 1.64% (95% CI, 0.68%-3.89%) in adult and pediatric CD, respectively. Retention risk in adult ECD was 3.4 times higher than SCD, but there was no difference in retention risk in pediatric ECD compared with SCD. Retention rates in ECD were decreased after patency capsule (2.88%; 95% CI, 1.74%-4.74%) and MR/CT enterography (2.32%; 95% CI, 0.87%-6.03%)., Conclusions: In comparison with older literature, this meta-analysis demonstrates lower CE retention rates in SCD and ECD. Retention rates in pediatric CD were lower than in adult CD. Retention rates in adult ECD were higher than SCD, but there were no differences between pediatric ECD and SCD. Retention rates in ECD were lower after negative PC or MR/CT enterography., (© 2019 Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

After more than 15 years since its introduction into clinical practice, indications for device-assisted enteroscopy have greatly expanded. Alongside the consolidated indications such as the diagnosis and treatment of small bowel bleeding, Crohn's disease, hereditary polyposis, small-bowel tumors and complicated celiac disease, device-assisted enteroscopy is nowadays largely used to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with altered anatomy, stent placement, retrieval of foreign bodies, direct insertion of jejunal feeding tubes, and in selected cases of incomplete colonoscopy. This has been made possible by the technical improvements of the enteroscopes and accessories and by the widespread use of the method. Device-assisted enteroscopy endotherapy currently offers a safe and effective alternative to major surgery and often represents the preferred option for treatment of small-bowel pathology. Its safety profile is favourable even in the elderly patient, provided that it is performed in high-volume and experienced centers. The evolution of the enteroscopy technique is a challenge for the future and could be facilitated by the new enteroscopes models. These prototypes need a thorough clinical and safety assessment especially for the complex therapeutic procedures. Large prospective, multicenter studies should be performed to assess whether the use of device-assisted enteroscopy leads to improved patients' long-term outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recently issued a technical review focused on small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE)., Aim: To compare SBCE current practice in Italy to ESGE technical recommendations., Material and Methods: A dedicated per-centre semi-quantitative questionnaire was prepared by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-fifty Centres were invited to participate in the data collection concerning SBCEs performed between June 2016 and June 2017. Data were compared with ESGE recommendations., Results: 120 Centres participated in the data collection. Current practices agreed with ESGE recommendations in 56.3% (9/16) of the issues evaluated. Differences between ESGE recommendations and current practice concerned the management of patients with pacemakers or cardiac implantable defibrillators (which was in agreement with ESGE recommendations in 31.7% and 15.8% of Centres, respectively), the SBCE setting (only 51% of SBCEs were performed as outpatients procedures), the assessment of capsule excretion (timing and modality were in agreement with ESGE recommendation in 20.0% of Centres), and in the involvement of trained nurses or fellows in training as pre-readers (7/120; 5.8%)., Conclusions: Although SBCE is widely used and largely available in Italy, there are still some technical, practical and organizational issues that can be modified to bridge the gap between current practice and ESGE guideline recommendations., (Copyright © 2018 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The aim of this study was to summarize the role of recently developed diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis and management of patients with small bowel tumours (SBTs)., Recent Findings: Recent studies show that the overall SBT incidence is increasing. The introduction of small bowel dedicated diagnostic tools [i.e. capsule endoscopy, device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), computed tomography (CT) and MRI-enterography] might partially explain this trend. In patients with SBT, DAE might represent an ideal tool by coupling careful mucosal inspection with sampling capability. Unfortunately, DAE is an invasive procedure and seldom allows complete small bowel evaluation in a single setting. Therefore, DAE is more often used in clinical practice as confirmatory tool, when other less invasive and readily available tests (i.e. capsule endoscopy or radiological tests) identify relevant findings. Nevertheless, in patients with SBT, capsule endoscopy is burdened by an increased risk of capsule retention and/or missing proximal small bowel lesions, whereas dedicated cross-sectional imaging techniques often identify nonspecific findings of limited clinical significance., Summary: Despite recent technical improvements, in patients with SBT, the result of a single diagnostic procedure is often insufficient to provide a definite diagnosis. A balanced combination of different tests allows reaching a final diagnosis and drive further management.

Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy (sbce): 1: ESGE recommends that prior to SBCE patients ingest a purgative (2 L of polyethylene glycol [PEG]) for better visualization.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.However, the optimal timing for taking purgatives is yet to be established. 2: ESGE recommends that SBCE should be performed as an outpatient procedure if possible, since completion rates are higher in outpatients than in inpatients.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that patients with pacemakers can safely undergo SBCE without special precautions.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that SBCE can also be safely performed in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends the acceptance of qualified nurses and trained technicians as prereaders of capsule endoscopy studies as their competency in identifying pathology is similar to that of medically qualified readers. The responsibility of establishing a diagnosis must however remain with the attending physician.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends observation in cases of asymptomatic capsule retention.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In cases where capsule retrieval is indicated, ESGE recommends the use of device-assisted enteroscopy as the method of choice.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence., Device-Assisted Enteroscopy (dae): 1: ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.Strong recommendation, low quality evidenceThe choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE] and double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence., Competing Interests: S. Adler receives honoraria for giving seminars in capsule endoscopy, sponsored by Medtronic. E. J. Despott has received educational and travel grants and speaker’s honoraria from Fujifilm, Aquilant, Diagmed, and Medtronic (2007 to present); his department has received educational and travel grants and speaker’s honoraria from Olympus (2012 to present). I. Fernandez-Urien has received consultancy fees from Medtronic (2016 to 2017). A. Koulaouzidis is receiving material support for research from SynMed UK and IntroMedic (ongoing); his department is receiving material support from Aquilant/OMOM (ongoing); he received a research grant from Given Imaging (2011 to 2012). A. May receives speaker’s honoraria from FALK and Fujifilm; her department is receiving research support from Fujifilm (2014 to 2018), Olympus (2014 to 2018), and Interscope (2017 to 2019). S. Panter has received sponsorship support from Diagmed and Given to attend conferences and educational events (2005 to present); his department has received research fellowship funding from Aquilant and Fuji (2013 to 2015), and support for the delivery of capsule course infrastructure costs (2005 to present); he is currently the unpaid chair of the UK capsule endoscopy users’ group. G. Rahmi is giving training courses provided by Medtronic on the small-bowel capsule (2017 to 2018). C. Spada receives a consultancy fee from Medtronic. J. van Hooft’s department is currently receiving research grants from Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Medtronic. D. Domagk, C. Hassan, M. Pennazio, M.E. Riccioni, and E. Rondonotti have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Recent data imply young patients (age ≤50 years) undergoing small-bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) for iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) show higher diagnostic yield (DY) for sinister pathology. We aimed to investigate DY of CE in a large cohort of young IDA patients, and evaluate factors predicting significant SB pathology., Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, multicentre study (2010-2015) in consecutive, young patients (≤50 years) from 18 centres/12 countries, with negative bidirectional gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy undergoing SBCE for IDA. Exclusion criteria: previous/ongoing obscure-overt GI bleeding; age <19 or >50 years; comorbidities associated with IDA. Data retrieved: SBCE indications; prior investigations; medications; SBCE findings; final diagnosis. Clinical and laboratory data were analysed by multivariate logistic regression., Results: Data on 389 young IDA patients were retrieved. In total, 169 (43.4%) were excluded due to incomplete clinical data; data from 220 (122F/98M; mean age 40.5 ± 8.6 years) patients were analysed. Some 71 patients had at least one clinically significant SBCE finding (DY: 32.3%). They were divided into two groups: neoplastic pathology (10/220; 4.5%), and non-neoplastic but clinically significant pathology (61/220; 27.7%). The most common significant but non-neoplastic pathologies were angioectasias (22/61) and Crohn's disease (15/61). On multivariate analysis, weight loss and lower mean corpuscular volume(MCV) were associated with significant SB pathology (OR: 3.87; 95%CI: 1.3-11.3; p  = 0.01; and OR: 0.96; 95%CI: 0.92-0.99; p  = 0.03; respectively). Our model also demonstrates association between use of antiplatelets and significant SB pathology, although due to the small number of patients, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn., Conclusion: In IDA patients ≤50 years with negative bidirectional GI endoscopy, overall DY of SBCE for clinically significant findings was 32.3%. Some 5% of our cohort was diagnosed with SB neoplasia; lower MCV or weight loss were associated with higher DY for SB pathology.

Introduction: Optimal bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy(SBCE) is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of laxatives in SBCE., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies investigating the use of laxatives in SBCE. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield(DY) for SB findings; secondary outcomes SB visualization quality(SBVQ) and completion rate(CR). Pooled odds ratios(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) and number needed to treat(NNT) were calculated., Results: Forty studies (4380 patients with laxatives, 2185 without) were included. Laxative use did not improve DY of SB findings overall (OR 1.11 (95%CI 0.85-1.44)) or for significant SB findings (OR 1.10 (95%CI 0.76-1.60)). However, SBVQ improved with the use of laxatives (OR 1.60 (95%CI 1.08-2.06)), NNT 14. The OR for completed SBCE was 1.30 (95%CI 0.95-1.78). Patients given polyethylene glycol(PEG) had lower DY than sodium phosphate(NaP). SBVQ improved more with NaP (NNT 7) than PEG (NNT 53)., Conclusions: Laxatives do not significantly improve DY or CR in SBCE, but do improve SBQV. The use of laxatives may be beneficial in patients likely to have subtle findings. There are significant differences in methodology/definitions between studies, hence the need for standardized visualization scoring and recording of SBCE findings.

Objective: Chemotherapy for cancer is a systemic treatment often associated with side effects than can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. Few data are available on intestinal enterotoxicity. Wireless video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is a noninvasive method of imaging the small intestine. This study presents the results of VCE in patients with solid tumors undergoing antineoplastic regimens with agents, notably for toxicity for the gastrointestinal mucosa (i.e. carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, methotrexate, and cisplatin)., Materials and Methods: The capsule endoscopy procedure was performed 4-13 days after the end of the antineoplastic course. Each patient received a polyethylene-glycol solution (1000 mg×2 in 2 l of water) for bowel preparation and fasted for 10 h before ingestion of the capsule. Videos were evaluated by one operator, supervised by a second operator, and conclusions were drawn by an expert reader., Results: Twenty (age range: 38-77 years) patients were evaluated. The cecum was reached in 70% before exhaustion of the battery. The video capsule showed small widespread intestinal ulcerations in 25% and erosions in only one patient. The villus architecture appeared normal in all. VCE detected metastases in one patient with a melanoma. Few patients had more than one lesion. All capsules were passed in the stool., Conclusion: Our results suggest that chemotherapy in patients with solid cancers is associated with minimal visual small bowel injury. Factors other than damage of the intestinal mucosa causing loss of epithelium are likely involved in gastrointestinal toxicity and related symptoms.

Background and Aims: Small-bowel bleeding is the primary indication for capsule endoscopy (CE). Many experts advocate a "watch-and-wait" policy in negative CE. This meta-analysis examines the odds of rebleeding after negative index CE and the impact on long-term follow-up., Methods: A comprehensive literature search identified articles examining the rebleeding rate after negative CE. Demographic and clinical information with emphasis on outcomes was retrieved, pooled, and analyzed. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I 2 statistic. A random effects model was used as the pooling method because of high heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The primary outcome evaluated was the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for rebleeding after a negative CE for obscure GI bleeding (OGIB)., Results: Twenty-six studies with 3657 patients were included. The pooled rate of rebleeding after negative CE was .19 (95% CI, .14-.25; P < .0001). The pooled OR of rebleeding was .59 (95% CI, .37-.95; P < .001). The effect was more pronounced in studies with a short follow-up (OR, .47; 95% CI, .24-.94; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in rebleeding after CE for occult and overt OGIB. Prospective studies showed a lower OR of rebleeding of .24 (95% CI, .08-.73; P = .01). Most studies were high quality., Conclusions: Our analysis shows that negative CE provides adequate evidence of a subsequently low risk of rebleeding. Such patients can therefore be safely managed with watchful waiting. However, patients who rebleed after 2 years may need to be investigated for a new source of blood loss., (Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The incidence of small bowel tumors is increasing over time. Until recently, their diagnosis was delayed and it was often reached only at the time of surgery. New diagnostic tools, such as capsule endoscopy, device-assisted enteroscopy, and dedicated small bowel cross-sectional imaging techniques, have been introduced recently in clinical practice. The combination of these tools allows medical practitioners to detect small bowel tumors at an early stage and to reach a definite diagnosis before surgery, thus enabling minimally invasive treatments., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) remains the gold standard for practice for the diagnosis of small bowel disorders. A rather challenging task, for those who start to use this diagnostic modality, is the recognition of the typical anatomic landmarks and the distinction of normal small bowel anatomy from abnormal findings. The reader of SBCE images may also often encounter unusual views of the normal anatomy as well as various artifacts that need to be distinguished from pathologic findings. Experience gained through standard endoscopy is invaluable to the interpretation of capsule examinations; however, formalized training and credentialing in reading competency are essential., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). It addresses the roles of small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends small-bowel video capsule endoscopy as the first-line investigation in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, ESGE recommends performing small-bowel capsule endoscopy as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, optimally within 14 days, in order to maximize the diagnostic yield (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE does not recommend the routine performance of second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy; however whether to perform second-look endoscopy before capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding or iron-deficiency anaemia should be decided on a case-by-case basis (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 In patients with positive findings at small-bowel capsule endoscopy, ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by capsule endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends ileocolonoscopy as the first endoscopic examination for investigating patients with suspected Crohn's disease (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).ESGE does not recommend routine small-bowel imaging or the use of the PillCam patency capsule prior to capsule endoscopy in these patients (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In the presence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, ESGE recommends that dedicated small bowel cross-sectional imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance enterography/enteroclysis or computed tomography enterography/enteroclysis should be used first (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 6 In patients with established Crohn's disease, based on ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends dedicated cross-sectional imaging for small-bowel evaluation since this has the potential to assess extent and location of any Crohn's disease lesions, to identify strictures, and to assess for extraluminal disease (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from such cross-sectional imaging of the small bowel, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation, if deemed to influence patient management (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). When capsule endoscopy is indicated, ESGE recommends use of the PillCam patency capsule to confirm functional patency of the small bowel (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 7 ESGE strongly recommends against the use of small-bowel capsule endoscopy for suspected coeliac disease but suggests that capsule endoscopy could be used in patients unwilling or unable to undergo conventional endoscopy (strong recommendation, low quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: This prospective single-centre study aims to evaluate a new diagnostic algorithm using capsule endoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and single-balloon enteroscopy in the work-up of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding in children., Methods: The usefulness of a new diagnostic algorithm was assessed comparing the clinically relevant findings revealed by each technique, and evaluating the clinical outcomes during the follow-up., Results: A total of 22 paediatric patients were evaluated (14 male; mean age 12.5 years ± 3.9). Capsule endoscopies were positive in 14 (63.6%), suspicious in 5 (22.7%) and negative in 3 (13.6%). A second look with colon capsule identified new lesions in 2/3 (67%) of previous negative cases. Enteroscopies were able to reach the positive and suspicious findings in all but 2, in which an intraoperative enteroscopy was needed. This combined approach showed positive findings in 21/22 of cases with a diagnostic yield of 95%. Eighteen patients (82%) had a complete resolution after therapy. One patient resolved his symptoms spontaneously. Despite diagnosis, in three patients (13.6%) the gastrointestinal bleeding was not resolved after therapy., Conclusion: This algorithm achieves optimal levels of diagnostic yield (95%) and therapeutic outcome (82%). This approach deserves to be studied in a larger multicentre cohort of patients and for a longer follow-up period., (Copyright © 2014 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), differentiating masses (ie, lesions of higher probability for neoplasia) requiring more aggressive intervention from bulges (essentially, false-positive findings) is a challenging task; recently, software that enables 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction has become available., Objective: To evaluate whether "coupling" 3D reconstructed video clips with the standard 2-dimensional (s2D) counterparts helps in distinguishing masses from bulges., Design: Three expert and 3 novice SBCE readers, blind to others and in a random order, reviewed the s2D video clips and subsequently the s2D clips coupled with their 3D reconstruction (2D+3D)., Setting: Multicenter study in 3 community hospitals in Italy and a university hospital in Scotland., Patients: Thirty-two deidentified 5-minute video clips, containing mucosal bulging (19) or masses (13)., Intervention: 3D reconstruction of s2D SBCE video clips., Main Outcome Measure: Differentiation of masses from bulges with s2D and 2D+3D video clips, estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); interobserver agreement., Results: AUC for experts and novices for s2D video clips was .74 and .5, respectively (P = .0053). AUC for experts and novices with 2D+3D was .70 (compared with s2D: P = .245) and .57 (compared s2D: P = .049), respectively. AUC for experts and novices with 2D+3D was similar (P = .1846). The interobserver agreement was good for both experts and novices with the s2D (k = .71 and .54, respectively) and the 2D+3D video clips (k = .58 in both groups)., Limitations: Few, short video clips; fixed angle of 3D reconstruction., Conclusions: The adjunction of a 3D reconstruction to the s2D video reading platform does not improve the performance of expert SBCE readers, although it significantly increases the performance of novices in distinguishing masses from bulging., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aims: Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has previously been shown to have advantages over air insufflation in terms of procedure-related pain and oral insertion depth during double-balloon enteroscopy. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the performance of CO2 vs. air insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy., Patients and Methods: This study was a randomized European multicenter trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01524055). Patients and endoscopists were blinded to the type of insufflation gas used. Patient discomfort during and after the procedure was scored using a visual analog scale., Results: A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the study (52 in the CO2 group and 55 in the air group). Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean (±SD) oral intubation depth was not significantly deeper in the CO2 group vs. the air group (254±80 vs. 238±55 cm; P=0.726). However, in patients with previous abdominal surgery, oral intubation depth was significantly higher in the CO2 group compared with the air group (258±84 vs. 192±42 cm; P<0.05). In patients undergoing SBE via the anal approach, CO2 showed no significant difference in intubation depth compared with air insufflation (86±67 vs. 110±68 cm; P=0.155). The diagnostic yield was comparable (CO2 67%; air 73%). Procedure times, dosage of sedation, and therapeutic interventions did not differ between the two groups. Patients in the CO2 group reported less pain than those in the air group., Conclusions: This study demonstrated an advantage of using CO2 insufflation during single-balloon enteroscopy in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery. Overall, single-balloon enteroscopy was a well-tolerated procedure that may benefit from the use of CO2 insufflation to reduce post-procedural pain., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

The diagnosis and management of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding are often long and challenging processes. Over the last 10 years the introduction in clinical practice of new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures (i.e. Capsule Endoscopy, Computed Tomographic Enterography, Magnetic Resonance Enterography, and Device Assisted Enteroscopy) has revolutionized the diagnostic/therapeutic work-up of these patients. Based on evidence published in the last 10 years, international scientific societies have proposed new practice guidelines for the management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, which include these techniques. However, although these algorithms (the most recent ones are endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy - ASGE) allow the management of the large majority of patients, some issues still remain unsolved. The present paper reports the results of the discussion, based on the literature published up to September 2011, among a panel of experts and gastroenterologists, working with Capsule Endoscopy and with Device Assisted Enteroscopy, attending the 6th annual meeting of the Italian Club for Capsule Endoscopy and Enteroscopy. Eight unresolved issues were selected: each of them is presented as a "Burning question" and the "Answer" is the strategy proposed to manage it, according to both the available evidence and the discussion among participants., (Copyright © 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited data are available on the clinical impact of single balloon enteroscopy., Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of single balloon enteroscopy in patients with suspected small bowel disease., Methods: Data on patients with suspected small bowel disease based on non-invasive imaging, who were subjected sequentially to enteroscopy were prospectively collected., Results: 131 procedures were performed in 111 patients. The mean procedure time was 61±33min for the oral approach, and 78±41min for the anal approach. The mean insertion depth was 223±93cm beyond the ligament of Treitz, and 96±56 beyond the ileo-cecal valve. A diagnosis suspected with prior small bowel tests was confirmed in 82 patients, confidently excluded in 20, while in 9 the suspected area was not reached. Total enteroscopy was deemed clinically unnecessary in 94 patients; when total enteroscopy was attempted, it was achieved in 8 out 17 patients. Endoscopic therapeutic interventions were performed in 39 patients, medical treatment was started in 30, whereas 18 underwent to surgery. No major complications were registered., Conclusions: This study shows that single balloon enteroscopy appears to be an helpful and safe procedure with a high clinical impact, especially when it is placed in decision-making as a third level examination., (Copyright © 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a new diagnostic, endoscopic technology for colonic exploration. Current protocols of preparation led to discordant rates of adequate cleansing level or CCE excretion., Aim: To evaluate the effect of a new regimen of bowel preparation for CCE on colon cleansing levels and on rate of capsule excretion., Study: 60 patients were prospectively enrolled. The new regimen of preparation consisted of a split regimen of PEG administration and of a 45 mL dose of sodium phosphate (NaP). Four senna tablets and a low-residue diet were also included. CCE excretion rate, colon cleansing, and accuracy were assessed., Results: Forty-six patients were included in the final analysis, 13 patients (22%) being excluded because of preparation protocol deviations and one due to CCE technical failure (2%). At CCE, bowel preparation was rated as good in 78% of patients, fair in 20% and poor in 2%. CCE excretion rate occurred in 83% of patients. CCE sensitivity and specificity for significant findings was 100% and 95%, respectively., Conclusions: The combination of a split-dose of PEG solution with a low dose of NaP boosters resulted in high rates of adequate cleansing level and CCE excretion., (Copyright © 2010 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)