Search

The optimal small bowel preparation modality before capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is still uncertain, regarding preparation type, dose and timing of administration.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.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.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.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.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the reliability, intra- and inter-observer variation of the SPICE, Mucosal protrusion angle (MPA) and SHYUNG scores in differentiating a subepithelial mass (SEM) from a bulge.This retrospective multicentre study analysed the 3 scores, radiological studies, enteroscopy and/or surgical findings.100 patients with a potential SEM (mean age 57.6years) were recruited with 75 patients having pathology. In patients with a SEM the mean SPICE score was 2.04 (95% CI 1.82-2.26) as compared to 1.16 (95% CI 0.81-1.51) without any pathology (AUC 0.74, p0.001), with a fair intra-observer agreement (Kappa 0.3, p0.001) and slight inter-observer agreement (Kappa 0.14, p0.05). SPICE had a 37.3% sensitivity and 92.0% specificity in distinguishing between a SEM and bulge, whereas MPA90˚ had 58.7% and 76.0% respectively, with poor intra-observer(p = 0.05) and interobserver agreement (p = 0.64). The SHYUNG demonstrated a moderate intra-observer (Kappa 0.44, p0.001) and slight inter-observer reliability (Kappa 0.18, p0.001). The sensitivity of an elevated SHYUNG score (≥4) in identifying a SEM was 18.7% with a specificity of 92.0% (AUC 0.71, p = 0.002).Though these scores are easy to use, they have, at best, slight to moderate intra and inter-observer agreement. Their overall diagnostic performances are limited.