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.

Introduction: The execution of upper endoscopy at the proper time is key to correctly managing patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Nonetheless, the definition of “time” for endoscopic examinations in UGIB patients is imprecise. The primary aim of this study was to verify whether the different definitions of “time” (i.e., the symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes) impact mortality. The secondary purpose of this study was to evaluate the similarity between the two timeframes. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was performed on a prospective multicenter cohort study, which included UGIB patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals. We collected the timings from symptoms and presentation to endoscopy, together with other demographic, organizational and clinical data and outcomes. Results: Out of the 3324 patients in the cohort, complete time data were available for 3166 patients. A significant difference of 9.2 h (p < 0.001) was found between the symptoms-to-endoscopy vs. presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes. The symptoms-to-endoscopy timeframe demonstrated (1) a different death risk profile and (2) a statistically significant improvement in the prediction of mortality risk compared to the presentation-to-endoscopy timeframe (p < 0.0002). The similarity between the two different timeframes was moderate (K = 0.42 ± 0.01; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The symptoms-to-endoscopy and presentation-to-endoscopy timeframes referred to different timings during the management of upper endoscopy in bleeding patients, with the former being more accurate in correctly identifying the mortality risk of these patients. We suggest that further studies be conducted to validate our observations, and, if confirmed, a different definition of time should be adopted in endoscopy.

The role of Helicobater pylori eradication in the treatment of high-grade diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the stomach is unclear.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available data. DLBCL-remission rate after eradication therapy, post-remission maintenance, and response rate in the case of additional oncological therapy were extracted.By considering data of seven studies, the DLBCL remission was achieved in 81 (53.3%; 95% CI = 45.3-61.2) out of 152 H. pylori eradicated patients. The regression rate did not differ between pure DLCBL and DLCBL with MALT component, between stage I and stage II disease, and between Caucasians and Asians. Disease regression was maintained in all patients after at a median of 63 months (range: 46-29) follow-up. In those non-responders, DLBLC remission after additional chemo-immunotherapy was achieved in 63 (98.4%; 95% CI = 95.4-100) out of 64 patients.Data this systematic review suggest considering H. pylori eradication as first-line therapy to treat infected patients with early-stage, high-grade gastric lymphoma.

Nowadays, capsule endoscopy (CE) is the first-line procedure after negative upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Approximately, two-thirds of patients undergoing CE for OGIB will have a small-bowel abnormality. However, several patients who underwent CE for OGIB had the source of their blood loss in the stomach or in the colon. The aim of the present study is to determine the incidence of bleeding lesions missed by the previous gastroscopy/colonoscopy with CE and to evaluate the indication to repeat a new complete endoscopic workup in subjects related to a tertiary center for obscure bleeding before CE.We prospectively reviewed data from 637/1008 patients underwent to CE for obscure bleeding in our tertiary center after performing negative gastroscopy and colonoscopy.CE revealed a definite or likely cause of bleeding in stomach in 138/637 patients (yield 21.7%) and in the colon in 41 patients (yield 6.4%) with a previous negative gastroscopy and colonoscopy, respectively. The lesions found were outside the small bowel in only 54/637 (8.5%) patients. In 111/138 patients, CE found lesions both in stomach and small bowel (small-bowel erosions in 54, AVMs in 45, active small-bowel bleeding in 4, neoplastic lesions in 3 and distal ileum AVMs in 5 patients). In 24/41 (58.5%) patients, CE found lesions both in small bowel and colon (multiple small-bowel erosions in 15; AVMs in 8 and neoplastic lesion in 1 patients. All patients underwent endoscopic therapy or surgery for their nonsmall-bowel lesions.Lesions in upper or lower GI tract have been missed in about 28% of patients submitted to CE for obscure bleeding. CE may play an important role in identifying lesions missed at conventional endoscopy.