Jonathan A. Leighton

A Meta-Analysis of the Yield of Capsule Endoscopy Compared to Other Diagnostic Modalities in Patients with Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding

OBJECTIVES:Due to its superior ability to examine the entire small bowel mucosa, capsule endoscopy (CE) has broadened the diagnostic evaluation of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Published studies have revealed a numerically superior performance of CE in determining a source of OGIB compared with other modalities, but due to small sample sizes, the overall magnitude of benefit is unknown. Additionally, the types of lesions more likely to be found by CE versus alternate modalities are also unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of small bowel findings with CE in patients with OGIB compared to other modalities using meta-analysis.METHODS:We performed a recursive literature search of prospective studies comparing the yield of CE to other modalities in patients with OGIB. Data on yield and types of lesions identified among various modalities were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Incremental yield (IY) (yield of CE–yield of comparative modality) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of CE over comparative modalities were calculated.RESULTS:A total of 14 studies (n = 396) compared the yield of CE with push enteroscopy for OGIB. The yield for CE and push enteroscopy was 63% and 28%, respectively (IY = 35%, p < 0.00001, 95% CI = 26–43%) and for clinically significant findings (n = 376) was 56% and 26%, respectively (IY = 30%, p < 0.00001, 95% CI = 21–38%). Three studies (n = 88) compared the yield of CE to small bowel barium radiography. The yield for CE and small bowel barium radiography for any finding was 67% and 8%, respectively (IY = 59%, p < 0.00001, 95% CI = 48–70%) and for clinically significant findings was 42% and 6%, respectively (IY = 36%, p < 0.00001, 95% CI = 25–48%). Number needed to test (NNT) to yield one additional clinically significant finding with CE over either modality was 3 (95% CI = 2–4). One study each compared the yield of significant findings on CE to intraoperative enteroscopy (n = 42, IY = 0%, p = 1.0, 95% CI =−16% to 16%), computed tomography enteroclysis (n = 8, IY = 38%, p = 0.08, 95% CI =−4% to 79%), mesenteric angiogram (n = 17, IY =−6%, p = 0.73, 95% CI =−39% to 28%), and small bowel magnetic resonance imaging (n = 14, IY = 36%, p = 0.007, 95% CI = 10–62%). Ten of the 14 trials comparing CE with push enteroscopy classified the types of lesions found on examination. CE had a 36% yield for vascular lesions versus 20% for push enteroscopy, with an IY of 16% (p < 0.00001, 95% CI = 9–23%). Inflammatory lesions were also found more often in CE (11%) than in push enteroscopy (2%), with an IY of 9% (p = 0.0001, 95% CI = 5–13%). There was no significant difference in the yield of tumors or “other” findings between CE and push enteroscopy.CONCLUSIONS:CE is superior to push enteroscopy and small bowel barium radiography for diagnosing clinically significant small bowel pathology in patients with OGIB. In study populations, the IY of CE over push enteroscopy and small bowel barium radiography for clinically significant findings is ≥30% with an NNT of 3, primarily due to visualization of additional vascular and inflammatory lesions by CE.

A Meta-Analysis of the Yield of Capsule Endoscopy Compared to Other Diagnostic Modalities in Patients with Non-Stricturing Small Bowel Crohn's Disease

OBJECTIVES:Capsule endoscopy (CE) allows for direct evaluation of the small bowel mucosa in patients with Crohns disease (CD). A number of studies have revealed significantly improved yield for CE over other modalities for the diagnosis of CD, but as sample sizes have been small, the true degree of benefit is uncertain. Additionally, it is not clear whether patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD and those with suspected recurrent disease are equally likely to benefit from CE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of CE compared with other modalities in symptomatic patients with suspected or established CD using meta-analysis.METHODS:We performed a recursive literature search of prospective studies comparing the yield of CE to other modalities in patients with suspected or established CD. Data on yield among various modalities were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Incremental yield (IY) (yield of CE − yield of comparative modality) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of CE over comparative modalities were calculated. Subanalyses of patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD and those with suspected recurrent disease were also performed.RESULTS:Nine studies (n = 250) compared the yield of CE with small bowel barium radiography for the diagnosis of CD. The yield for CE versus barium radiography for all patients was 63% and 23%, respectively (IY = 40%, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 28–51%). Four trials compared the yield of CE to colonoscopy with ileoscopy (n = 114). The yield for CE versus ileoscopy for all patients was 61% and 46%, respectively (IY = 15%, p= 0.02, 95% CI = 2–27%). Three studies compared the yield of CE to computed tomography (CT) enterography/CT enteroclysis (n = 93). The yield for CE versus CT for all patients was 69% and 30%, respectively (IY = 38%, p= 0.001, 95% CI = 15–60%). Two trials compared CE to push enteroscopy (IY = 38%, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 26–50%) and one trial compared CE to small bowel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (IY = 22%, p= 0.16, 95% CI =−9% to 53%). Subanalysis of patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD showed no statistically significant difference between the yield of CE and barium radiography (p= 0.09), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (p= 0.48), CT enterography (p= 0.07), or push enteroscopy (p= 0.51). Subanalysis of patients with established CD with suspected small bowel recurrence revealed a statistically significant difference in yield in favor of CE compared with all other modalities (barium radiography (p < 0.001), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (p= 0.002), CT enterography (p < 0.001), and push enteroscopy (p < 0.001)).CONCLUSIONS:In study populations, CE is superior to all other modalities for diagnosing non-stricturing small bowel CD, with a number needed to test (NNT) of 3 to yield one additional diagnosis of CD over small bowel barium radiography and NNT = 7 over colonoscopy with ileoscopy. These results are due to a highly significant IY with CE over all other modalities in patients with established non-stricturing CD being evaluated for a small bowel recurrence. While there was no significant difference seen between CE and alternate modalities for diagnosing small bowel CD in patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD, the trend toward significance for a number of modalities suggests the possibility of a type II error. Larger studies are needed to better establish the role of CE for diagnosing small bowel CD in patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD.

Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence, clinical features, and management of endoscopic colon perforations in a large number of patients at a major medical teaching center. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records of all patients with colon perforations from endoscopy over a 10-yr period. RESULTS: A total of 10,486 colonoscopies were performed over a 10-yr period. There were 20 (0.19%) perforations and two (0.019%) deaths related to colonoscopy and two perforations with no deaths in 49,501 sigmoidoscopies (0.004%). The majority of perforations (65%) occurred in the sigmoid colon. The mean age of the patients was 72 yr (range, 48–87 yr). Multivariate analysis using gender and age showed that female gender was an independent predictor of a higher risk of perforation (p < 0.05). Electrocautery injury (36%) and mechanical injury (32%) from the tip and shaft of the endoscope were the major causes for perforation. Most patients (91%) presented within 48 h of endoscopy. Nine patients (47%) required a surgical resection with primary anastomosis; seven (37%) required a simple closure. The average hospital length of stay was 7.7 ± 2.8 days. Although trainee endoscopists were involved in only 20% of the colonoscopies performed, eight (40%) perforations occurred while the training fellow was involved in the case. However, this increased risk of perforation with a training fellow was not statistically significant (p = 0.625). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy can result in significant morbidity and carries a small risk of death. Sigmoidoscopy has lower risk. The following situations may represent increased risk to colonoscopy patients: unusual difficulty in traversing the sigmoid colon; difficult examinations in female patients, and difficult examinations performed by trainee physicians.

Double-Balloon Enteroscopy and Capsule Endoscopy Have Comparable Diagnostic Yield in Small-Bowel Disease: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy (CE) with double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in small-bowel (SB) disease using meta-analysis. METHODS We performed a search of studies comparing CE with DBE in SB disease. Data on diagnostic yield of CE and DBE were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. The weighted incremental yield (IY(W)) (yield of CE--yield of DBE) of CE over DBE and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for pooled data were calculated using a fixed-effect model (FEM) for analyses without, and a random-effect model (REM) for analyses with, significant heterogeneity. RESULTS Eleven studies compared CE and DBE; the pooled overall yield for CE and DBE was 60% (n = 397) and 57% (n = 360), respectively (IY(W), 3%; 95% CI, -4% to 10%; P = .42; FEM). Ten studies reported vascular findings; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 24% (n = 371) and 24% (n = 364), respectively (IY(W), 0%; 95% CI, -5% to 6%; P = .88; REM). Nine studies reported inflammatory findings; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 18% (n = 343) and 16% (n = 336), respectively (IY(W), 0%; 95% CI, -5% to 6%; P = .89; FEM). Nine studies reported polyps/tumors; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 11% (n = 343) and 11% (n = 336), respectively (IY(W), -1%; 95% CI, -5% to 4%; P = .76; FEM). CONCLUSIONS CE and DBE have comparable diagnostic yield in SB disease, including obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. CE should be the initial diagnostic test because of its noninvasive quality, tolerance, ability to view the entire SB, and for determining the initial route of DBE. Because of its therapeutic capabilities, DBE may be indicated in patients with a positive finding on CE requiring a biopsy or therapeutic intervention, if suspicion for a SB lesion is high despite a negative CE, and in patients with active bleeding.

Guidelines for Conscious Sedation and Monitoring During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Capsule endoscopy has a significantly higher diagnostic yield in patients with suspected and established small-bowel Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES:Capsule endoscopy (CE) has demonstrated superior performance compared with other modalities in its ability to detect early small-bowel (SB) Crohns disease (CD), especially when ileoscopy is negative or unsuccessful. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of CE compared with other modalities in patients with suspected and established CD using a meta-analysis.METHODS:A thorough literature search for prospective studies comparing the diagnostic yield of CE with other modalities in patients with CD was undertaken. Other modalities included push enteroscopy (PE), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (C+IL), SB radiography (SBR), computed tomography enterography (CTE), and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE). Data on diagnostic yield among various modalities were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Data on patients with suspected and established CD were analyzed separately. Weighted incremental yield (IYW) (diagnostic yield of CE−diagnostic yield of comparative modality) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CE over comparative modalities were calculated.RESULTS:A total of 12 trials (n=428) compared the yield of CE with SBR in patients with CD. Eight trials (n=236) compared CE with C+IL, four trials (n=119) compared CE with CTE, two trials (n=102) compared CE with PE, and four trials (n=123) compared CE with MRE. For the suspected CD subgroup, several comparisons met statistical significance. Yields in this subgroup were CE vs. SBR: 52 vs. 16% (IYw=32%, P<0.0001, 95% CI=16–48%), CE vs. CTE: 68 vs. 21% (IYw=47%, P<0.00001, 95% CI=31–63%), and CE vs. C+IL: 47 vs. 25% (IYw=22%, P=0.009, 95% CI=5–39%). Statistically significant yields for CE vs. an alternate diagnostic modality in established CD patients were seen in CE vs. PE: 66 vs. 9% (IYw=57%, P<0.00001, 95% CI=43–71%), CE vs. SBR: 71 vs. 36% (IYw=38%, P<0.00001, 95% CI=22–54%), and in CE vs. CTE: 71 vs. 39% (IYw=32%, P=<0.0001, 95% CI=16–47%).CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis demonstrates that CE is superior to SBR, CTE, and C+IL in the evaluation of suspected CD patients. CE is also a more effective diagnostic tool in established CD patients compared with SBR, CTE, and PE.

A single-center experience of 260 consecutive patients undergoing capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES:Capsule endoscopy (CE) has revolutionized the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) but published literature is limited to small series with heterogeneous indications. The aim of this study was to determine the findings and the diagnostic yield of CE in a large series of patients with overt and occult OGIB.METHODS:Data on 260 patients who underwent CE for overt (N = 126) or occult (N = 134) OGIB were obtained by retrospective chart review and review of an internal database of CE patients and findings.RESULTS:Visualization of the entire small bowel was achieved in 74%. The majority of exams (66%) were rated as having a good or excellent prep. Clinically significant positive findings occurred in 53%. The yield of CE in the obscure-overt group was greater than in the obscure-occult group (60% vs 46%, P = 0.03). Small bowel angioectasias were the most common finding, comprising over 60% of clinically significant lesions. The mean follow-up was 9.6 months, and there were significant reductions in hospitalizations, additional tests/procedures, and units of blood transfused after CE. Both before and after CE, patients in the overt group had more significant GI bleeding than patients in the occult group. Complications occurred in five (1.9%) cases: nonnatural excretion (four) and CE impaction at cricopharyngeus (one).CONCLUSIONS:The yield of clinically important findings on CE in patients with OGIB is 53% and is greater in patients with obscure-overt than obscure-occult GI bleeding. Angioectasias account for the majority of significant lesions in both groups. Compared with pre-CE, patients had clinical improvement post-CE in medical interventions for OGIB. Complications of CE occur in less than 2% of cases.

Development of a capsule endoscopy scoring index for small bowel mucosal inflammatory change.

Background  Capsule endoscopy can identify small bowel mucosal inflammatory change. However, there has been no validated index for capsule endoscopy findings. This manuscript documents the development of such an index.

ASGE guideline: The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and the management of cystic lesions and inflammatory fluid collections of the pancreas.

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis for GI Endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.