Incomplete capsule endoscopy examinations after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Small bowel capsule endoscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: A matched cohort comparison of patients with normal vs surgically altered gastric anatomy

BACKGROUND

Little is known about small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) outcomes in patients with surgically altered anatomy.

AIMS

To assess the feasibility and diagnostic yield of orally ingested SBCE to investigate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy, compared to native gastric anatomy.

METHODS

207 patients with OGIB were selected from an open, multicenter, retrospective cohort (SAGA study) and match-paired according to age, gender and bleeding type (overt/occult) to 207 control patients from a randomized controlled trial (PREPINTEST). Primary outcomes were the diagnostic yield (P1 or P2 findings), completion rate, adverse events rate, and small bowel transit time (SBTT).

RESULTS

The diagnostic yield was not statistically different between groups (44.9% in SAGA vs 42.5% in control patients). Inflammatory/ulcerated lesions were significantly more frequent in patients with SAGA (43.0% vs 29.3%). The median SBTT was significantly longer in the SAGA group than in control patients (283 vs 206 minutes), with a significantly lower completion rate (82.6% vs 89.9%); Adverse events were scarce (0.5% vs 0.0%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy should benefit from SBCE investigation for OGIB as much as non-operated patients.

Video Capsule Endoscopy after Bariatric Surgery: A Tertiary Referral Center Experience

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Minimal data are available regarding the performance of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in patients who underwent bariatric surgery. We aimed to report indications, feasibility, and safety of VCE performed after bariatric surgery, specifically focusing on diagnosis rates of Crohn's disease (CD) in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all VCE procedures was performed between January 2015 and December 2019. All patients who underwent bariatric surgery prior to VCE were included. Indication for VCE, ingestion methods, completion rates, retention rates, and endoscopic findings were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1,255 patients underwent VCE examination during the study period, of which 31 (2.5%) underwent bariatric surgery prior to VCE. The most common bariatric surgery was laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (16 patients, 51.6%), and the most common indication for VCE was evaluation of iron deficiency anemia (14 patients, 45.1%). The majority of patients ingested the capsule independently, without endoscopic assistance (20, 64.5%). Although a patency capsule was not used in our cohort, no events of capsule retention were documented. Mean transit time was 4.32 h. Only 4 events of incomplete examination were recorded. Over a median follow-up of 27.5 months (IQR 13.0-34.2), 10 patients (31.2%) had a final diagnosis of CD with a median Lewis score of 225 (IQR 135-900).

CONCLUSION

VCE is a feasible and safe procedure after bariatric surgery. Oral ingestion does not carry risk of retention. It is an effective means of diagnosis of small-bowel CD in this population.

Oral ingestion versus endoscopic delivery of endoscopic capsule in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery (ORENCES study): A Spanish multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy is the first-choice technique for investigating the majority of small bowel diseases. Its most common complications are related to incomplete examinations and capsule retention. There is no consensus on how patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery should receive the capsule.

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of complete small-bowel examinations (completion rate) between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery of the capsule. The secondary endpoint was to compare diagnostic yield and adverse events in the two groups.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted in nine hospitals in Spain. Demographic data, previous surgery, indication for capsule endoscopy, intestinal transit time, diagnosis, completion rate (percentage of capsules reaching the caecum), diagnostic yield (percentage of results compatible with indication for the exam) and adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

From January 2009 to May 2019 fifty-seven patients were included (39 male, mean age 66±15 years). The most common indications for the exam were "overt" (50.9%) and "occult" (35.1%) small bowel bleeding. Previous Billroth II gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were present in 52.6% and 17.5% of patients respectively. The capsule was swallowed in 34 patients and placed endoscopically in 23 patients. No significant differences were observed between the oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery groups in terms of completion rate (82.4% vs. 78.3%; p=0.742), diagnostic yield (41.2% vs. 52.2%; p=0.432) or small bowel transit time (301 vs. 377min, p=0.118). No capsule retention occurred. Only one severe adverse event (anastomotic perforation) was observed in the endoscopic delivery group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our case series, there were no significant differences between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery in terms of completion rate, diagnostic yield or safety. Being less invasive, oral ingestion of the capsule should be the first-choice method in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery.

Feasibility and diagnostic yield of small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy: the SAGA study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Little is known about small-bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients with a history of gastric surgery. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic yield (DY) of orally ingested SB-CE in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy.

METHODS

Twenty-four European centers retrospectively identified patients who had SB-CE after total or subtotal gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the DY of SB-CE (intermediate P1 to highly P2 relevant findings). Secondary outcomes were gastric and SB transit times, completion, cleanliness, and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

Studied were 248 procedures from 243 patients (mean age, 62 years) with a history of partial gastrectomy (Billroth I, 13.1%; Billroth II, 34.6%), total gastrectomy (7.4%), Whipple procedure (12.8%), sleeve gastrectomy (7.2%), or gastric bypass surgery (24.7%). Obscure GI bleeding was the most frequent indication (85.1%). SB completion rate was 84.3%. One capsule retention in the SB was noted (adverse event rate, .4%). Median SB transit time was 286 minutes (interquartile range [235; 387]). Cleanliness was rated as adequate in 92.1% of procedures. After exclusion of abnormalities found at the upper anastomotic site, the DY was 43.6%, with inflammatory/ulcerated lesions observed more frequently (23.4%) than vascular lesions (21.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

SB-CE seems to be feasible and safe in selected patients with a history of major gastric surgery and comes with a high DY. The spectrum of abnormal SB findings in these patients may be different from what is known from the literature in nonoperated patients.