Efficacy of bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy as first-line procedure in patients with suspected mid or lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE) evaluates the small bowel and colon noninvasively. This study evaluated diagnostic accuracy and safety of PCE vs. colonoscopy as first-line examination in suspected mid-lower gastrointestinal bleeding (MLGIB).

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center, single-blinded cohort study, consecutive patients with suspected MLGIB underwent PCE followed by same-day colonoscopy. Diagnostic accuracy for potentially hemorrhagic lesions (PHLs; combined diagnosis by PCE + colonoscopy) and incidence of adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

100 patients were included (median age 70 [range 18-92] years; 65% female). PHLs were diagnosed in 46 patients, including small-bowel and/or colon angioectasias in 32. PCE correctly identified 54 individuals without PHLs, and 95.7% (44/46) of those with PHLs vs. 50.0% (23/46) for colonoscopy (P<0.01). PHLs were detected by PCE alone in 65.2% (30/46), both examinations in 28.3% (13/46), and colonoscopy alone in 6.5% (3/46). PHLs were diagnosed at the ileocolonic region in 28% of patients, with PCE diagnosing 25/28 cases (89.3%) and colonoscopy diagnosing 23/28 (82.1%; P=0.13). Interventional procedures were performed at colonoscopy in 13/81 patients with iron-deficiency anemia (16.0%) vs. 6/19 patients with overt bleeding (31.6%; P<0.01). No significant adverse events occurred with PCE vs. 2% with colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with MLGIB, PCE avoided further invasive procedures in >50% of patients. PCE was safe and more effective than colonoscopy in identifying PHL both in the small bowel and colon. These results support the potential use of PCE as first-line examination in patients with suspected MLGIB.

What Is the Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Colonoscopy and Pan-intestinal Capsule Endoscopy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The rate of adequate cleansing (ACR) and complete examinations (CR) are key quality indicators in capsule colonoscopy (CC) and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE).

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of bowel preparation protocols regarding ACR and CR.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, search terms regarding colon capsule preparation, publication date from 2006/01, and date of search 2021/12, in six bibliographic databases. Multiple steps of the cleansing protocol were assessed: diet, adjunctive laxatives, purgative solution, use of prokinetic agents, and "booster". The meta-analytical frequency of ACR and CR was estimated, and subgroup analyses performed. Strategies associated with higher ACR and CR were explored using meta-analytical univariable and multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies and five RCTs included (n = 4072 patients). The pooled rate of ACR was 72.5% (95% C.I. 67.8-77.5%; I2 = 92.4%), and the pooled rate of CR was 83.0% (95% C.I. 78.7-87.7%; I2 = 96.5%). The highest ACR were obtained using a low-fibre diet [78.5% (95% C.I. 72.0-85.6%); I2 = 57.0%], adjunctive laxatives [74.7% (95% C.I. 69.8-80.1%); I2 = 85.3%], and split dose < 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) as purgative [77.5% (95% C.I. 68.4-87.8%); I2 = 47.3%]. The highest CR were observed using routine prokinetics prior to capsule ingestion [84.4% (95% C.I. 79.9-89.2%); I2 = 89.8%], and sodium phosphate (NaP) as "booster" [86.2% (95% C.I. 82.3-90.2%); I2 = 86.8%]. In univariable models, adjunctive laxatives were associated with higher ACR [OR 1.81 (95% C.I. 1.13; 2.90); p = 0.014]. CR was higher with routine prokinetics [OR 1.86 (95% C.I. 1.13; 3.05); p = 0.015] and split-dose PEG purgative [OR 2.03 (95% C.I. 1.01; 4.09), p = 0.048].

CONCLUSIONS

Main quality outcomes (ACR, CR) remain suboptimal for CC and PCE. Despite considerable heterogeneity, our results support low-fibre diet, use of adjunctive sennosides, split dose < 4L PEG, and routine prokinetics, while NaP remains the most consistent option as booster.

Colon CApsule endoscopy compared to conventional COlonoscopy in patients with colonic DIverticulitis: the study protocol for a randomised controlled superiority trial (CACODI trial)

INTRODUCTION

Follow-up after an episode of colonic diverticulitis is a common indication for colonoscopy, even though studies have shown a low risk of positive findings in this population. Our objective is to investigate colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as a follow-up examination in patients with colonic diverticulitis compared with colonoscopy, particularly regarding patient satisfaction and clinical performance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients seen at Odense University Hospital with acute diverticulitis confirmed by CT will be included and randomised to either follow-up by colonoscopy or CCE. Detection of suspected cancer, more than two polyps or any number of polyps larger than 9 mm in CCE will generate an invitation to a diagnostic colonoscopy for biopsies or polyp removal. We will compare colonoscopy and CCE regarding patient satisfaction and tolerance, the number of complete examinations, the number of patients referred to a subsequent colonoscopy after CCE and the prevalence of diverticula, polyps, cancers and other abnormal findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Informed consent will be obtained from all participants before randomisation. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee (ref. S-20210127) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (ref. 22/43235). After completion of the trial, we plan to publish two articles in high-impact journals. One article on both primary and secondary outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05700981.

An evaluation of a novel bowel preparation regimen and its effect on the utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective cohort study with historical controls

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel bowel preparation and booster regimen for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) using macrogol, phospho-soda and gastrografin, compared with a control regimen consisting of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study using historical controls. Symptomatic patients undergoing CCE between 11/07/2021 and 21/12/2021 using the novel regimen were included. Symptomatic patients who underwent CCE in the ScotCap evaluation using the control regimen were used as historical controls. We measured the rate of complete test (visualisation of the whole colon and rectum), adequate bowel preparation, successful test (complete and adequate bowel preparation) and need for further test following CCE. The rate of adverse events was also collected.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing CCE using the new and control regimen were 200 and 316, respectively. The median age, age range and proportion of female patients in the new and control regimen cohorts was 61 vs 60 years, 16-86 vs 20-83 years, and 60.5% vs 56.6%. The rate of complete test, adequate bowel reparation and successful test for the new and control regimen was 69% vs 72.2%, 86.6% vs 80.7% and 60.5% vs 65.8%. Comparing the new and control regimen, 39.5% vs 37.3% of patients required no test following CCE, 26% vs 32.6% required a colonoscopy, 31.5% vs 21.5% required a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 3% vs 2.9% required a computed tomography colonogram. No adverse events were reported using the new regimen compared to 2 (0.6%) in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of adequate bowel preparation has improved following the introduction of a new regimen. However, further work is needed to increase the complete test rate. A significant proportion of patients continue to avoid colonoscopy following CCE.

Robotic Colonoscopy and Beyond: Insights into Modern Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis and removal of colonic polyps. Delays in colonoscopy following a positive fecal immunochemical test increase the likelihood of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence. However, patients may refuse to undergo conventional colonoscopy (CC) due to fear of possible risks and pain or discomfort. In this regard, patients undergoing CC frequently require sedation to better tolerate the procedure, increasing the risk of deep sedation or other complications related to sedation. Accordingly, the use of CC as a first-line screening strategy for CRC is hampered by patients' reluctance due to its invasiveness and anxiety about possible discomfort. To overcome the limitations of CC and improve patients' compliance, several studies have investigated the use of robotic colonoscopy (RC) both in experimental models and in vivo. Self-propelling robotic colonoscopes have proven to be promising thanks to their peculiar dexterity and adaptability to the shape of the lower gastrointestinal tract, allowing a virtually painless examination of the colon. In some instances, when alternatives to CC and RC are required, barium enema (BE), computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be options. However, BE and CTC are limited by the need for subsequent investigations whenever suspicious lesions are found. In this narrative review, we discussed the current clinical applications of RC, CTC, and CCE, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different endoscopic procedures, with a particular focus on RC.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy - Shining the Light through the Colon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a non-invasive, wireless capsule endoscope. In this article, we review its current applications, compare its performance with optical colonoscopy (OC) and alternative imaging modalities like CT colonography (CTC), and highlight developments that may increase potential future use.

RECENT FINDINGS

By comparison to OC both CCE and CTC have a good sensitivity and specificity in detecting colonic polyps. CCE is more sensitive in detecting sub centimetre polyps. CCE is capable of detecting colonic inflammation and anorectal pathologies, commonly missed by CTC. However, rates of complete CCE examinations are limited by inadequate bowel preparation or incomplete colonic transit, whereas CTC can be performed with less bowel purgatives. Patients tolerate CCE better than OC, however patient preference between CCE and CTC vary. CCE and CTC are both reasonable alternatives to OC. Strategies to improve completion rates and adequacy of bowel preparation will improve cost and clinical effectiveness of CCE.

Clean mucosal area detection of gastroenterologists versus artificial intelligence in small bowel capsule endoscopy

Studies comparing the detection of clean mucosal areas in capsule endoscopy (CE) using human judgment versus artificial intelligence (AI) are rare. This study statistically analyzed gastroenterologist judgments and AI results. Three hundred CE video clips (100 patients) were prepared. Five gastroenterologists classified the video clips into 3 groups (≥75% [high], 50%-75% [middle], and < 50% [low]) according to their subjective judgment of cleanliness. Visualization scores were calculated using an AI algorithm based on the predicted visible area, and the 5 gastroenterologists' judgments and AI results were compared. The 5 gastroenterologists evaluated CE clip video quality as "high" in 10.7% to 36.7% and as "low" in 28.7% to 60.3% and 29.7% of cases, respectively. The AI evaluated CE clip video quality as "high" in 27.7% and as "low" in 29.7% of cases. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in the 6 evaluation indicators (5 gastroenterologists and 1 AI) (P < .001). Among the 300 judgments, 90 (30%) were consistent with 5 gastroenterologists' judgments, and 82 (91.1%) agreed with the AI judgments. The "high" and "low" judgments of the gastroenterologists and AI agreed in 95.0% and 94.9% of cases, respectively. Bonferroni's multiple comparison test showed no significant difference between 3 gastroenterologists and AI (P = .0961, P = 1.0000, and P = .0676, respectively) but a significant difference between the other 2 with AI (P < .0001). When evaluating CE images for cleanliness, the judgments of 5 gastroenterologists were relatively diverse. The AI produced a relatively universal judgment that was consistent with the gastroenterologists' judgements.

The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a very low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative to a conventional high-volume laxative. We carried out a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study including patients referred for CCE. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis, with eighty-three patients in each group. We found a CR and ACR of 77% and 67% in the high-volume group and 72% and 75% in the very low-volume group, respectively. In the high-volume group, 54% had complete transit and adequate cleansing, whereas this was the case for 63% in the very low-volume group. No statistically significant difference in CR, ACR, or a combination of the two was found. A very low-volume bowel preparation regimen was non-inferior to a high-volume regimen before CCE in terms of CR and ACR.

An Expert Consensus to Standardize Assessment of Bowel Cleansing for Clinical Trials of Bowel Preparations for Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures.

AIMS

To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process.

METHODS

Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies.

The optimal use of colon capsule endoscopes in clinical practice

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has been available for nearly two decades but has grappled with being an equal diagnostic alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, CCE has gained more foothold in clinical practice. In this cutting-edge review, we aim to present the existing knowledge on the pros and cons of CCE and discuss whether the modality is ready for a larger roll-out in clinical settings. We have included clinical trials and reviews with the most significant impact on the current position of CCE in clinical practice and discuss the challenges that persist and how they could be addressed to make CCE a more sustainable imaging modality with an adenoma detection rate equal to OC and a low re-investigation rate by a proper preselection of suitable populations. CCE is embedded with a very low risk of severe complications and can be performed in the patient's home as a pain-free procedure. The diagnostic accuracy is found to be equal to OC. However, a significant drawback is low completion rates eliciting a high re-investigation rate. Furthermore, the bowel preparation before CCE is extensive due to the high demand for clean mucosa. CCE is currently not suitable for large-scale implementation in clinical practice mainly due to high re-investigation rates. By a better preselection before CCE and the implantation of artificial intelligence for picture and video analysis, CCE could be the alternative to OC needed to move away from in-hospital services and relieve long-waiting lists for OC.

Castor Oil in Bowel Preparation Regimens for Colon Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Completing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) investigations rely on successful transit and acceptable bowel preparation quality. We investigated the effect of adding castor oil to the CCE bowel preparation regimen on the completion rate using a meta-analysis of existing literature. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates for excretion rate and acceptable bowel preparation rate were calculated. We identified 72 studies matching our search criteria, and six were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the studies had control groups, although two used historical cohorts. The pooled excretion rate (92%) was significantly higher in patients who received castor oil than in those who did not (73%). No significant difference in acceptable colonic cleanliness was observed. Castor oil has been used in a few studies as a booster for CCE. This meta-analysis shows the potential for this medication to improve excretion rates, and castor oil could be actively considered in conjunction with other emerging laxative regimens in CCE. Still, prospective randomized trials with appropriate control groups should be conducted before any conclusions can be drawn. Prospero ID: CRD42022338939.

Comment on “Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: A state-of-the-art review”

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was introduced nearly two decades ago. Initially, it was limited by poor image quality and short battery time, but due to technical improvements, it has become an equal diagnostic alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC). Hastened by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, CCE has been introduced in clinical practice to relieve overburdened endoscopy units and move investigations to out-patient clinics. A wider adoption of CCE would be bolstered by positive patient experience, as it offers a diagnostic investigation that is not inferior to other modalities. The shortcomings of CCE include its inability to differentiate adenomatous polyps from hyperplastic polyps. Solving this issue would improve the stratification of patients for polyp removal. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in polyp detection and characterization to minimize incomplete CCEs and avoid needless examinations. Onboard AI appears to be a needed application to enable near-real-time decision-making in order to diminish patient waiting times and avoid superfluous subsequent OCs. With this letter, we discuss the potential and role of AI in CCE as a diagnostic tool for the large bowel.