Multicenter feasibility study of bowel preparation with castor oil for colon capsule endoscopy

Prospective study of diagnostic yields of flexible spectral imaging color enhancement installed in colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal polyps and tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We prospectively determined the efficacy of flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) used with second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) for colorectal polyps and tumors (CRTs).

METHODS

This study included optical colonoscopy within 4 months after CCE. Two colonoscopists independently reviewed CCE using white-light images (CCE-WL) and CCE using FICE images (CCE-FICE), respectively. Based on colonoscopic findings as the criterion standard, the diagnostic accuracy for CRTs was compared between CCE-WL and CCE-FICE.

RESULTS

Of 89 enrolled patients (65 men and 24 women; 75 with CRTs including 36 with serrated lesions, 63 with adenomas, and 9 with adenocarcinomas), the per-patient detectability of CCE-FICE for the representative CRTs was significantly higher than that of CCE-WL: overall CRTs (CCE-WL, 79%; CCE-FICE, 88%; P = .0001), 6- to 9-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 63%; CCE-FICE, 94%; P = .0055), and ≥6-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 78%; CCE-FICE, 93%; P = .0159). The per-lesion sensitivity of CCE-FICE was significantly higher than that of CCE-WL for CRTs: overall (CCE-WL, 61%; CCE-FICE, 79%; P < .0001), <6 mm (CCE-WL, 53%; CCE-FICE, 69%; P < .0001), 6- to 9-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 65%; CCE-FICE, 93%; P = .0007), slightly elevated CRTs (CCE-WL, 53%; CCE-FICE, 75%; P < .0001), tubular adenomas (CCE-WL, 61%; CCE-FICE, 79%; P < .0001), and serrated polyps (CCE-WL, 57%; CCE-FICE, 74%; P = .0022). Both modes detected all adenocarcinomas. No significant differences were found between CCE-WL and CCE-FICE of the per-lesion sensitivity for ≥10-mm CRTs (CCE-WL, 81%; CCE-FICE, 94%; P = .1138) or protruding CRTs (CCE-WL, 77%; CCE-FICE, 86%; P = .0614). Kappa coefficients for overall CRTs for CCE-WL and CCE-FICE were .66 and .64, respectively, which indicated substantial agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE-FICE improved the detection rates for all CRTs except adenocarcinomas, ≥10-mm polyps, and protruding polyps when compared with CCE-WL. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000021125.).

Clinical utility of colon capsule endoscopy: a moving target?

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of white light colon capsule endoscopy's current clinical application, concentrating on its most recent developments. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE2) is approved by the FDA for use as an adjunctive test in patients with incomplete colonoscopy and within Europe in patients at average risk, those with incomplete colonoscopies or those unwilling to undergo conventional colonoscopies. Since the publication of European Society of GI Endoscopy guidelines on the use of CCE, there has been a significant increase in comparative studies on the diagnostic yield of CCE. This paper discusses CCE2 in further detail. It explains newly developed colon capsule system and the current status on the use of CCE, it also provides a comprehensive summary of systematic reviews on the implementation of CCE in colorectal cancer screening from a methodological perspective. Patients with ulcerative colitis can benefit from CCE2 in terms of assessing mucosal inflammation. As part of this review, performance of CCE2 for assessing disease severity in ulcerative colitis is compared with colonoscopy. Finally, an assessment if CCE can become a cost-effective clinical service overall.

Novel Colon Preparation Method Combining Bowel Cleanser Reduction and Unique Walking

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Poor bowel preparation increases the difficulty of colonoscopy and affects lesion detection. In this study, we investigated the usefulness of a new bowel preparation method using polyethylene glycol electrolyte formulation containing ascorbic acid (PEG plus ascorbic acid: PEG-Asc, MOVIPREP) to improve bowel cleansing and shorten preparation time.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study. In the new method, patients were instructed to take a laxative the day before the examination and PEG1L on the day of the examination. In addition, we instructed the patients to walk, which we designed. The primary endpoints were the degree of bowel cleansing (assessed by the Boston bowel preparation scale, BBPS) and time to the cecum.

RESULTS

The conventional group reached the cecum in 606.5±225.8 seconds (mean±SD), whereas the introduced group reached the cecum in 500±217.1 seconds, a significantly shorter time ( P <0.05). In the BBPS, the score in the introduced group was significantly higher ( P <0.01): 6.8±2.14 points in the conventional group and 8.6±0.74 points in the introduction group.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment combining the 1L weight loss method and walking improves bowel cleansing and shortens the time to reach the cecum.

2L polyethylene glycol combined with castor oil versus 4L polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients

Inpatients are more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation compared to outpatients. Although experts recommend 4L split polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparation, bowel preparation with castor oil (CaO) was recently found to reduce the volume of solution required. The aim of the study was to evaluate the cleansing effect and safety of 2L-PEG with Cao in bowel preparation among inpatients. Our study retrospectively analyzed the medical records and colonoscopy reports of inpatients (n = 1251) who underwent colonoscopy in the Affiliated Changzhou No.2 People Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, and the inpatients were divided into 2L-PEG-CaO and 4L-PEG group according to different bowel preparation protocols. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is used to assess bowel preparation efficacy before colonoscopy. Furthermore, we also calculated other outcomes, such as polyp or adenoma detection rates and adverse events. A total of 1251 patients undergoing colonoscopy were included in this study, 738 were taken 4L-PEG and 513 2L-PEG-CaO. Both inpatients groups were matched for baseline characteristics. The 2L-PEG-CaO group was significantly higher than the 4L-PEG group on both BBPS (7.26 ± 1.75 vs 7.06 ± 1.58, P = .043) and adequate bowel cleansing rates (83.2% vs 77.4%, P = .011). Regarding adverse events, the 4L-PEG group was significantly higher than the 2L-PEG-CaO group on the incidence of abdominal fullness (6.4% vs 9.6%, P = .045) and adverse events (33.7% vs 28.5%, P = .048). The 2L split PEG with CaO preparation increased quality of bowel cleansing and improved tolerance in inpatients. Bowel preparation with 2L-PEG-CaO is suitable alternative to traditional 4L split PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy of inpatients.

Efficacy of the Castor Oil-Filled Capsule Method as Preparation for Colon Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is useful as an alternative examination for patients in whom colonoscopy is difficult. The Japanese Association for Capsule Endoscopy has published a recommended regimen for CCE using castor oil, which is becoming a standard examination method for CCE in Japan. However, castor oil has an unpleasant flavor. Therefore, patient acceptance is not good.

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to develop a castor oil-filled capsule and evaluate its feasibility and patient acceptance in a retrospective, comparative study.

METHOD

A dissolution study of pig-derived gelatin capsules filled with castor oil was performed using artificial gastric juice. The CCE excretion rates within battery lifetime, CCE examination times, endoscopic colonic cleansing levels, and patient acceptability between CCE boosters with a castor oil-filled capsule and without castor oil were retrospectively compared using medical information, clinical data, and endoscopic findings at Takada Chuo Hospital from September 2016 to August 2019.

RESULTS

The castor oil-filled capsules were completely disintegrated at approximately 1-3 min in artificial gastric juice. Bowel preparation with oil-filled capsules and without castor oil was performed in 27 and 24 patients, respectively. CCE excretion rates within battery life were 100% and 91.7% (p = 0.217), small bowel transit times were 115 min and 143 min (p = 0.046), colon transit times were 168 min and 148 min (p = 0.733), and adequate colonic cleansing rates were 85.2% and 86.3% (p = 1.000) in patients using bowel preparation with and without oil-filled capsules, respectively. Regarding acceptance, the taste was not problematic in 85.2%, and tolerability for the next CCE was 96.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

CCE using a castor oil-filled capsule method achieved high examination performance and sufficient patient tolerability.

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.

Automated evaluation of colon capsule endoscopic severity of ulcerative colitis using ResNet50

Capsule endoscopy has been widely used as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for small or large intestinal lesions. In recent years, automated lesion detection systems using machine learning have been devised. This study aimed to develop an automated system for capsule endoscopic severity in patients with ulcerative colitis along the entire length of the colon using ResNet50. Capsule endoscopy videos from patients with ulcerative colitis were collected prospectively. Each single examination video file was partitioned into four segments: the cecum and ascending colon, transverse colon, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum. Fifty still pictures (576 × 576 pixels) were extracted from each partitioned video. A patch (128 × 128 pixels) was trimmed from the still picture at every 32-pixel-strides. A total of 739,021 patch images were manually classified into six categories: 0) Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) 0, 1) MES1, 2) MES2, 3) MES3, 4) inadequate quality for evaluation, and 5) ileal mucosa. ResNet50, a deep learning framework, was trained using 483,644 datasets and validated using 255,377 independent datasets. In total, 31 capsule endoscopy videos from 22 patients were collected. The accuracy rates of the training and validation datasets were 0.992 and 0.973, respectively. An automated evaluation system for the capsule endoscopic severity of ulcerative colitis was developed. This could be a useful tool for assessing topographic disease activity, thus decreasing the burden of image interpretation on endoscopists.

Safety and efficacy of the endoscopic delivery of capsule endoscopes in adult and pediatric patients: Multicenter Japanese study (AdvanCE-J study)

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We retrospectively determined the safety and efficacy of the endoscopic delivery (ED) of capsule endoscopes.

METHODS

We enrolled 10,156 patients who underwent small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), 3182 who underwent patency capsule (PC), and 1367 who underwent colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), at 11 gastroenterological and nine pediatric centers.

RESULTS

Small bowel capsule endoscopies, PCs, and CCEs were endoscopically delivered to 546 (5.4%), 214 (6.7%), and 14 (1.0%) patients, respectively. Only mild complications occurred for 21.6% (167/774), including uneventful mucosal damage, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Successful ED of SBCE to the duodenum or jejunum occurred in 91.8% and 90.7% of patients aged <16 years and ≥16 years, respectively (P = 0.6661), but the total enteroscopy rate was higher in the first group (91.7%) than in the second (76.2%, P < 0.0001), for whom impossible ingestion (87.3%) was significantly more common than prolonged lodging in the stomach (64.2%, P = 0.0010). Successful PC and CCE delivery to the duodenum occurred in 84.1% and 28.6%, thereafter the patency confirmation rate and total colonoscopy rate was 100% and 61.5%, respectively. The height, weight, and age cutoff points in predicting spontaneous ingestion were 132 cm, 24.8 kg, and 9 years 2 months, respectively, in patients aged <16 years. Patients aged ≥16 years could not swallow the SBCEs mainly due to dysphagia (75.0%); those who retained it in the esophagus due to cardiac disease (28.6%), etc. and in the stomach due to diabetes mellitus (15.7%), etc. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale study supports the safety and efficacy of ED in adult and pediatric patients. UMIN000042020.

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

Background and study aims  Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. Patients and methods  We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Results  Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764-0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820-0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735-0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896-0.979). Conclusions  In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen.

Addition of castor oil as a booster in colon capsule regimens significantly improves completion rates and polyp detection

BACKGROUND

Incomplete excretion rates are problematic for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Widely available booster regimens are suboptimal. Recently published data on one day preparation CCE protocol using castor oil appeared effective.

AIM

To assess the impact of adding castor oil to a standard split-dose (2-d) preparation in an unselected Western patient cohort.

METHODS

All patients aged 18 or more referred to our unit for a CCE over a 5-mo period were prospectively recruited. Controls were retrospectively identified from our CCE database. All patients received split bowel preparation with Moviprep^® [polyethylene glycol (PEG)-3350, sodium sulphate, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid for oral solution; Norgine B. V, United States], a PEG-based solution used predominantly in our colonoscopy practice. Control booster regimen included Moviprep^® with 750 mL of water (booster 1) on reaching the small bowel. A further dose of Moviprep^® with 250 mL of water was given 3 h later and a bisacodyl suppository (Dulcolax^®) 10 mg after 8 h, if the capsule was not excreted. In addition to our standard booster regimen, cases received an additional 15 mL of castor oil given at the time of booster 1. A nested case control design with 2:1 ratio (control:case) was employed. Basic demographics, completion rates, image quality, colonic transit time, diagnostic yield and polyp detection were compared between groups, using a student t or chi-square tests as appropriate.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-six CCEs [mean age 60 years (18-97), 56% females, n = 104], including 62 cases have been analysed. Indication breakdown included 96 polyp surveillance (51.6%), 42 lower gastrointestinal symptoms (22.6%), 28 due to incomplete colonoscopy (15%), 18 anaemia (9.7%) and 2 inflammatory bowel disease surveillance (1.1%). Overall, CCE completion was 77% (144/186), image quality was adequate/diagnostic in 91% (170/186), mean colonic transit time was 3.5 h (0.25-13), and the polyp detection rate was 57% (106/186). Completion rates were significantly higher with castor oil, 87% cases (54/62) vs 73% controls (90/124), P = 0.01. The number needed to treat with castor oil to result in an additional complete CCE study was 7, absolute risk reduction = 14.52%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.06- 25.97. This effect of castor oil on excretion rates was more significant in the over 60 s, P < 0.03, and in females, P < 0.025. Similarly, polyp detection rates were higher in cases 82% (51/62) vs controls 44% (55/124), P = 0.0001, odds ratio 5.8, 95%CI: 2.77-12.21. Colonic transit times were similar, 3.2 h and 3.8 h, respectively. Image quality was similar, reported as adequate/ diagnostic in 90% (56/62) vs 92% (114/124).

CONCLUSION

In our capsule endoscopy centre, castor oil addition as a CCE booster significantly improved completion rates and polyp detection in an unselected Western cohort.

Follow-up outcomes in patients with negative initial colon capsule endoscopy findings

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), which became clinically applicable in 2006, is a simple and noninvasive procedure to evaluate colonic diseases; the accuracy of second-generation CCE, introduced in 2009, has dramatically improved. Currently, CCE is used as an alternative method for colorectal cancer screening, as well as for evaluating the mucosal lesions of inflammatory bowel disease, in cases where performing colonoscopy (CS) is difficult. However, the outcomes of CCE are uncertain.

AIM

To investigate the outcomes of Japanese patients with negative findings (no polyps or colorectal cancer) on initial CCE.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study was conducted at the Endoscopic Center at Aishinkai Nakae Hospital. This study included patients who underwent continuous CCE between November 2013 and August 2019, that exhibited no evidence of polyps or colorectal cancer at the initial CCE, and could be followed up using either the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), CS, or CCE. The observational period, follow-up method, presence or absence of polyps and colorectal cancer, pathological diagnosis, and number of colorectal cancer deaths were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (mean age, 60.4 ± 15.6 years; range, 28–84 years; 14 men and 17 women) were enrolled in this study. The reasons for performing the first CCE were screening in 12, a positive FIT in six, lower abdominal pain in nine, diarrhea in two, and anemia in two patients. The mean total water volume at the time of examination was 3460 ± 602 mL (2250–4800 mL), and a total CS was performed in 28 patients (90%). The degree of cleanliness was excellent in 15 patients and good in 16, and no poor cases were observed. No adverse events, such as retention or capsule aspiration, were observed in any of the patients. The mean follow-up period was 3.1 ± 1.5 years (range, 0.3–5.5 years). Follow-up included FIT in nine, CS in 20, and CCE in four patients (including duplicate patients). The FIT was positive in two patients, while CS revealed five polyp lesions (three in the ascending colon, one in the transverse colon, and one in the descending colon), with sizes ranging between 2 mm and 8 mm. Histopathological findings revealed a hyperplastic polyp in one patient, and adenoma with low grade dysplasia in four patients; colorectal cancers were not recognized. In the follow-up example by CCE, polyps and colorectal cancer could not be recognized. During the follow-up period, there were no deaths due to colorectal cancer in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

We determined the outcomes in patients with negative initial CCE findings.

Diagnostic Accuracy for Per-Patient Polyp Detection of Second-Generation Capsule Endoscopy Compared to Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Multicenter Studies

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) or capsule colonoscopy can be used as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening option. We intended to analyze the concerning literature that compared second-generation CCE to standard colonoscopy for multicenter studies only. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics related to our research including sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps detection (size: ≥ 10 mm and ≥ 6 mm). Meta-analysis was performed using an open meta-analyst. Our research included five studies, involving a total of 1518 patients, with a total of 1305 analyzed patients. The adequate bowel preparation rate ranged from 70% to 90%. The rates of complete CCE transit fluctuated from 80% to 100%. Our meta-analysis illustrated that mean (95% confidence interval) per-patient sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.86 (0.82-0.91) (p < 0.001), 0.88 (0.72-0.96) (p < 0.001), and 50.7 (18.5-138.9) (p < 0.001), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm; and 0.86 (0.8-0.91) (p < 0.001), 0.96 (0.92-0.98) (p < 0.001), and 173.5 (98.4-305.8) (p < 0.001), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm. We concluded that CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps vs. standard colonoscopy. Nevertheless, the comparatively higher rate of unfinished CCEs limits the utilization of CCE for CRC screening.

Feasibility of patency capsule and colon capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected gastrointestinal stenosis: a prospective study

Patency capsule (PC) can evaluate the patency of gastrointestinal (GI) tract. We hypothesized preceding patient selection using PC would improve the successful rate of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Therefore, a prospective single-arm study using PC followed by CCE was conducted with a control group of CCE alone. Patients with suspected or known GI stenosis scheduled for CCE were enrolled. CCE was performed only when the PC was excreted out of the body within 33 hours of ingestion. Primary endpoint was the rate of observation of the entire GI tract within the duration of examination. The secondary endpoints were complications and CCE findings. Twenty-three patients (17 men) were enrolled. The mean age was 50.5±19.8 years. Suspected stenotic sites were 8, 5, and 10 in the small, large, and small and large bowel, respectively. Sixteen, 12, and 10 patients had abdominal pain, active inflammatory bowel disease, and history of surgery for suspected stenosis, respectively. Patency of GI tract was confirmed in 96% (22/23) of the patients by administered PC. Of the 22 patients who underwent CCE, the entire GI tract was observed in 86% (19/22). No complications were observed. The median transit times in the small bowel and colon were 99 (21–682) and 160 (5–328) minutes, respectively. CCE findings revealed ulcers, erosions, and diverticula in 5, 9, and 4 patients, respectively. In conclusion, CCE with PC might be a safer and useful modality to observe the large colon for patients with suspected GI stenosis.

Lavage, Simethicone, and Prokinetics-What to Swallow with a Video Capsule

The development of new capsules now allows endoscopic diagnosis in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract and comes with new needs for differentiated preparation regimens. Although the literature is steadily increasing, the results of the conducted trials on preparation are sometimes conflicting. The ingestion of simethicone before gastric and small bowel capsule endoscopy for prevention of air bubbles is established. The value of a lavage before small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended, although not supported by all studies. Ingestion in the morning before the procedure seems useful for the improvement of mucosa visualization. Lavage after swallowing of the capsule seems to improve image quality, and in some studies also diagnostic yield. Prokinetics has been used with first generation capsules to shorten gastric transit time and increase the rate of complete small bowel visualization. With the massively prolonged battery capacity of the new generation small bowel capsules, prokinetics are only necessary in significantly delayed gastric emptying as documented by a real-time viewer. Lavage is crucial for an effective colon capsule or pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy. Mainly high or low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) is used. Apart from achieving optimal cleanliness, propulsion of the capsule by ingested boosts is required to obtain a complete passage through the colon within the battery lifetime. Boosts with low volume sodium picosulfate (NaP) or diatrizoate (gastrografin) seem most effective, but potentially have more side effects than PEG. Future research is needed for more patient friendly but effective preparations, especially for colon capsule and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy.

Castor oil as booster for colon capsule endoscopy preparation reduction: A prospective pilot study and patient questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Preparation for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires a large liquid laxative volume for capsule excretion, which compromises the procedure's tolerability.

AIM

To assess the safety and utility of castor oil-boosted bowel preparation.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study including 20 patients (age range, 16-80 years; six men and 14 women) suspected of having colorectal disease was conducted at Kindai University Hospital from September 2017 to August 2019. All patients underwent CCE because of the following inclusion criteria: previous incomplete colonoscopy in other facility (n = 20), history of abdominal surgery (n = 7), or organ abnormalities such as multiple diverticulum (n = 4) and adhesion after surgery (n = 6). The exclusion criteria were as follows: Dysphagia, history of allergic reactions to the drugs used in this study (magnesium citrate, polyethylene glycol, metoclopramide, and castor oil), possibility of pregnancy, possibility of bowel obstruction or stenosis based on symptoms, or scheduled magnetic resonance imaging within 2 wk after CCE. The primary outcome was the capsule excretion rate within the battery life, as evaluated by the total large bowel observation rate, large bowel transit time, and bowel creasing level using a five-grade scale in different colorectal segments. The secondary outcomes were complications, colorectal lesion detection rates, and patients’ tolerability.

RESULTS

The castor oil-based regimen was implemented in 17 patients. Three patients cancelled CCE because they could tolerate castor oil, but not liquid laxatives. The capsule excretion rate within the battery life was 88% (15/17). The mean large bowel transit time was 236 min. Approximately 70% of patients had satisfactory colon cleansing levels. CCE detected colon polyps (14/17, 82%) and colonic diverticulum (4/12, 33%). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy rates for detecting colorectal polyps (size ≥ 6 mm) were 76.9%, 75.0%, and 76.4%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy rates for detection of diverticulum were 100% each. Twelve patients (71%) rated CCE as more than “good”, confirming the new regimen’s tolerability. No serious adverse events occurred during this study.

CONCLUSION

The castor oil-based regimen could reduce bowel preparation dose and improve CCE tolerability.

Diagnostic accuracy of capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy for polyp detection: systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a technology that might contribute to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs as a filter test between fecal immunochemical testing and standard colonoscopy. The aim was to systematically review the literature for studies investigating the diagnostic yield of second-generation CCE compared with standard colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Study characteristics including quality of bowel preparation and completeness of CCE transits were extracted. Per-patient sensitivity and specificity were extracted for polyps (any size, ≥ 10 mm, ≥ 6 mm) and lesion characteristics. Meta-analyses of diagnostic yield were performed.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 1077 unique papers and 12 studies were included. Studies involved a total of 2199 patients, of whom 1898 were included in analyses. The rate of patients with adequate bowel preparation varied from 40 % to 100 %. The rates of complete CCE transit varied from 57 % to 100 %. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that mean (95 % confidence interval) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were: 0.85 (0.73-0.92), 0.85 (0.70-0.93), and 30.5 (16.2-57.2), respectively, for polyps of any size; 0.87 (0.82-0.90), 0.95 (0.92-0.97), and 136.0 (70.6-262.1), respectively, for polyps ≥ 10 mm; and 0.87 (0.83-0.90), 0.88 (0.75-0.95), and 51.1 (19.8-131.8), respectively, for polyps ≥ 6 mm. No serious adverse events were reported for CCE.

CONCLUSION

CCE had high sensitivity and specificity for per-patient polyps compared with standard colonoscopy However, the relatively high rate of incomplete investigations limits the application of CCE in a CRC screening setting.

Colon capsule endoscopy is a viable alternative to colonoscopy for the investigation of intermediate- and low-risk patients with gastrointestinal symptoms: results of a pilot study

Background and study aims  Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a recommended viable alternative to colonoscopy for colonic visualisation in a variety of clinical settings with proven efficacy in polyp detection, surveillance, screening and Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) assessment. CCE efficacy in an unselected average risk symptomatic cohort has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of CCE imaging assessment in average risk symptomatic patients as an alternative to colonoscopy with and without additional biomarker assessment. Patients and methods  This was a prospective, single-center comparison study of colonoscopy, CCE and biomarker assessment. Results  Of 77 invited subjects, 66 underwent both a CCE and colonoscopy. A fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and fecal calprotectin (FC) were available in 56 and 59 subjects. In all 64 % (n = 42) had any positive finding with 16 (24 %) found to have significant disease (high-risk adenomas, IBD) on colonoscopy. The CCE completion rate was 76 %, five (8 %) had an inadequate preparation, the CCE polyp detection rate was high at 35 %. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of CCE for significant disease were 81 %, 98 %, 93 % and 94 % respectively. In addition, three (5 %) significant small bowel diagnoses were made on CCE. FC and FIT were frequently elevated in patients with both colitis (5/7, 71 %) and high-risk adenomas (4/7 57 %). While both had a low positive predictive value for clinically significant disease, FIT 32 % and FC 26 %. Conclusions  CCE is a safe and effective alternative to colonoscopy in symptomatic average risk patients with or without the addition of biomarker screening.

Current status of colon capsule endoscopy

While both the annual incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer are slowly but steadily decreasing in the United States, the incidence of such malignancy is increasing in Japan. Thus, controlling colorectal cancer in Japan is a major concern. In 2006, colon capsule endoscopy was first introduced by Eliakim et al. First-generation colon capsule endoscopy had a moderate sensitivity for detecting polyps of more than 6 mm. Thus, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy was developed to achieve higher sensitivity. Colonoscopy is the gold standard tool for colorectal cancer surveillance. With an improvement in the imaging function, the performance of second-generation colon capsule endoscopy is almost as satisfactory as that of colonoscopy. Certain situations, such as incomplete colonoscopy and contraindication for use of sedation, can benefit from colon capsule endoscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy requires a more extensive bowel preparation than colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography because it requires laxatives not only for bowel cleansing but also for promoting the excretion of the capsule. Another problem with colon capsule endoscopy includes the burden of reading and interpretation and overlook of the lesions. Currently, the development of automatic diagnosis of colon capsule endoscopy using artificial intelligence is still under progress. Although the available guidelines do not support the use of colon capsule endoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease, the possible application of colon capsule endoscopy is ulcerative colitis. This review article summarizes and focuses on the current status of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and the possibility for its applicability on inflammatory bowel disease.

Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn's disease lesions in the whole gastrointestinal tract

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) can involve the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract as well as the small and large bowel. PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (PCCE-2) enables observation of the whole GI tract, but its diagnostic yield for CD lesions in the whole GI tract remains unknown.

AIM

To elucidate the diagnostic yield of PCCE-2 in patients with CD.

METHODS

Patients with CD who underwent PCCE-2 and double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) using oral and anal approaches were evaluated for CD lesions in the whole GI tract. We divided the small bowel into three segments (jejunum, ileum, and terminal ileum), and the large bowel into four segments (right colon, transverse colon, left colon, rectum). Detection of ulcer scars, erosion, ulcers, bamboo joint-like appearance, and notch-like appearance was assessed in each segment. The diagnostic yield of PCCE-2 was analyzed based on the DBE results as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Of the total 124 segments, the sensitivities of PCCE-2 for ulcer scars, erosion, and ulcers were 83.3%, 93.8%, and 88.5%, respectively, and the specificities were 76.0%, 78.3%, and 81.6%, respectively. For the 60 small bowel segments, the sensitivities were 84.2%, 95.5%, and 90.0%, respectively, and the specificities were 63.4%, 86.8%, and 87.5%, respectively. For the 64 large bowel segments, the sensitivities were 80.0%, 90.0%, and 83.3%, respectively, and the specificities were 84.7%, 72.2%, and 77.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PCCE-2 provides a high diagnostic yield for lesions in the whole GI tract of patients with CD. Thus, we recommend its use as a pan-enteric tool in clinical settings.

Colon Capsule Endoscopy in Detecting Colonic Diverticula in a Japanese Population

Objective

The assessment of colonic diverticula with colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) in a Japanese population provided unclear results. In this study, we retrospectively reviewed a cohort of Japanese patients who had undergone CCE to assess its safety and usefulness in the diagnosis of colonic diverticula.

Methods

In this study, 175 consecutive Japanese patients who had their entire colon observed via CCE from November 2013 to July 2018 were included. Patients were retrospectively stratified according to age, gender, colonic segment, and symptoms involvement. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to investigate the presence of any correlation among variables. The safety of CCE was assessed in terms of the incidence of adverse events (AEs).

Results

Colonic diverticula were observed in 42.3% of all cases; of those; 36.5% were right-sided, 31.1% were left-sided, and 32.4% were bilateral. Moreover, one to two colonic diverticula were observed in 35.1%, while three or more diverticula were seen in 64.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that age (≥70 years) was positively associated with colonic diverticula, while male gender and the presence of colonic polyps were negatively associated with colonic diverticula. No correlation was found between colonic diverticula and symptoms. There was no significant difference between groups with and without colonic diverticula in the incidence of AEs. AEs were mild in severity, with no severe AE-related bowel preparation and capsule ingestion reported.

Conclusion

CCE was well-tolerated by the participants, and the incidence of colonic diverticula was 42.3%, with one to two and three or more diverticula being found in 35.1% and 64.9%, respectively. There was little difference in the frequency of colonic diverticula formation on the right side, left side, and on both sides. Age was a positive association factor, while male gender and the presence of colorectal polyps were negative association factors. No correlation was found between diverticula and symptoms.

A Randomized Trial of Split Dose 3 L Polyethylene Glycol Lavage Solution, 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Lavage Combined With Castor Oil, and 1 L of Polyethylene Glycol Lavage Solution Combined With Castor Oil and Ascorbic Acid for Preparation for Colonoscopy

Background: Castor oil (CaO) has the potential of halving the required volume of bowel preparation solution; however, no clinical trial investigated the efficacy of CaO on bowel preparation for colonoscopy in addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG).

Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate efficacy and safety of lower dose PEG together with 30 mL CaO alone or plus ascorbic acid (Asc) in bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Methods: Two hundred and forty-six patients were allocated randomly to ingest 2 L PEG with 30 mL CaO, 1 L PEG with 30 mL CaO plus 5 g Asc, or 3 L PEG. We used Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate bowel preparation efficacy. We also determined other outcomes such as procedure time, polyp or adenoma detection rate, and adverse events (AEs).

Results: Of 282 patients recruited, 36 were excluded. Groups were matched for baseline characteristics except weight (P = 0.020) and body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.003). Patient's satisfaction was higher in 2 L PEG-CaO (P = 0.016) and 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc groups (P = 0·017). Patients' compliance was 67.5, 71.4, and 80.5% in 3 L PEG, 2 L PEG-CaO, and 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc groups (P = 0.014). Adequate bowel preparation rate was 75, 78.57, and 53.66% in 3 L PEG, 2 L PEG-CaO, and 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc groups (P = 0.021). There were no differences in terms of remaining outcomes.

Conclusions: Despite an increase in patients' satisfaction and compliance, 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc significantly decreased adequate bowel preparation rate. However, 2 L PEG-CaO improved the patients' satisfaction and compliance and increased adequate bowel preparation rate (Registration number, ChiCTR-IIR-17012418).