BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Patients with spondyloarthropathies are often found to have signs of small-bowel inflammation when examined by ileocolonoscopy. Because capsule endoscopy has been found to be superior to other endoscopic and radiological modalities in the detection of small-bowel inflammation, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy with that of ileocolonoscopy in the detection of small-bowel lesions in patients with spondyloarthropathies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with documented seronegative peripheral arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or sacroiliitis, who had not taken nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the preceding 2 months, participated in the study. The patients underwent capsule endoscopy, followed by ileocolonoscopy within 7 days, with blinded assessment of both examinations. Biopsies were taken when indicated and adverse events were monitored. Patients completed a questionnaire on their satisfaction with the two procedures. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (11 men, 9 women; mean age 41+/-13 years) with seronegative inflammatory spondyloarthropathies but without abdominal complaints completed the study. No adverse effects were reported and all the capsules were excreted. Of these 20 patients, 11 (55%) had a normal small bowel on both examinations. Significant small-bowel findings (erythema, mucosal breaks, aphthous or linear ulcers, erosions) were detected by capsule endoscopy in six patients (30%) and by ileocolonoscopy in only one patient. In addition, capsule endoscopy detected significant upper gastrointestinal pathology in 40% of patients. The patients preferred capsule endoscopy to ileocolonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy detected more small-bowel lesions than ileocolonoscopy, and provided additional potentially relevant information on upper gastrointestinal pathology in patients with spondyloarthropathies.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Patients with spondyloarthropathies are often found to have signs of small-bowel inflammation when examined by ileocolonoscopy. Because capsule endoscopy has been found to be superior to other endoscopic and radiological modalities in the detection of small-bowel inflammation, we aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy with that of ileocolonoscopy in the detection of small-bowel lesions in patients with spondyloarthropathies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with documented seronegative peripheral arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or sacroiliitis, who had not taken nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the preceding 2 months, participated in the study. The patients underwent capsule endoscopy, followed by ileocolonoscopy within 7 days, with blinded assessment of both examinations. Biopsies were taken when indicated and adverse events were monitored. Patients completed a questionnaire on their satisfaction with the two procedures. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients (11 men, 9 women; mean age 41+/-13 years) with seronegative inflammatory spondyloarthropathies but without abdominal complaints completed the study. No adverse effects were reported and all the capsules were excreted. Of these 20 patients, 11 (55%) had a normal small bowel on both examinations. Significant small-bowel findings (erythema, mucosal breaks, aphthous or linear ulcers, erosions) were detected by capsule endoscopy in six patients (30%) and by ileocolonoscopy in only one patient. In addition, capsule endoscopy detected significant upper gastrointestinal pathology in 40% of patients. The patients preferred capsule endoscopy to ileocolonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy detected more small-bowel lesions than ileocolonoscopy, and provided additional potentially relevant information on upper gastrointestinal pathology in patients with spondyloarthropathies.