BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is a new technology that allows noninvasive investigation of the esophagus. Our aim was to evaluate prospectively the diagnostic yield of ECE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients (40 men, mean age 54 yr) referred to five endoscopic centers for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were enrolled. Patients first underwent ECE, then EGD; endoscopists who performed the EGD were blind to the ECE data that were interpreted separately by two independent readers. The Los Angeles, Prague, and Montreal classification systems were used to describe endoscopic findings. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients completed the study. Esophagitis and endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia (ESEM) were present in 24 and 10 patients, respectively. Columnar lining was histologically confirmed in seven patients (3 with specialized intestinal metaplasia and 4 with gastric metaplasia). The kappa values for interobserver agreement regarding the diagnosis of esophagitis and ESEM were 0.67 (0.49-0.85) and 0.49 (0.17-0.81), respectively. The diagnostic yields of ECE to detect esophagitis and ESEM were as follows: sensitivity 79% and 60%, specificity 94% and 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 83% and 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 92% and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSION: As a screening tool in patients with reflux symptoms, ECE has an excellent specificity and NPV for the diagnosis of esophagitis and ESEM. However, its sensitivity for the diagnosis of ESEM is not optimal. Further studies are necessary to improve the procedure, and to compare the cost-effectiveness of strategies using ECE or EGD.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is a new technology that allows noninvasive investigation of the esophagus. Our aim was to evaluate prospectively the diagnostic yield of ECE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients (40 men, mean age 54 yr) referred to five endoscopic centers for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were enrolled. Patients first underwent ECE, then EGD; endoscopists who performed the EGD were blind to the ECE data that were interpreted separately by two independent readers. The Los Angeles, Prague, and Montreal classification systems were used to describe endoscopic findings. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients completed the study. Esophagitis and endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia (ESEM) were present in 24 and 10 patients, respectively. Columnar lining was histologically confirmed in seven patients (3 with specialized intestinal metaplasia and 4 with gastric metaplasia). The kappa values for interobserver agreement regarding the diagnosis of esophagitis and ESEM were 0.67 (0.49-0.85) and 0.49 (0.17-0.81), respectively. The diagnostic yields of ECE to detect esophagitis and ESEM were as follows: sensitivity 79% and 60%, specificity 94% and 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 83% and 100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 92% and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSION: As a screening tool in patients with reflux symptoms, ECE has an excellent specificity and NPV for the diagnosis of esophagitis and ESEM. However, its sensitivity for the diagnosis of ESEM is not optimal. Further studies are necessary to improve the procedure, and to compare the cost-effectiveness of strategies using ECE or EGD.
Authors: Eduardo Redondo-Cerezo; Antonio Damián Sánchez-Capilla; Paloma De La Torre-Rubio; Javier De Teresa Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Milli Gupta; Timothy J Beebe; Kelly T Dunagan; Cathy D Schleck; Alan R Zinsmeister; Nicholas J Talley; G Richard Locke; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Javier Romero-Vázquez; Federico Argüelles-Arias; Josefa Maria García-Montes; Ángel Caunedo-Álvarez; Francisco Javier Pellicer-Bautista; Juan Manuel Herrerías-Gutiérrez Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 5.742