INTRODUCTION: several studies have pointed out the effectiveness of the PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) compared with the colonoscopy in the study of the colonic pathology. AIMS AND METHODS: the objective of our study was to assess the agreement in the diagnosis of CCE with conventional colonoscopy as well as its sensitivity and specificity, and to describe the findings of the CCE in our clinical practice. Consecutive patients with abdominal symptoms were included in the study. The CCE was performed as previously reported (with PEG and sodium phosphate as laxative agents). The nature and location of the findings, colonic transit time, complications, cleanliness degree and consistency with diagnostic colonoscopy, when performed, were analyzed. RESULTS: a total of 144 subjects (67 women and 77 men); (52.17 ± 16.71 years) with the following indications were included: screening of Colorectal cancer (88 patients), control after polipectomy (24), incomplete colonoscopy (7), rectal bleeding (10), anemia (8), diarrhea (7). The CCE exploration was complete in 134/144 cases (93%), with no case of retention. The preparation was good-very good in 88/134 (65,6%), fair in 26/134 (19,4%) and poor in 20/134 (15%) of the cases. The average colonic transit was of 140.76 min (9-603). Any adverse effect was notified.In 44 cases a colonoscopy was carried out after CCE (results were hidden from another endoscopist). Compared to colonoscopy, the rate of agreement was 75,6%, the sensitivity was 84% and the specificity 62,5%, PPV was 77,7% and NPV was 71,4%.The colonic findings in 134 CCE were: in 34 cases CCE it did not show lesions, diverticulosis in 63 explorations, polyps in 43, angiodysplasias in 15, Crohn's Disease in 9 and ulcerative colitis in other 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS: the CCE is an effective and reliable technique for the detection of lesions in colon, and because of its high agreement with the colonoscopy, it could be useful in clinical practice. Further studies with large seria and cost-effectiveness analysis are needed to confirm these data.
INTRODUCTION: several studies have pointed out the effectiveness of the PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) compared with the colonoscopy in the study of the colonic pathology. AIMS AND METHODS: the objective of our study was to assess the agreement in the diagnosis of CCE with conventional colonoscopy as well as its sensitivity and specificity, and to describe the findings of the CCE in our clinical practice. Consecutive patients with abdominal symptoms were included in the study. The CCE was performed as previously reported (with PEG and sodium phosphate as laxative agents). The nature and location of the findings, colonic transit time, complications, cleanliness degree and consistency with diagnostic colonoscopy, when performed, were analyzed. RESULTS: a total of 144 subjects (67 women and 77 men); (52.17 ± 16.71 years) with the following indications were included: screening of Colorectal cancer (88 patients), control after polipectomy (24), incomplete colonoscopy (7), rectal bleeding (10), anemia (8), diarrhea (7). The CCE exploration was complete in 134/144 cases (93%), with no case of retention. The preparation was good-very good in 88/134 (65,6%), fair in 26/134 (19,4%) and poor in 20/134 (15%) of the cases. The average colonic transit was of 140.76 min (9-603). Any adverse effect was notified.In 44 cases a colonoscopy was carried out after CCE (results were hidden from another endoscopist). Compared to colonoscopy, the rate of agreement was 75,6%, the sensitivity was 84% and the specificity 62,5%, PPV was 77,7% and NPV was 71,4%.The colonic findings in 134 CCE were: in 34 cases CCE it did not show lesions, diverticulosis in 63 explorations, polyps in 43, angiodysplasias in 15, Crohn's Disease in 9 and ulcerative colitis in other 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS: the CCE is an effective and reliable technique for the detection of lesions in colon, and because of its high agreement with the colonoscopy, it could be useful in clinical practice. Further studies with large seria and cost-effectiveness analysis are needed to confirm these data.
Authors: Pedro Boal Carvalho; Bruno Rosa; Francisca Dias de Castro; Maria João Moreira; José Cotter Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-06-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Samuel N Adler; Shai Farkash; Yishai Sompolinsky; Inna Gafanovich; Eran Goldin; Ariella Bar-Gil Shitrit Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 4.623
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
Authors: Samuel N Adler; Yago González Lama; Virginia Matallana Royo; Cristina Suárez Ferrer; Avraham Schwartz; Ariella Bar-Gil Shitrit Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: José María Remes-Troche; Victoria Alejandra Jiménez-García; Josefa María García-Montes; Pedro Hergueta-Delgado; Federico Roesch-Dietlen; Juan Manuel Herrerías-Gutiérrez Journal: Clin Exp Gastroenterol Date: 2013-09-18