BACKGROUND: Analysis of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is time-consuming. QuickView (QV) has been added to the RAPID software to reduce the reading times. However, its validity is still under intense review. Recently, we have shown that Blue Mode (BM) provides improvements in images for most lesion categories. AIM: To assess the validity of QuickView with white light (QVWL) and QuickView with Blue Mode (QVBM) reading, in a group of patients who underwent SBCE in our centre, by comparing it with the standard video sequence review (used as reference) by experienced SBCE readers. METHODS: This was a retrospective study; all SBCE (August 2008-November 2011), performed with PillCam SB, with complete small-bowel visualization were included. A clinician with previous SBCE experience, unaware of the SBCE reports, reviewed prospectively the video streams on RAPID platform using QVWL and QVBM. All SBCE had been reported previously using the standard mode; these reports were considered as the reference. There were 106 cases of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), 81 cases of known or suspected Crohn's disease (CD) and 10 cases of polyposis syndromes. RESULTS: The mean small-bowel evaluation was 475 (± 270) s and 450 (± 156) s for QVWL and QVBM, respectively. In the OGIB (n=106; 21 overt/85 occult), with QVWL, 54 [P0 (28), P1 (18), P2 (8)] lesions were detected, 63 [P0 (48), P1 (13), P2 (2)] with QVBM, as compared with 98 [P0 (67), P1 (23), P2 (8)] by standard (reference) reporting. For P1+P2 lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for QVWL (as compared with reference reporting) were 92.3, 96.3, 96 and 92.8%, respectively. For QVBM, the above values were 91, 96, 96.2 and 90.6%, respectively. Eighty-one (n=81) patients underwent SBCE for small-bowel evaluation on the basis of a clinical history of suspected or known CD. With QVWL, 71 mucosal ulcers were detected, 68 with QVBM, as compared with 155 mucosal ulcers with reference reading. Finally, in the polyposis category with QVWL and QVBM, four polypoid lesions were detected compared with seven with standard (reference) review. CONCLUSION: QV can be used confidently in OGIB in an urgent inpatient setting and in outpatients with occult OGIB or suspected CD. Furthermore, BM does not confer any additional advantage in the QV setting. Standard review settings should be used in all other cases.
BACKGROUND: Analysis of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is time-consuming. QuickView (QV) has been added to the RAPID software to reduce the reading times. However, its validity is still under intense review. Recently, we have shown that Blue Mode (BM) provides improvements in images for most lesion categories. AIM: To assess the validity of QuickView with white light (QVWL) and QuickView with Blue Mode (QVBM) reading, in a group of patients who underwent SBCE in our centre, by comparing it with the standard video sequence review (used as reference) by experienced SBCE readers. METHODS: This was a retrospective study; all SBCE (August 2008-November 2011), performed with PillCam SB, with complete small-bowel visualization were included. A clinician with previous SBCE experience, unaware of the SBCE reports, reviewed prospectively the video streams on RAPID platform using QVWL and QVBM. All SBCE had been reported previously using the standard mode; these reports were considered as the reference. There were 106 cases of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), 81 cases of known or suspected Crohn's disease (CD) and 10 cases of polyposis syndromes. RESULTS: The mean small-bowel evaluation was 475 (± 270) s and 450 (± 156) s for QVWL and QVBM, respectively. In the OGIB (n=106; 21 overt/85 occult), with QVWL, 54 [P0 (28), P1 (18), P2 (8)] lesions were detected, 63 [P0 (48), P1 (13), P2 (2)] with QVBM, as compared with 98 [P0 (67), P1 (23), P2 (8)] by standard (reference) reporting. For P1+P2 lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for QVWL (as compared with reference reporting) were 92.3, 96.3, 96 and 92.8%, respectively. For QVBM, the above values were 91, 96, 96.2 and 90.6%, respectively. Eighty-one (n=81) patients underwent SBCE for small-bowel evaluation on the basis of a clinical history of suspected or known CD. With QVWL, 71 mucosal ulcers were detected, 68 with QVBM, as compared with 155 mucosal ulcers with reference reading. Finally, in the polyposis category with QVWL and QVBM, four polypoid lesions were detected compared with seven with standard (reference) review. CONCLUSION: QV can be used confidently in OGIB in an urgent inpatient setting and in outpatients with occult OGIB or suspected CD. Furthermore, BM does not confer any additional advantage in the QV setting. Standard review settings should be used in all other cases.