BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers direct mucosal visualisation without sedation or gas insufflation required in conventional colonoscopy (CC). However, evidence for the role of CCE as an adjunct or alternative to CC remains equivocal. In this observational cohort study, we report our experience of using CCE to investigate patients with suspected colon pathology at a tertiary referral centre. METHODS: From 2007-2015, consecutive patients requiring colonoscopy were recruited from a tertiary care centre in Malmo, Sweden. Data collected: patient demographics, indication for CCE, findings, bowel cleansing, colon transit time (CTT) and completeness of colon examination. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (57 F/20 F, median age 56 years) were included. The reason for CCE was previously incomplete or refused CC in 39 and 26 cases, and follow up of previous findings in 12 cases, respectively. The main clinical indications were gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n=28; 36%) and suspected inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or follow-up of known IBD (n=23; 30%). CCE was complete in 58/77 (75%) patients. In 3 patients the colon was not reached; in the other 16, the capsule reached the rectum (n=4), sigmoid (n=6), descending colon (n=5) and transverse colon (n=1). Findings were: normal CCE (n=15; 19%) colonic diverticula (n=29; 38%), polyps (n=17; 22%), active IBD (n=12; 16%), haemorrhoids (n=8; 10%), colonic angioectasia (n=4; 5%) and cancer (n=1; 1%). Small-bowel findings were recorded in 8 (10%) patients. All patients tolerated bowel preparation and CCE well. Two patients with an ulcerated small-bowel stricture and cancer respectively experienced temporary capsule retention with spontaneous resolution. CONCLUSIONS: CCE is a well-tolerated alternative to CC, but requires technological improvement and optimisation of clinical practice to meet current reference standards. Although further technical development is required, CCE may complement or even replace CC for certain clinical indications.
BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers direct mucosal visualisation without sedation or gas insufflation required in conventional colonoscopy (CC). However, evidence for the role of CCE as an adjunct or alternative to CC remains equivocal. In this observational cohort study, we report our experience of using CCE to investigate patients with suspected colon pathology at a tertiary referral centre. METHODS: From 2007-2015, consecutive patients requiring colonoscopy were recruited from a tertiary care centre in Malmo, Sweden. Data collected: patient demographics, indication for CCE, findings, bowel cleansing, colon transit time (CTT) and completeness of colon examination. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (57 F/20 F, median age 56 years) were included. The reason for CCE was previously incomplete or refused CC in 39 and 26 cases, and follow up of previous findings in 12 cases, respectively. The main clinical indications were gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n=28; 36%) and suspected inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or follow-up of known IBD (n=23; 30%). CCE was complete in 58/77 (75%) patients. In 3 patients the colon was not reached; in the other 16, the capsule reached the rectum (n=4), sigmoid (n=6), descending colon (n=5) and transverse colon (n=1). Findings were: normal CCE (n=15; 19%) colonic diverticula (n=29; 38%), polyps (n=17; 22%), active IBD (n=12; 16%), haemorrhoids (n=8; 10%), colonic angioectasia (n=4; 5%) and cancer (n=1; 1%). Small-bowel findings were recorded in 8 (10%) patients. All patientstolerated bowel preparation and CCE well. Two patients with an ulcerated small-bowel stricture and cancer respectively experienced temporary capsule retention with spontaneous resolution. CONCLUSIONS:CCE is a well-tolerated alternative to CC, but requires technological improvement and optimisation of clinical practice to meet current reference standards. Although further technical development is required, CCE may complement or even replace CC for certain clinical indications.
Authors: Thomas J W Lee; Matthew D Rutter; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Andrew F Goddard; Andrew Chilton; Claire Nickerson; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Colin J Rees Journal: Gut Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Marco Pennazio; Cristiano Spada; Rami Eliakim; Martin Keuchel; Andrea May; Chris J Mulder; Emanuele Rondonotti; Samuel N Adler; Joerg Albert; Peter Baltes; Federico Barbaro; Christophe Cellier; Jean Pierre Charton; Michel Delvaux; Edward J Despott; Dirk Domagk; Amir Klein; Mark McAlindon; Bruno Rosa; Georgina Rowse; David S Sanders; Jean Christophe Saurin; Reena Sidhu; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Cesare Hassan; Ian M Gralnek Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Elena M Stoffel; Rune Erichsen; Trine Frøslev; Lars Pedersen; Mogens Vyberg; Erika Koeppe; Seth D Crockett; Stanley R Hamilton; Henrik T Sørensen; John A Baron Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J E G IJspeert; C J Tutein Nolthenius; E J Kuipers; M E van Leerdam; C Y Nio; M G J Thomeer; K Biermann; M J van de Vijver; E Dekker; J Stoker Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alexander R Robertson; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Diana E Yung; Christopher Fraser; Artur Nemeth; Kenneth Trimble; Ervin Toth; John N Plevris; Gabriele Wurm Johansson Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Davide Bellini; David Burling; Giovanni Cappello; Cristina Carretero; Evelien Dekker; Rami Eliakim; Margriet de Haan; Michal F Kaminski; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Andrea Laghi; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo; Martina Morrin; Deirdre McNamara; Emanuele Neri; Silvia Pecere; Mathieu Pioche; Andrew Plumb; Emanuele Rondonotti; Manon Cw Spaander; Stuart Taylor; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Jeanin E van Hooft; Jaap Stoker; Daniele Regge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 5.315