Search

Background: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS)., Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone)., Results: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2., Conclusion: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and study aims  Feasibility of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) using available lumen-apposing stents (LAMS) is limited by the size of the common bile duct (CBD) (≤ 12 mm, cut-off for experts; 15 mm, cut-off for non-experts). We aimed to assess the prevalence and predictive factors associated with CBD size ≥ 12 and 15 mm in naïve patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Patients and methods  This was a prospective cohort study involving 22 centers with assessment of CBD diameter and subjective feasibility of the EUS-CDS performance in naïve jaundiced patients undergoing EUS evaluation for MDBO. Results  A total of 491 patients (mean age 69 ± 12 years) with mean serum bilirubin of 12.7 ± 6.6 mg/dL entered the final analysis. Dilation of the CBD ≥ 12 and 15 mm was detected in 78.8 % and 51.9 % of cases, respectively. Subjective feasibility of EUS-CDS was expressed by endosonographers in 91.2 % for a CBD ≥ 12 mm and in 96.5 % for a CBD ≥ 15 mm. On multivariate analysis, age ( P  < 0.01) and bilirubin level ( P  ≤ 0.001) were the only factors associated with both CBD dilation ≥ 12 and ≥ 15 mm. These variables were poorly associated with the extent of duct dilation; however, based on them a prediction model could be constructed that satisfactorily predicted CBD size ≥ 12 mm in patients at least 70 years and a bilirubin level ≥ 7 mg/dL. Conclusions  Our study showed that at presentation in a large cohort of patients with MDBO, EUS-CDS can be potentially performed in three quarters to half of cases by expert and less experienced endosonographers, respectively. Dedicated stents or devices with different designs able to overcome the limitations of existing electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-CDS are needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Anderloni is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus Medical and Medtronic. Dr. Fabbri is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr. Napoleon has held supported teaching sessions and had research collaboration with Boston Scientific. Dr. Poley served as a consultant for and received speaker and travel fees from Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, and Pentax. Dr. Mutignani had a research collaboration with Boston Scientific. Dr. Palazzo is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr. Itoi is a speaker for Boston Scientific. Dr. Costamagna received research support from Cook Endoscopy and he currently is a member of Advisory Committees or review panels for Olympus Medical and Boston Scientific. Dr. Larghi received educational fees from Boston Scientific and Pentax., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and Aims: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens., Methods: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety., Results: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS ≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority = .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority = .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P = .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found., Conclusions: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.)., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aims: In videocapsule endoscopy examination (VCE), subtle variations in mucosal hue or pattern such as those seen in ulcerations can be difficult to detect, depending on the experience of the reader. Our aim was to test whether virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) techniques, designed to enhance the contrast between the lesion and the normal mucosa, could improve the characterization of ulcerative mucosal lesions., Patients and Methods: Fifteen trainees or young gastroenterologists with no experience in VCE were randomly assigned to evaluate 250 true ulcerative and 100 false ulcerative, difficult-to-interpret small bowel lesions, initially as white light images (WLI) and then, in a second round, with the addition of one VC setting or again as WLI, labeling them as real lesions or artifacts., Results: On the overall image evaluation, an improvement in lesion characterization was observed by adding any chromoendoscopy setting, especially Blue mode and FICE 1, with increases in accuracy of 13 % [95 %CI 0.8, 25.3] and 7.1 % [95 %CI - 17.0, 31.3], respectively. However, when only false ulcerative images were considered, with the same presets (Blue mode and FICE 1), there was a loss in accuracy of 10.7 % [95 %CI - 10.9, 32.3] and 7.3 % [95 %CI - 1.3, 16.0], respectively. The interobserver agreement was poor for both readings., Conclusions: VC helps beginner VCE readers correctly categorize difficult-to-interpret small bowel mucosal ulcerative lesions. However, false lesions tend to be misinterpreted as true ulcerative with the same presets. Therefore care is advised in using VC especially under poor bowel preparation.

Objective: In case of incomplete colonoscopy, several radiologic methods have traditionally been used, but more recently, capsule endoscopy was also shown to be accurate. Aim of this study was to compare colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) in a prospective cohort of patients with incomplete colonoscopy., Design: Consecutive patients with a previous incomplete colonoscopy underwent CCE and CTC followed by colonoscopy in case of positive findings on either test (polyps/mass lesions ≥6 mm). Clinical follow-up was performed in the other cases to rule out missed cancer. CTC was performed after colon capsule excretion or 10-12 h postingestion. Since the gold standard colonoscopy was performed only in positive cases, diagnostic yield and positive predictive values of CCE and CTC were used as study end-points., Results: 100 patients were enrolled. CCE and CTC were able to achieve complete colonic evaluation in 98% of cases. In a per-patient analysis for polyps ≥6 mm, CCE detected 24 patients (24.5%) and CTC 12 patients (12.2%). The relative sensitivity of CCE compared to CTC was 2.0 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.98), indicating a significant increase in sensitivity for lesions ≥6 mm. Of larger polyps (≥10 mm), these values were 5.1% for CCE and 3.1% for CTC (relative sensitivity: 1.67 (95% CI 0.69 to 4.00)). Positive predictive values for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were 96% and 85.7%, and 83.3% and 100% for CCE and CTC, respectively. No missed cancer occurred at clinical follow-up of a mean of 20 months., Conclusions: CCE and CTC were of comparable efficacy in completing colon evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy; the overall diagnostic yield of colon capsule was superior to CTC., Trial Registration Number: NCT01525940., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Colonoscopy is usually perceived as an invasive and potentially painful procedure, being also affected by a small, but definite, risk of major complications (cardiopulmonary complications, perforation, hemorrhage) and even mortality. To improve both acceptability and safety, PillCam Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) (Given Imaging Ltd, Yoqneam, Israel) has been developed. CCE represents a non-invasive technique that is able to explore the colon without sedation and air insufflation. The Second Generation of Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was proven to be an accurate tool to detect colonic neoplastic lesions when used in average risk individuals. To date, the evidence supports the use of CCE-2 in case of colonoscopy failure, in patients unwilling to perform colonoscopy and when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Other potential applications, such as colorectal cancer screening or diagnostic surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease need to be clarified. In this paper, the current "state of the art", potential application of CCE and future needs are evaluated.

PillCam COLON capsule endoscopy (CCE) (Given Imaging Ltd, Yoqneam, Israel) is one of the most recent diagnostic, endoscopic technologies designed to explore the colon. CCE is a noninvasive, patient-friendly technique that is able to explore the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. The first generation of CCE was released onto the market in 2006 and although it generated great enthusiasm, it showed suboptimal accuracy. Recently, a second-generation system (PillCam COLON 2) (CCE-2) has been developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection. In this review, accuracy and safety data for CCE-2 are analyzed.