Background Small-bowel capsule endoscopy is advocated and repeat upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be considered for evaluation of recurrent or refractory iron deficiency anemia (IDA). A new device that allows magnetic steering of the capsule around the stomach (magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy [MACE]), followed by passive small-bowel examination might satisfy both requirements in a single procedure. Methods In this prospective cohort study, MACE and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were performed in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. Comparisons of total (upper GI and small bowel) and upper GI diagnostic yields, gastric mucosal visibility, and patient comfort scores were the primary end points. Results 49 patients were recruited (median age 64 years; 39 % male). Combined upper and small-bowel examination using the new capsule yielded more pathology than EGD alone (113 vs. 52; P < 0.001). In upper GI examination (proximal to the second part of the duodenum, D2), MACE identified more total lesions than EGD (88 vs. 52; P < 0.001). There was also a difference if only IDA-associated lesions (esophagitis, altered/fresh blood, angioectasia, ulcers, and villous atrophy) were included (20 vs. 10; P = 0.04). Pathology distal to D2 was identified in 17 patients (34.7 %). Median scores (0 – 10 for none – extreme) for pain (0 vs. 2), discomfort (0 vs. 3), and distress (0 vs. 4) were lower for MACE than for EGD (P < 0.001). Conclusion Combined examination of the upper GI tract and small bowel using the MACE capsule detected more pathology than EGD alone in patients with recurrent or refractory IDA. MACE also had a higher diagnostic yield than EGD in the upper GI tract and was better tolerated by patients.

No abstract

Simethicone swallowed with water prior to MCE produced the optimal gastric mucosal image quality. The addition of pronase had no demonstrable additional benefit.

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a first line small bowel investigative modality which provides more sensitive mucosal imaging than comparators. It is a non-invasive, non-irradiating tool well tolerated by patients. The risk of retention of the capsule can be minimised by ensuring luminal patency using the Agile patency device. Research continues into how to minimise missed pathology and variability in the identification of pathology or interpretation of images. The consensus is that bowel preparation using laxatives improves visibility and diagnostic yield. Research includes the development of image recognition software, both to eliminate sequentially identical images to improve viewing speed and to select or enhance images likely to represent pathology. However, careful reading by experienced capsule endoscopists remains the benchmark. This should be performed at a speed comfortable to the viewer, probably at a maximum of 15 frames per second. Some prior experience of endoscopy appears to be helpful for novice capsule endoscopists and formal training on a hands-on training course seems to improve pathology recognition, for novices and for those with CE experience.

Summary Background Accelerated induction regimens of infliximab have been proposed to improve response rates in patients with steroid‐refractory acute severe colitis. Aim To determine the differences in outcome for acute severe ulcerative colitis between accelerated and standard‐dose infliximab Methods We collected data on hospitalised patients receiving differing regimens of rescue therapy for steroid‐refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis. Our primary outcome was 30‐day colectomy rate. Secondary outcomes were colectomy within index admission, and at 90 days and 12 months. We used propensity score analysis with optimal calliper matching using high risk covariates defined a priori to reduce potential provider selection bias. Results We included 131 patients receiving infliximab rescue therapy; 102 received standard induction and 29 received accelerated induction. In the unmatched cohort, there was no difference by type of induction in the 30‐day colectomy rates (18% vs 20%, P = .45), colectomy during index admission (13% vs 20%, P = .26) or overall colectomy (20% vs 24%, P = .38). In the propensity score‐matched cohort of 52 patients, 30‐day colectomy (57% vs 27%, P = .048) and index admission colectomy (53% vs 23%, P = .045) rates were higher in those receiving standard induction compared to accelerated induction but there was no difference in overall colectomy rates (57% vs 31%, P = .09). There was no significant difference in length of stay or in complication and infection rates. Conclusion In a propensity score‐matched cohort, steroid‐refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis patients, short‐term, but not long‐term, colectomy rates appear to be lower in those receiving an accelerated induction regimen.