Peutz-Jeghers syndrome PPV positive predictive value RCD refractory coeliac disease RCT randomized controlled trial SBE single-balloon enteroscopy SBFT small-bowel follow-through tTG tissue transglutaminase VCE (small-bowel) video capsule endoscopy Pennazio Marco et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment … Endoscopy 2015; 47: 352-376

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) has been applied in the last 15 years in an increasing field of applications. Although many contraindications have been put into perspective, some precautions still have to be considered. Known stenosis of the gastrointestinal tract is a clear contraindication for VCE unless surgery is already scheduled or at least has been considered as an optional treatment modality. In patients with a higher incidence of stenosis, as in an established diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, clinical signs of obstruction, prior radiation or surgical small bowel resection, a preceding test with the self-dissolving patency capsule can override this contraindication. Endoscopic placement of the capsule should be considered in patients with swallowing disorders to avoid aspiration. Esophageal or gastric motility disorders may require endoscopic capsule transport or application of prokinetics if the real-time viewer proofs delayed transit. In pregnant women, VCE should be restricted to urgent cases where diagnosis cannot be postponed after delivery, as data on safety are missing. There is theoretical and clinical evidence that patients with implanted cardiac devices such as a pacemaker, cardioverters or left heart assist devices, can safely undergo VCE in spite of still existing contraindication by manufacturers. Children from the age of 2 years have safely undergone VCE. Although video capsules are not proven safe with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), first single cases of patients incidentally undergoing MRI with an incorporated capsule have been reported, showing susceptibility artifacts but no signs of clinical harm.

Main RecommendationsThe European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize training in small-bowel endoscopy across European centers. The following criteria and framework for training in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), which aim to provide uniform and high quality training to ensure that small-bowel endoscopists are competent to operate independently, are based on the current literature and experience of experts in the field. Three main areas are covered: skills required prior to commencing training in small-bowel endoscopy; structured training for trainees to become independent endoscopists; and ways of ensuring competence is achieved. 1 Centers providing training in SBCE should perform a minimum of 75 – 100 SBCEs/year. 2 Experience in bidirectional endoscopies is desirable for structured training in SBCE. 3 SBCE courses should consist of at least 50 % hands-on training and cover information on technology, indications and contraindications for SBCE, pathologies that can be encountered on SBCE, and standard terminology that should be used during reporting of SBCE. An SBCE course should be completed prior to achieving competence in SBCE reporting. 4 Competence in SBCE can be assessed by considering a minimum of 30 SBCEs. Direct Observation of Procedural Skills, short SBCE videos, and multiple-choice questions can be useful to assess improvement in the skills of trainees. 5 Centers offering training in DAE should aim to carry out at least 75 DAEs/year, should have direct links with an SBCE service, and should allow regular discussion of cases at a radiology small-bowel MDT. Training centers with lower numbers are encouraged to offer training by “buddying-up” with other centers, or using mentoring systems. 6 DAE trainees must be independent in bidirectional endoscopies and have experience in level 1 polypectomy prior to commencement of training. They should also be competent in reviewing SBCEs. 7 Training in DAE should be structured with a minimum of 75 procedures, including 35 retrograde DAEs, with therapeutic procedures undertaken in at least 50 % of the DAEs performed. Training should cover the indications, contraindications, complications including prevention, and technicalities of the DAE procedure; formal evaluation should follow. DAE trainees must acquire skills to independently manage and advise on small-bowel pathology following DAE procedures. 8 It is highly recommended that international societies develop online modules and courses on DAE, which are currently lacking across Europe.

AIMTo evaluate the ability of PillCamColon2 to visualize colonic segments missed by incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) and to assess the diagnostic yield.METHODSThis prospective multicentre study included 81 patients from nine centres who underwent second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) following incomplete OC performed by an experienced gastroenterologist (> 1000 colonoscopies). Patients with stenosis were excluded. According to patient preferences, CCE was performed the following day (protocol A) after staying on clear liquids and 0.75 L Moviprep in the morning or within 30 d after new split-dose Moviprep (protocol B). Boosts consisted of 0.75 L and 0.25 L Moviprep, and phospho-soda was given as a rescue if the capsule was not excreted after seven hours.RESULTSSeventy-four patients were analysed (51% of them in group A; 49% in group B). Bowel cleansing was adequate in 67% of cases, and CCE could visualize colonic segments missed by incomplete colonoscopy in 90% of patients under protocol A and 97% of patients under protocol B (P = 0.35, n.s.). Significant polyps including adenocarcinoma were detected in 24% of cases. Detection rates for all polyps and significant polyps per patient were similar in both protocols. Polyps were found predominantly in the right colon (86%) in segments that were not reached by OC. Extracolonic findings - such as reflux esophagitis, suspected Barrett esophagus, upper GI-bleeding, gastric polyps, gastric erosions and angiectasia - were detected in eight patients. PillCamColon2 capsule was retained in the ileum of one patient (1.4%) without symptoms and removed during an uneventful resection for unknown Crohn’s disease that was diagnosed as the cause of anemia, which was the indication for colonoscopy. CCE was well tolerated. One patient suffered from self-limiting vomiting after consuming the phospho-soda.CONCLUSIONSecond-generation CCE using a low-volume preparation is useful after incomplete OC, and it allows for the detection of additional relevant findings, but cleansing efficiency could be improved.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in digestive endoscopy, especially in capsule endoscopy (CE). However, some physicians still have some difficulties and fear the advent of this technology. We aimed to evaluate the perceptions and current sentiments toward the use of AI in CE. An online survey questionnaire was sent to an audience of gastroenterologists. In addition, several European national leaders of the International CApsule endoscopy REsearch (I CARE) Group were asked to disseminate an online survey among their national communities of CE readers (CER). The survey included 32 questions regarding general information, perceptions of AI, and its use in daily life, medicine, endoscopy, and CE. Among 380 European gastroenterologists who answered this survey, 333 (88%) were CERs. The mean average time length of experience in CE reading was 9.9 years (0.5–22). A majority of CERs agreed that AI would positively impact CE, shorten CE reading time, and help standardize reporting in CE and characterize lesions seen in CE. Nevertheless, in the foreseeable future, a majority of CERs disagreed with the complete replacement all CE reading by AI. Most CERs believed in the high potential of AI for becoming a valuable tool for automated diagnosis and for shortening the reading time. Currently, the perception is that AI will not replace CE reading.