No abstract

1: ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.Strong recommendation, low quality evidenceThe choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE] and double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.)

Background. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the firstgeneration system. Objective. To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. Design and Setting. Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. Patients: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. Intervention. CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are ≥6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. Main Outcome Measurements. CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopynegative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. Results. Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. Limitations. Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. Conclusion. In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging.Abbreviations: CCE-2, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy; PEG, polyethylene glycol.

PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an innovative noninvasive, and painless ingestible capsule technique that allows exploration of the colon without the need for sedation and gas insufflation. Although it is already available in European and other countries, the clinical indications for CCE as well as the reporting and work-up of detected findings have not yet been standardized. The aim of this evidence-based and consensus-based guideline, commissioned by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to furnish healthcare providers with a comprehensive framework for potential implementation of this technique in a clinical setting.

Our data suggest that VCE detects small-bowel tumors in a small proportion of patients undergoing this examination, but the early use of this tool can shorten the diagnostic work-up and influence the subsequent management of these patients.

These recommendations on video capsule endoscopy, an emerging technology with an impact on the practice of endoscopy, were developed by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guidelines Committee. The first draft of each section was prepared by one or two members of the writing team, who were selected as experts on the content of that section on the basis of their published work. They used evidence-based methodology, performing MEDLINE and PubMed literature searches to identify relevant clinical studies. Abstracts from scientific meetings were included only if there was no published full paper on a particular topic. If there was disagreement, the first author of the Guideline made the final decision. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of the supporting evidence. The draft guideline was critically reviewed by all authors and submitted to the ESGE councillors for their critical review before approval of the final document. The ESGE Guidelines Committee acknowledges that this document is based on a critical review of the data available at the time of preparation and that further studies may be needed to clarify some aspects. Moreover, this Guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document should be regarded as supplying recommendations only to gastroenterologists in providing care to their patients. It is not a set of rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care, or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. These recommendations must be interpreted according to the clinician's knowledge, expertise, and clinical judgment in the management of individual patients and, if necessary, a course of action that varies from recommendations must be undertaken.

Videocapsule endoscopy shows good sensitivity and excellent specificity for the detection of villous atrophy in patients with suspected celiac disease.