Minireviews
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2013; 19(24): 3726-3746
Published online Jun 28, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i24.3726
Small-bowel capsule endoscopy: A ten-point contemporary review
Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Emanuele Rondonotti, Alexandros Karargyris
Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Centre for Liver and Digestive Disorders, the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, Scotland, United Kingdom
Emanuele Rondonotti, Gastroenterology Unit, Ospedale Valduce, 22100 Como, Italy
Alexandros Karargyris, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States
Author contributions: Koulaouzidis A conceived and drafted the study, collected data and prepared the tables of this review; Rondonotti E prepared the first draft of this manuscript; Rondonotti E and Koulaouzidis A performed significant editing; Karargyris A contributed Table 10; all authors performed the final draft revisions and editing.
Correspondence to: Anastasios Koulaouzidis, MD, MRCP, FEBG, Endoscopy Unit, Centre for Liver and Digestive Disorders, the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, Scotland, United Kingdom. akoulaouzidis@hotmail.com
Telephone: +44-131-2421126 Fax: +44-131-2421618
Received: March 29, 2013
Revised: May 27, 2013
Accepted: June 1, 2013
Published online: June 28, 2013
Processing time: 91 Days and 23.5 Hours
Abstract

The introduction of capsule endoscopy (CE) in clinical practice increased the interest for the study of the small-bowel. Consequently, in about 10 years, an impressive quantity of literature on indications, diagnostic yield (DY), safety profile and technical evolution of CE has been published as well as several reviews. At present time, there are 5 small-bowel capsule enteroscopy (SBCE) models in the worldwide market. Head-to-head trials have showed in the great majority of studies comparable results in terms of DY, image quality and completion rate. CE meta-analyses formed the basis of national/international guidelines; these guidelines place CE in a prime position for the diagnostic work-up of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, known and/or suspected Crohn’s disease and possible small-bowel neoplasia. A 2-L polyethylene glycol-based purge, administered the day before the procedure, is the most widely practiced preparation regimen. Whether this regimen can be further improved (i.e., by further decreasing its volume, changing the timing of administration, coupling it with prokinetics and/or other factors) or if it can really affect the DY, is still under discussion. Faecal calprotectin has been used in SBCE studies in two settings: in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, to evaluate the type and extent of mucosal damage and, more importantly from a clinical point of view, in patients with known or suspected Crohn’s disease for assessment of inflammation activity. Although there is still a lot of debate around the exact reasons of SBCE poor performance in various small-bowel segments, it is worth to remember that the capsule progress is non-steerable, hence more rapid in the proximal than in lower segments of the small-bowel. Capsule aspiration, a relatively unexpected complication, has been reported with increasing frequency. This is probably related with the increase in the mean age of patients undergoing CE. CE video review is a time-consuming procedure. Therefore, several attempts have been made to develop technical software features, in order to make CE video analysis easier and shorter (without jeopardizing its accuracy). Suspected Blood Indicator, QuickView and Fujinon Intelligent Chromo Endoscopy are some of the software tools that have been checked in various clinical studies to date.

Keywords: Capsule endoscopy, Calprotectin, Meta-analysis, Review, Preparation, Reading software, Complication, Indications

Core tip: This innovative, concise and “unique” review (structured as Q and A with several tables that make this paper very easy to read and hopefully enjoyable), keeps narrative text to the necessary minimum, in order to guide the reader to consult the wealth of information included in tabulated form. These tables are the outcome of the authors’ personal endeavor to compile in a detailed, yet easy to refer way, information that has often been overlooked by the plethora of similar reviews and/or info on contentious issues in capsule enteroscopy. We believe that this document can be used as reference for study, in reference lists of future manuscript and as important guide for future clinical research on the field.