Esophageal capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected esophageal disease: double blinded comparison with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and assessment of interobserver variability

Background and study aims: The study aim was to compare the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with suspected esophageal disease. Secondary aims were to assess interobserver variability of capsule endoscopy readings and safety.

Patients and methods: In total, 98 patients (53 men, 53 ± 13 years) with an indication for EGD were included. The patient population was artificially enriched to include two thirds of patients with abnormal esophageal findings at EGD, which was followed by capsule endoscopy. Capsule recordings were blindly read by three endoscopists, one from the center that recruited the patient and two from the other center. Study outcomes were the findings described on EGD and capsule endoscopy, agreement between EGD and capsule endoscopy for findings, quality of the capsule recording, and interobserver agreement for capsule endoscopy quality and findings.

Results: EGD was normal in 34 patients and showed esophageal findings in 62 (esophagitis 28, hiatus hernia 21, varices 21, Barrett’s esophagus 11, others 7). Average esophageal transit time of the capsule was 361 ± 393 seconds. Capsule endoscopy was normal in 36 patients but detected esophagitis in 23, hiatus hernia in 0, varices in 23, Barrett’s esophagus in 18, and others in 4. The positive predictive value of capsule endoscopy was 80.0 % and the negative predictive value was 61.1 %. Overall agreement per patient was moderate between EGD and capsule endoscopy for the per-patient (kappa = 0.42) and per-findings (kappa = 0.40) analyses. Interobserver agreement between capsule endoscopy readings was moderate for findings (kappa = 0.39) and quality assessment (kappa = 0.24). No adverse event was observed after either EGD or capsule endoscopy.

Conclusion: In this study, despite artificial prevalence enrichment, capsule endoscopy showed a moderate sensitivity and specificity in the detection of esophageal diseases.

References

• 1 Iddan G, Meron G, Glukhovsky A, Swain P. Wireless capsule endoscopy.  Nature. 2000;  405 417
• 2 Triester S L, Leighton J A, Leontiadis G I. et al . A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;  100 2407-2418
• 3 Triester S L, Leighton J A, Leontiadis G I. et al . A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with non-stricturing small bowel Crohn’s disease.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 954-964
• 4 Eliakim R, Yassin K, Shlomi I. et al . A novel diagnostic tool for detecting oesophageal pathology: the PillCam oesophageal video capsule.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;  20 1083-1089
• 5 Lapalus M G, Dumortier J, Fumex F. et al . Esophageal capsule endoscopy versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy for evaluating portal hypertension: a prospective comparative study of performance and tolerance.  Endoscopy. 2006;  38 36-41
• 6 Eisen G M, Eliakim R, Zaman A. et al . The accuracy of PillCam ESO capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy for the diagnosis of esophageal varices: a prospective three-center pilot study.  Endoscopy. 2006;  38 31-35
• 7 Dumortier J, Napoleon B, Hedelius F. et al . Unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice: results with 1100 consecutive patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 198-204
• 8 Delvaux M. Minimal standard terminology in digestive endoscopy. Version 2.0.  Endoscopy. 2000;  32 159-188
• 9 Lundell L R, Dent J, Bennett J R. et al . Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification.  Gut. 1999;  45 172-180
• 10 Idezuki Y. General rules for recording endoscopic findings of esophagogastric varices (1991).  Japanese Society for Portal Hypertension. World J Surg. 1995;  19 420-422
• 11 Landis R J, Koch G G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.  Biometrics. 1977;  33 159-174
• 12 Eliakim R, Sharma V K, Yassin K. et al . A prospective study of the diagnostic accuracy of PillCam ESO esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux diseases.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;  39 572-578
• 13 Sanchez-Yague A, Caunedo-Alvarez A, Garcia-Montes J M. et al . Esophageal capsule endoscopy in patients refusing conventional endoscopy for the study of suspected esophageal pathology.  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;  18 977-983
• 14 Koslowsky B, Jacob H, Eliakim R, Adler S N. PillCam ESO in esophageal studies: improved diagnostic yield of 14 frames per second (fps) compared with 4 fps.  Endoscopy. 2006;  38 27-30
• 15 Gralnek I M, Rabinovitz R, Afik D, Eliakim R. A simplified ingestion procedure for esophageal capsule endoscopy: initial evaluation in healthy volunteers.  Endoscopy. 2006;  38 917-922
• 16 Neu B, Wettschureck E, Rösch T. Is esophageal capsule endoscopy feasible? Results of a pilot.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 957-961