Analysis of a grading system to assess the quality of small-bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy: in search of the Holy Grail

Background: The diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy is vulnerable to inadequate visualization related to residual bile or chyme remaining in the lumen despite intestinal lavage. It has been challenging to determine the optimal lavage preparation of the bowel and patient diet before capsule endoscopy, as well as the timing of the procedure, because no well-accepted, validated grading system for assessing the quality of intestinal lavage before capsule endoscopy is available. There remains no consensus on the reliability of qualitative, quantitative, or computer-derived assessments of the quality of preparation for capsule endoscopy. This study evaluates intra-observer and interobserver agreement for a previously validated scale.

Materials and methods: The digital images of 34 patients who underwent capsule endoscopy were independently reviewed by two blinded physicians according to a previously validated grading scale. One of the physicians reviewed and graded the patients a second time. The quality of the bowel luminal preparation was assessed with a qualitative parameter (fluid transparency) and a more quantitative parameter (mucosal invisibility) for each of three small-intestinal segments, and an overall small-bowel score for each parameter was assigned as well. A weighted kappa coefficient was used to calculate intra-observer (observer 1A and 1B) and interobserver (observer 1A and observer 2) agreement. A kappa value of 0.60 or more suggests strong agreement, 0.40 to 0.60 moderate agreement, and less than 0.40 poor agreement.

Results: The intra-observer weighted kappa index for both fluid transparency and mucosal visibility was 0.52, which is consistent with moderate agreement. The interobserver weighted kappa indices for fluid transparency and mucosal invisibility were 0.29 and 0.42, respectively, demonstrating suboptimal interobserver agreement. The individual segment interobserver kappa indices were better for mucosal visibility (0.52, 0.39, and 0.47 for small-bowel segments 1, 2, and 3, respectively) than for fluid transparency (0.18, 0.38, and 0.31).

Conclusions: The proposed grading scale for assessing the quality of preparation for capsule endoscopy has inadequate interobserver and intra-observer agreement. Capsule endoscopy preparation grading scales that focus more on quantitative than on qualitative assessment may demonstrate more reliable performance characteristics. Optimizing the quality of preparation and diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy will first require the development of a well-validated grading scale.

• References

• 1 Ladas SD, Triantafyllou K, Spada C et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE): recommendations (2009) on clinical use of video capsule endoscopy to investigate small-bowel, esophageal and colonic diseases. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 220-227
• 2 Park SC, Keum B, Hyun JJ et al. A novel cleansing score system for capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 875-880
• 3 Viazis N, Sgouros S, Papaxoinis K et al. Bowel preparation increases the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 534-538
• 4 Koornstra JJ. Bowel preparation before small bowel capsule endoscopy: what is the optimal approach?. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 21: 1107-1109
• 5 Park SC, Keum B, Seo YS et al. Effect of bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol on quality of capsule endoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 1769-1775
• 6 Esaki M, Matsumoto T, Kudo T et al. Bowel preparations for capsule endoscopy: a comparison between simethicone and magnesium citrate. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 94-101
• 7 Albert J, Gobel CM, Lesske J et al. Simethicone for small bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy: a systematic, single-blinded, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 487-491
• 8 Niv Y, Niv G, Wiser K et al. Capsule endoscopy – comparison of two strategies of bowel preparation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 22: 957-962
• 9 Brotz C, Nandi N, Conn M et al. A validation study of 3 grading systems to evaluate small-bowel cleansing for wireless capsule endoscopy: a quantitative index, a qualitative evaluation, and an overall adequacy assessment. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 262-270
• 10 Van Weyenberg SJ, De Leest HT, Mulder CJ. Description of a novel grading system to assess the quality of bowel preparation in video capsule endoscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 406-411
• 11 Villa F, Signorelli C, Rondonotti E et al. Preparations and prokinetics. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2006; 16: 211-220
• 12 Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Family Med 2005; 37: 360-363
• 13 Selby W. Complete small-bowel transit in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy: determining factors and improvement with metoclopramide. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 80-85
• 14 Leung WK, Chan FK, Fung SS et al. Effect of oral erythromycin on gastric and small bowel transit time of capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 4865-4868
• 15 Kotwal VS, Attar BM, Gupta S et al. Should bowel preparation, antifoaming agents, or prokinetics be used before video capsule endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 137-145
• 16 Ito T, Ohata K, Ono A et al. Prospective controlled study on the effects of polyethylene glycol in capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 1789-1792
• 17 Dai N, Gubler C, Hengstler P et al. Improved capsule endoscopy after bowel preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 28-31
• 18 Rokkas T, Papaxoinis K, Triantafyllou K et al. Does purgative preparation influence the diagnostic yield of small bowel video capsule endoscopy? A meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 219-227