Application of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) to evaluate the whole gastrointestinal tract: a comparative study of single-camera and dual-camera analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was developed for the evaluation of colorectal pathology. In this study, our aim was to assess if a dual-camera analysis using CCE allows better evaluation of the whole gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to a single-camera analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS We included 21 patients (12 males, mean age 56.20 years) submitted for a CCE examination. After standard colon preparation, the colon capsule endoscope (PillCam Colon™) was swallowed after reinitiation from its "sleep" mode. Four physicians performed the analysis: two reviewed both video streams at the same time (dual-camera analysis); one analyzed images from one side of the device ("camera 1"); and the other reviewed the opposite side ("camera 2"). We compared numbers of findings from different parts of the entire GI tract and level of agreement among reviewers. RESULTS A complete evaluation of the GI tract was possible in all patients. Dual-camera analysis provided 16% and 5% more findings compared to camera 1 and camera 2 analysis, respectively. Overall agreement was 62.7% (kappa = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.373-0.510). Esophageal (kappa = 0.611) and colorectal (kappa = 0.595) findings had a good level of agreement, while small bowel (kappa = 0.405) showed moderate agreement. CONCLUSION The use of dual-camera analysis with CCE for the evaluation of the GI tract is feasible and detects more abnormalities when compared with single-camera analysis.

Activated protein C consumption and coagulation parameters in severe sepsis and septic shock.

Introduction Activated protein C (APC) deC ciency is prevalent in severe sepsis and septic shock patients. The aim of the study was to relate the anticoagulation activity evaluated by APC with other coagulation parameters adjusted to 28-day mortality. Methods A cohort study of 150 critically ill adults. Age, sex, sources of infection and coagulation markers within 24< hours from severe sepsis or septic shock onset, deC ned according to Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) criteria, were studied. We analyzed APC activity using a hemostasis laboratory analyzer (BCS® XP; Siemens). A descriptive and comparative statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results We analyzed 150 consecutive episodes of severe sepsis (16%) or septic shock (84%) admitted to the UCI. The median age of the study sample was 64 (interquartile range (IQR): 22.30.001). See Figure 1. Conclusion Low levels of PC are associated with poor outcome and severity in severe sepsis, and it is well correlated with antithrombin III and INR.

Application of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) to evaluate the whole gastrointestinal tract: a comparative study of single-camera and dual-camera analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was developed for the evaluation of colorectal pathology. In this study, our aim was to assess if a dual-camera analysis using CCE allows better evaluation of the whole gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to a single-camera analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS We included 21 patients (12 males, mean age 56.20 years) submitted for a CCE examination. After standard colon preparation, the colon capsule endoscope (PillCam Colon™) was swallowed after reinitiation from its "sleep" mode. Four physicians performed the analysis: two reviewed both video streams at the same time (dual-camera analysis); one analyzed images from one side of the device ("camera 1"); and the other reviewed the opposite side ("camera 2"). We compared numbers of findings from different parts of the entire GI tract and level of agreement among reviewers. RESULTS A complete evaluation of the GI tract was possible in all patients. Dual-camera analysis provided 16% and 5% more findings compared to camera 1 and camera 2 analysis, respectively. Overall agreement was 62.7% (kappa = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.373-0.510). Esophageal (kappa = 0.611) and colorectal (kappa = 0.595) findings had a good level of agreement, while small bowel (kappa = 0.405) showed moderate agreement. CONCLUSION The use of dual-camera analysis with CCE for the evaluation of the GI tract is feasible and detects more abnormalities when compared with single-camera analysis.