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.

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.

Cáncer gástrico en pacientes de Méderi – Hospital Universitario Mayor entre los años 2011 - 2014

Introducción: El cáncer gástrico es uno de los más frecuentes a nivel mundial y Colombia se sitúa entre los países de mayor incidencia en este tipo de patología. Objetivo: Describir las características epidemiológicas, clínicas, el tratamiento administrado y los desenlaces inmediatos de los pacientes con diagnóstico de cáncer gástrico atendidos en el Hospital Universitario Mayor de Bogotá entre los años 2011 y 2014. Metodología: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo con diagnóstico de cáncer gástrico. Se realizaron análisis univariados por medio de proporciones para las variables cualitativas y medidas de tendencia central para las variables cuantitativas según la distribución. Resultados: Un total de 189 pacientes fueron analizados. El dolor fue el síntoma más frecuente en los pacientes (30.7%) y el principal signo encontrado fue una masa palpable en abdomen (9,5%). Los pacientes fueron sometidos a diferentes abordajes terapéuticos, la mayoría recibieron manejo paliativo no quirúrgico (52.9%) y la opción quirúrgica más usada en los pacientes fue la gastrectomía total (20.6%), y la subtotal (16,4) seguidas de quimioterapia y/o radiación perioperatoria. Los pacientes que sobrevivieron a los 2 años fueron 7,4% del total. Conclusiones: El registro de los pacientes con cáncer gástrico es bueno en el Méderi-Hospital Universitario Mayor es bueno y permite caracterizar los pacientes, la presentación de la patología y los resultados del tratamiento que concuerdan con los presentados en contextos similares en la literatura.