Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) was introduced into the United States in 2000 and has significantly advanced the ability to visualize the small intestinal mucosa by using noninvasive technology. Compared with traditional imaging with small bowel barium imaging, the use of VCE has demonstrated the ability to enhance diagnostic yield in patients with suspected small bowel pathology by approximately 25%‐50% in patients with suspected small bowel disorders. 1‐3 Although the use of VCE has been recommended as the next step in patients with obscure gastrointestinal hemorrhage after a negative upper and/or lower endoscopic examination, 4 its use in other clinical scenarios such as small bowel inflammatory disorders may not be associated with similar diagnostic yields. The major complication associated with the use of VCE remains small bowel retention. Although the risk of this event is virtually nil in patients with obscure bleeding, it can approach 10% in patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). 5 A critical appraisement of appropriate use of this technology may help physicians and third-party payers to determine which subset of patients with suspected or known small bowel disorders would benefit the most from undergoing a VCE procedure. To critically examine the use of VCE in clinical practice, an evidence-based approach was performed by using the GRADE system, 6,7 and a critical review of the literature on capsule endoscopy was performed by using PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Database from 2000‐2012. The quality of evidence could range from high (implying that further research was unlikely to change the authors’ confidence in the estimate of the effect) to moderate (further research would be likely to have an impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect) or low (further research would be expected to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of the effect and would be likely to change the estimate). The strength of a recommendation was graded as strong when the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh the undesirable effects and as conditional when there was uncertainty about the tradeoffs. The evidence-based statements generated from this review are shown in Table 1. Studies including more than 20 patients were included for each topic to increase data quality when metaanalyses or randomized controlled trials were not available.
Read full abstract