Document Detail

QuickView in small-bowel capsule endoscopy is useful in certain clinical settings, but QuickView with Blue Mode is of no additional benefit.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22668872     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
BACKGROUND: Analysis of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is time-consuming. QuickView (QV) has been added to the RAPID software to reduce the reading times. However, its validity is still under intense review. Recently, we have shown that Blue Mode (BM) provides improvements in images for most lesion categories. AIM: To assess the validity of QuickView with white light (QVWL) and QuickView with Blue Mode (QVBM) reading, in a group of patients who underwent SBCE in our centre, by comparing it with the standard video sequence review (used as reference) by experienced SBCE readers. METHODS: This was a retrospective study; all SBCE (August 2008-November 2011), performed with PillCam SB, with complete small-bowel visualization were included. A clinician with previous SBCE experience, unaware of the SBCE reports, reviewed prospectively the video streams on RAPID platform using QVWL and QVBM. All SBCE had been reported previously using the standard mode; these reports were considered as the reference. There were 106 cases of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), 81 cases of known or suspected Crohn's disease (CD) and 10 cases of polyposis syndromes. RESULTS: The mean small-bowel evaluation was 475 (±270) s and 450 (±156) s for QVWL and QVBM, respectively. In the OGIB (n=106; 21 overt/85 occult), with QVWL, 54 [P0 (28), P1 (18), P2 (8)] lesions were detected, 63 [P0 (48), P1 (13), P2 (2)] with QVBM, as compared with 98 [P0 (67), P1 (23), P2 (8)] by standard (reference) reporting. For P1+P2 lesions, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for QVWL (as compared with reference reporting) were 92.3, 96.3, 96 and 92.8%, respectively. For QVBM, the above values were 91, 96, 96.2 and 90.6%, respectively. Eighty-one (n=81) patients underwent SBCE for small-bowel evaluation on the basis of a clinical history of suspected or known CD. With QVWL, 71 mucosal ulcers were detected, 68 with QVBM, as compared with 155 mucosal ulcers with reference reading. Finally, in the polyposis category with QVWL and QVBM, four polypoid lesions were detected compared with seven with standard (reference) review. CONCLUSION: QV can be used confidently in OGIB in an urgent inpatient setting and in outpatients with occult OGIB or suspected CD. Furthermore, BM does not confer any additional advantage in the QV setting. Standard review settings should be used in all other cases.
Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Alexandros Smirnidis; Sarah Douglas; John N Plevris
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2012-6-3
Journal Detail:
Title:  European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1473-5687     ISO Abbreviation:  -     Publication Date:  2012 Jun 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-6-6     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9000874     Medline TA:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
aEndoscopy Unit, Centre for Liver & Digestive Disorders, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh bMedical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Role of CSN5/JAB1 in Wnt/?-catenin activation in colorectal cancer cells.
Next Document:  Risk of development of acute pancreatitis with pre-existing diabetes: a meta-analysis.