Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: when and how

Ida Hilmi; Taku Kobayashi

doi:10.5217/ir.2019.09165

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 18(3); 2020 > Article

Review Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: when and how: Ida Hilmi¹, Taku Kobayashi²; Intestinal Research 2020;18(3):265-274.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2019.09165
Published online: July 7, 2020

¹Department of Medicine, University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

²Center for Advanced IBD Research and Treatment, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

Correspondence to Ida Hilmi, Department of Medicine, University of Malaya Medical Centre, Jalan Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur 59100, Malaysia. Tel: +60-3-79492965, Fax: +60-3-79492966, E-mail: ida.hilmi@gmail.com

• Received: December 9, 2019 • Revised: May 3, 2020 • Accepted: May 26, 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

13,011 Views
281 Download
17 Web of Science
17 Crossref
18 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
TYPES OF CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY
INDICATIONS FOR CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY IN IBD
SUGGESTED ALGORITHM FOR CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY IN IBD
CONCLUSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is emerging as an important investigation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); common types include the standard small bowel CE and colon CE. More recently, the pan-enteric CE was developed to assess the large and small bowel in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). Emerging indications include noninvasive assessment for mucosal healing (both in the small bowel and the colon) and detection of postoperative recurrence in patients with CD. Given the increasing adoption, several CE scoring systems have been specifically developed for IBD. The greatest concern with performing CE, particularly in CD, is capsule retention, but this can be overcome by performing cross-sectional imaging such as magnetic resonance enterography and using patency capsules before performing the procedure. The development of software for automated detection of mucosal abnormalities typically seen in IBD may further increase its adoption.
Keywords: Capsule endoscopy; Crohn disease; Colitis, ulcerative; Inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Since its introduction, capsule endoscopy (CE) has revolutionized the imaging of the small bowel. Previously, endoscopic images of the whole length of the small bowel were generally not attainable; short-segment images using push enteroscopy with a colonoscope or on-table enteroscopy during a laparotomy were used. However, in 2000, Iddan et al. [1] introduced the first wireless CE for visualizing the whole length of the small bowel. Since then, its role has expanded as an important noninvasive method for visualizing the rest of the gastrointestinal tract. The main indication for CE is the investigation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, but it has been increasingly used for assessing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); mainly Crohn’s disease (CD), but also ulcerative colitis (UC).

This review summarizes the current status of CE in IBD, with a focus on emerging indications and new developments that may enhance its future use.

TYPES OF CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY

The original CE, the PillCam (Fig. 1A), was manufactured by Given Imaging Ltd. (Yokne’am Illit, Israel). This has been followed by the development of several other capsules by other manufacturers, which include MiroCam (Intromedic, Seoul, Korea) (Fig. 1B), EndoCapsule (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), OMOM (Jianshan Science and Technology [Group] Co., Ltd, Chongqing, China; CapsoCam, Capsovision, Saratoga, CA, USA).

As mentioned previously, the original CEs were designed for visualization of the small bowel, which was notoriously inaccessible to the endoscopist due to its length and tortuosity. Since the original small bowel CE (SBCE) was introduced, it has undergone many developments such as enhanced image resolution, faster adaptable frame rate, and capability for real-time analysis to further increase the diagnostic yield.

Subsequently, the colon CE (CCE) was developed in 2006 to allow noninvasive visualization of the colon [2]. The CCE-2, such as the PillCam COLON 2 (Fig. 1C), has enabled imaging which is superior to that of the first generation CCE. More recently, the PillCam Crohn’s Capsule (PCC) (Medtronic) was developed, which is a pan-enteric video capsule system that allows visualization of the small and the large bowel [3].

INDICATIONS FOR CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY IN IBD

Almost in parallel with the development of CE, device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), which may be balloon-assisted or spiral, was introduced with the added advantage of tissue acquisition and therapeutic procedures. CE, DAE, and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) are generally preferred for small bowel visualization; they may be used alone or in combination depending on the clinical situation (see the suggested algorithm for suspected or established CD).

The indications for IBD are as follows: (1) to investigate patients when there is a high index of suspicion for CD, but esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ileocolonoscopy findings are normal; (2) to assess small bowel involvement or disease activity in patients with confirmed CD; (3) to assess postoperative recurrence of CD in the small bowel; or (4) to monitor disease activity or mucosal healing of the colon in UC (and colonic CD).

1. To Investigate Patients When There Is a High Index of Suspicion for Isolated Small Bowel CD

Up to 30% of CD patients have isolated small bowel disease [4], and CE plays an important role in the diagnosis in these cases. These patients were historically very difficult to diagnose as they could initially present with nonspecific symptoms (mild abdominal pain with or without diarrhea) and get labeled as functional given the initial negative investigations. A large meta-analysis revealed that CE was far superior to small-bowel radiography (52% vs. 16%), computed tomography enterography (CTE; 68% vs. 21%), and ileocolonoscopy (47% vs. 25%), but not MRE in the diagnosis of suspected non-stricturing small-bowel CD [5]. Another meta-analysis also showed that there were no differences in the diagnostic yield of CE and MRE and small bowel contrast ultrasound [6]. In contrast, several other studies have shown that CE was superior to MRE in detecting subtle, early lesions [7]. Consequently, the role of CE in suspected isolated small bowel CD has been long established and incorporated into most recommendations and consensus guidelines [8-10].

However, the main concern in using CE in patients with suspected CD is the risk of capsule retention (Fig. 2). In general, the risk of retention is low, but this is increased up to 3.6% in patients with suspected CD alone and up to 10.4% in suspected and definite CD combined [11-14]. Therefore it is not advisable to carry out CE unless imaging such as MRE has been avoid repetition carried out first. In addition, it is recommended that patency capsules (PCs), which are dissolvable radioopaque capsules (Fig. 3), should also be administered before the actual CE [15]. The use of PCs rules out small bowel obstruction in about 99% of cases, but it does not exclude it altogether [16]. The retention of PCs has been reported to result in abdominal pain and, in a few cases, complete small bowel obstruction and perforation. PCs also add to the cost of the overall procedure.

Fortunately, most cases of retention of the capsule are asymptomatic. A trial of steroids is often administered to reduce inflammation and facilitate the egestion of the capsule. If this is unsuccessful, most capsules can safely be removed by DAE. Approximately, 32% to 45% of cases will require surgery [17,18].

While it is important to make a timely diagnosis of IBD, it is equally important not to make an erroneous diagnosis of IBD. First of all, many differential diagnoses exist, such as NSAID induced enteropathy, intestinal Behçet’s disease, and lymphoma, which may have a similar presentation to IBD endoscopically. Therefore, any significant findings on CE must be followed-up with enteroscopy and biopsies. Secondly, small bowel breaks in mucosa/lesions are common and asymptomatic, and they may lead to an over-diagnosis of IBD. The Lewis score (LS) was developed to differentiate between significant and nonsignificant inflammation of the bowel, as well as categorize the degree of inflammation (Table 1) [19]. The categories based on cutoff values are as follows; a score of < 135 is considered normal or clinically insignificant, a score between 135 and 790 is mild, and a score of ≥ 790 is moderate to severe. In a study looking at the diagnostic yield of the LS for suspected CD; the cutoff score of ≥ 135 had an overall diagnostic accuracy of 83.2% with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 89.5%, 78.9%, 73.9%, and 91.8%, respectively [20].

2. To Assess Small Bowel Involvement or Disease Activity in Patients with Confirmed CD

It is accepted that all cases of CD should undergo a type of small bowel imaging, and MRE has been the most widely utilized. MRE allows transmural visualization of the small bowel, a more precise anatomical “roadmap,” and the identification of any concurrent abdominal abscesses. Although most guidelines have not recommended routine CE for established CD with normal MRE or CTE [10], it can be considered in certain situations such as unexplained anemia, severe malnutrition, and inconsistency between symptoms and other imaging findings. A study by Dubcenco et al. [21] showed that active disease was identified by CE, ileocolonoscopy, and barium radiography in 82%, 49%, and 32% of symptomatic patients. In another similar study, the findings from CE led to the escalation of treatment in 45% of these patients [22].

Endoscopic mucosal healing is now considered an important target in the management of IBD, even in asymptomatic patients. For example, Ben-Horin et al. [23] found that endoscopic assessment using CE predicted subsequent flares within 6 months in asymptomatic patients. A study by Oliva et al. [24] found that the application of the pan-enteric CE for detecting mucosal healing in pediatric patients led to important modifications in therapy. At present, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine CE following a normal MRE or CTE to assess for mucosal healing, but this may evolve as an important indication in the near future.

The previously mentioned LS (section 1.1) can be used to objectively assess disease severity. Another simpler scoring system, the capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index (CECDAI), has also been specifically developed for CD (Table 2) [25]. A recent study comparing the 2 scores found that LS 135 and 790 were equivalent to CECDAI values of 4.9 and 6.9, respectively. There was a strong correlation between the 2 scores, but the CECDAI was more reflective of extensive inflammation and high clinical activity [26]. Another study also found a strong correlation between the 2 scores, but only moderate correlation with fecal calprotectin (FC) [27]. However, there is no gold standard or widely accepted best scoring system in practice as of now.

As mentioned previously, the use of PCs is strongly recommended in cases of established CD given the high risk of strictures, even if cross-sectional imaging such as MRE or CTE is normal.

Although the data is more limited compared to UC, CCE can also be used to assess disease activity for colonic CD [28].

3. To Assess Postoperative Recurrence of CD Following Ileocolonic Resection

Postoperative recurrence of CD following a limited right hemicolectomy occurs in up to 70% of cases [29], and recent studies have shown that early detection of endoscopic recurrence is important for starting biological therapy and the prevention of clinical recurrence and repeat surgery [30]. Although the standard method for assessing this is ileocolonoscopy, studies are emerging on the indication of CCE. One of the earliest studies by Pons Beltran [31], demonstrated that CE detected CD recurrence in 15/22 (62%) patients, whereas ileocolonoscopy detected inflammatory lesions in only 6/24 (25%) patients (all in the neoterminal ileum). Similarly, in another study, CE was shown to detect lesions outside the scope of ileocolonoscopy in two-thirds of patients [32]. The most recent study by Sorrentino et al. [33] found similar findings which led to an upgrade of management in 12 out of 23 patients (52%). Therefore, monitoring small bowel lesions with CE, which is beyond the scope of conventional ileocolonoscopy, may be beneficial in improving postoperative outcomes in CD.

4. To Monitor Disease Activity or Mucosal Healing of the Colon in UC

Many patients with IBD would prefer noninvasive methods of assessments, and it is justifiable that the indications for CCE-2 have quickly expanded from general colorectal cancer screening to include surveillance in IBD. A study by Hosoe et al. [34] showed that there was a reasonably good correlation between CCE-2 and conventional colonoscopy. Okabayashi et al. [35] proposed a 1-day simple regimen of CCE-2 optimized for UC to achieve better acceptance where 500 mL of hypertonic polyethylene glycol solution, followed by 250 mL of water, is ingested 2.5 hours before, and then 1, 3, and 6 hours after capsule ingestion until its excretion; castor oil is added to the second booster. Following this, a capsule score for UC (CSUC) was developed to objectively assess disease severity in UC using CCE-2 (Table 3) [36]. Correlation between CCE-2 findings and the risk of relapse has also been reported [37].

Although it is unlikely that CCE will replace fecal biomarkers and ileocolonoscopy as the first-line investigation for UC, it remains a viable alternative; for example, in those with indeterminate results of fecal biomarkers, but who are reluctant or at high risk for ileocolonoscopy.

SUGGESTED ALGORITHM FOR CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY IN IBD

1. Capsule Endoscopy (SBCE) in Suspected Small Bowel CD

In patients with clinically suspected IBD (in particular isolated CD), FC is probably the most cost-effective first investigation. A meta-analysis by Kopylov et al. [38] found the sensitivity and specificity of FC to be 0.89 and 0.55, respectively, if a cut of > 50 µg/g was used, and a recent study by Shimoyama et al. [39] also concluded that using fecal biomarkers was the most cost-effective method for screening for small bowel pathology such as CD. If FC is elevated, we suggest MRE (or CTE if MRE is not readily available) as the first investigation. If MRE or CTE is abnormal, enteroscopy rather than CE is recommended given the risk of capsule retention. If the MRE or CTE is normal, CE should be considered if there is a strong clinical suspicion of CD based on symptoms and other biomarkers. The application of a scoring system may be useful for objective assessment of the need for further workup. It may be prudent to consider a PC in all cases of suspected IBD although the overall risk of capsule retention is low. The algorithm for CE for suspected small bowel CD is illustrated in Fig. 4.

2. Capsule Endoscopy in Established CD

In patients with confirmed CD, MRE, or CTE is usually adequate to assess small bowel involvement. In cases where MRE or CTE is abnormal, enteroscopy is recommended if biopsies and further assessment are required. However, as mentioned previously, SBCE may be considered after a normal MRE or CTE in cases of severe malnutrition, ongoing symptoms, and unexplained anemia. As the goalpost of therapy has shifted, SBCE may be considered for a full assessment of mucosal healing throughout the small bowel. The objective assessment of disease activity can be carried out using the LS or the CECDAI.

PCs are recommended in cases of established IBD given the high risk of capsule retention.

Similarly, CCE-2 may be a useful adjunct or alternative for assessing postoperative CD recurrence in the neoterminal ileum following ileocolonic resection and monitoring of colonic CD. The PCC is advantageous for assessing CD patients with extensive small bowel and colonic involvement. The system platform and software use a novel assessment methodology for documenting disease extent and severity.

However, incorporating CE as a standard investigation in all cases of CD may not be practical in many countries. CE is expensive and the addition of PCs will only add to the cost. Biological therapy also remains unaffordable to many patients in these countries, and the identification of mild mucosal inflammation in the small bowel may not lead to change in management as in the more developed nations. Furthermore, the LS, CECDAI, and CSUC may be difficult or cumbersome to calculate in daily clinical practice. Another disadvantage is that it is time-consuming. However, several methods for creating automated software for ulcer detection [40] have been developed, and hopefully in future will also cover typical endoscopic features of inflammation. The algorithm for CE for confirmed CD is illustrated in Fig. 5.

3. Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) in UC

For monitoring disease activity of UC, most physicians would still prefer conventional colonoscopy, especially for enhancing the detection of dysplastic lesions with chromoendoscopy or if therapeutic intervention is considered (e.g., dilatation of stricture). However, CE is an attractive noninvasive method for disease monitoring, which include assessments of mucosal healing in patients in clinical remission, and may be considered in this setting. The CSUC can be used for standardized and objective assessments of disease activity in this setting, but further studies on this are required. The algorithm for CE in UC is illustrated in Fig. 6.

CONCLUSION

CE has revolutionized noninvasive imaging of the small bowel and colon. Current and future developments such as magnetic CE, which allows real-time maneuverability of the capsule [41], automated software for detection of ulcer/inflammation, and further development of designated IBD systems will almost certainly enhance its role in the diagnosis and monitoring of IBD.

NOTES

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Writing of original draft: Hilmi I. Writing, review, and editing: Kobayashi T. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Fig. 1.

Types of capsule endoscopy. (A) PillCam Small Bowel Capsule 3 (SB3; Given Imaging Ltd.), (B) MiroCam capsule (Intromedic), and (C) PillCam Colon Capsule Endoscopy 2 (Given Imaging Ltd.).

Fig. 2.

Endoscopic (A) and computed tomography (B) images of a retained capsule.

Fig. 3.

Patency capsules (A) intact, (B) partially dissolved, and (C) fully dissolved.

Fig. 4.

Suggested algorithm for capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease. IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; CT, computed tomography; GI, gastrointestinal.

Fig. 5.

Suggested algorithm for capsule endoscopy in patients with confirmed Crohn’s disease (CD). MRE, magnetic resonance enterography; CTE, computed tomography enterography.

Fig. 6.

Suggested algorithm for capsule endoscopy in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

Table 1.

The Lewis Score for the Assessment of Small Bowel Lesions Using Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

Parameters	Number	Longitudinal extent	Descriptors
First tertile
Villous appearance	Normal - 0	Short segment - 8	Single - 1
	Edematous - 1	Long segment - 12	Patchy -14
		Whole tertile - 20	Diffuse -17
Ulcer	None - 0	Short segment - 5	< 1/4 - 9
	Single - 3	Long segment - 10	1/4 - 1/2 - 12
	Few - 5	Whole tertile - 15	> 1/2 - 18
	Multiple - 10
Second tertile
Villous appearance	Normal - 0	Short segment - 8	Single - 1
	Edematous - 1	Long segment - 12	Patchy -14
		Whole tertile - 20	Diffuse - 17
Ulcer	None - 0	Short segment - 5	< 1/4 - 9
	Single - 3	Long segment - 10	1/4 - 1/2 - 12
	Few - 5	Whole tertile - 15	> 1/2 - 18
	Multiple - 10
Third tertile
Villous appearance	Normal - 0	Short segment - 8	Single - 1
	Edematous - 1	Long segment - 12	Patchy - 14
		Whole tertile - 20	Diffuse - 17
Ulcer	None - 0	Short segment - 5	< 1/4 - 9
	Single -3	Long segment - 10	1/4 - 1/2 - 12
	Few - 5	Whole tertile - 15	> 1/2 - 18
	Multiple - 10
Stenosis (rated for the whole study)
Stenosis	None - 0	Ulcerated - 24	Traversed - 7
	Single -14	Non-ulcerated - 2	Not traversed - 10
	Multiple - 20

Adapted from Gralnek IM, et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:146-154, with permission from John Wiley and Sons [19].

Table 2.

CECDAI Scoring System

CECDAI	Proximal	Distal
A. Inflammation score
0=None
1=Mild to moderate edema/hyperemia/denudation
2=Severe edema/hyperemia/denudation
3=Bleeding, exudate, aphthae, erosion, small ulcer (≥0.5 cm)
4=Moderate ulcer (0.5-2 cm), pseudopolyp
5=Large ulcer (2 cm)
B. Extent of disease score
0=None
1=Focal disease (single segment)
2=Patchy disease (multiple segments)
3=Diffuse disease
C. Narrowing (stricture)
0=None
1=Single-passed
2=Multiple-passed
Segmental score=A×B+C
Total score=(A1×B1+C1)+(A2×B2+C2)

CECDAI, capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index.

Adapted from Gal E, et al. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:1933-1937, with permission from Springer Nature [25].

Table 3.

Capsule Scoring of Ulcerative Colitis (CSUC)

Descriptor (score most severe lesions)	Likert Scale Anchor (points)	Definition
Vascular pattern	Normal (0)	Normal vascular pattern
	Patchy obliteration (1)	Obliterated area ≤ 30%
	Obliterated (2)	Obliterated area > 30%
Bleeding	None (0)	No visible blood detected by SBI
	Mild (1)	No. bleeding picture detected by SBI ≤ 10
	Severe (2)	No. bleeding picture detected by SBI > 10
Erosions and ulcers	None (0)	Normal mucosa, no visible erosions or ulcers
	Erosions (1)	Tiny (≤ 5 mm) defects in the mucosa
	Superficial ulcer (2)	Larger (> 5 mm) defects in the mucosa
	Deep ulcer (3)	Larger (> 5 mm) and deeper excavated defects in the mucosa, with a slightly raised edge

SBI, suspected blood indicator.

Adapted from Hosoe N, et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2641-2647, with permission from Oxford University Press [36].

REFERENCES

1. Iddan G, Meron G, Glukhovsky A, Swain P. Wireless capsule endoscopy. Nature 2000;405:417.Article PDF
2. Eliakim R, Fireman Z, Gralnek IM, et al. Evaluation of the PillCam colon capsule in the detection of colonic pathology: results of the first multicenter, prospective, comparative study. Endoscopy 2006;38:963–970.Article PubMed
3. Eliakim R, Spada C, Lapidus A, et al. Evaluation of a new panenteric video capsule endoscopy system in patients with suspected or established inflammatory bowel disease: feasibility study. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E1235–E1246.Article PubMed PMC PDF
4. Cosnes J, Gower-Rousseau C, Seksik P, Cortot A. Epidemiology and natural history of inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1785–1794.Article PubMed
5. Dionisio PM, Gurudu SR, Leighton JA, et al. Capsule endoscopy has a significantly higher diagnostic yield in patients with suspected and established small-bowel Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1240–1248.Article PubMed PDF
6. Kopylov U, Yung DE, Engel T, et al. Diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy versus magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel contrast ultrasound in the evaluation of small bowel Crohn’s disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2017;49:854–863.Article PubMed
7. González-Suárez B, Rodriguez S, Ricart E, et al. Comparison of capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance enterography for the assessment of small bowel lesions in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:775–780.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Shim KN, Jeon SR, Jang HJ, et al. Quality indicators for small bowel capsule endoscopy. Clin Endosc 2017;50:148–160.Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Enns RA, Hookey L, Armstrong D, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of video capsule endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017;152:497–514.Article PubMed
10. Ooi CJ, Makharia GK, Hilmi I, et al. Asia Pacific Consensus Statements on Crohn’s disease. Part 1: definition, diagnosis, and epidemiology. (Asia Pacific Crohn’s Disease Consensus: Part 1). J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;31:45–55.Article PubMed
11. Lim YJ, Lee OY, Jeen YT, et al. Indications for detection, completion, and retention rates of small bowel capsule endoscopy based on the 10-year data from the Korean Capsule Endoscopy Registry. Clin Endosc 2015;48:399–404.Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Rezapour M, Amadi C, Gerson LB. Retention associated with video capsule endoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:1157–1168.Article PubMed
13. Fernández-Urién I, Carretero C, González B, et al. Incidence, clinical outcomes, and therapeutic approaches of capsule endoscopy-related adverse events in a large study population. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2015;107:745–752.Article PubMed
14. Liao Z, Gao R, Xu C, Li ZS. Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:280–286.Article PubMed
15. Caunedo-Alvarez A, Romero-Vazquez J, Herrerias-Gutierrez JM. Patency and Agile capsules. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:5269–5273.Article PubMed PMC
16. Kopylov U, Nemeth A, Cebrian A, et al. Symptomatic retention of the patency capsule: a multicenter real life case series. Endosc Int Open 2016;4:4E964–E969.Article PDF
17. Lee HS, Lim YJ, Kim KO, et al. Outcomes and management strategies for capsule retention: a Korean Capsule Endoscopy Nationwide Database Registry study. Dig Dis Sci 2019;64:3240–3246.Article PubMed PDF
18. Nemeth A, Wurm Johansson G, Nielsen J, Thorlacius H, Toth E. Capsule retention related to small bowel capsule endoscopy: a large European single-center 10-year clinical experience. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5:677–686.Article PubMed
19. Gralnek IM, Defranchis R, Seidman E, Leighton JA, Legnani P, Lewis BS. Development of a capsule endoscopy scoring index for small bowel mucosal inflammatory change. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:146–154.Article PubMed
20. Monteiro S, Boal Carvalho P, Dias de Castro F, et al. Capsule endoscopy: diagnostic accuracy of Lewis score in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015;21:2241–2246.Article PubMed
21. Dubcenco E, Jeejeebhoy KN, Petroniene R, et al. Capsule endoscopy findings in patients with established and suspected small-bowel Crohn’s disease: correlation with radiologic, endoscopic, and histologic findings. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:538–544.Article PubMed
22. Dussault C, Gower-Rousseau C, Salleron J, et al. Small bowel capsule endoscopy for management of Crohn’s disease: a retrospective tertiary care centre experience. Dig Liver Dis 2013;45:558–561.Article PubMed
23. Ben-Horin S, Lahat A, Amitai MM, et al. Assessment of small bowel mucosal healing by video capsule endoscopy for the prediction of short-term and long-term risk of Crohn’s disease flare: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:519–528.Article PubMed
24. Oliva S, Aloi M, Viola F, et al. A treat to target strategy using panenteric capsule endoscopy in pediatric patients with Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:2060–2067.Article PubMed
25. Gal E, Geller A, Fraser G, Levi Z, Niv Y. Assessment and validation of the new capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index (CECDAI). Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:1933–1937.Article PubMed PDF
26. Omori T, Kambayashi H, Murasugi S, et al. Comparison of Lewis score and capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index in patients with Crohn’s disease. Dig Dis Sci 2020;65:1180–1188.Article PubMed PDF
27. Yablecovitch D, Lahat A, Neuman S, et al. The Lewis score or the capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index: which one is better for the assessment of small bowel inflammation in established Crohn’s disease? Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2018;11:1756283X17747780.Article PubMed PMC PDF
28. D’Haens G, Löwenberg M, Samaan MA, et al. Safety and feasibility of using the second-generation PillCam colon capsule to assess active colonic Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:1480–1486.Article PubMed
29. Rutgeerts P, Geboes K, Vantrappen G, Beyls J, Kerremans R, Hiele M. Predictability of the postoperative course of Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 1990;99:956–963.Article PubMed
30. De Cruz P, Kamm MA, Hamilton AL, et al. Crohn’s disease management after intestinal resection: a randomised trial. Lancet 2015;385:1406–1417.Article PubMed
31. Pons Beltrán V, Nos P, Bastida G, et al. Evaluation of postsurgical recurrence in Crohn’s disease: a new indication for capsule endoscopy? Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:533–540.Article PubMed
32. Bourreille A, Jarry M, D’Halluin PN, et al. Wireless capsule endoscopy versus ileocolonoscopy for the diagnosis of postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s disease: a prospective study. Gut 2006;55:978–983.Article PubMed PMC
33. Sorrentino D, Nguyen VQ. Clinically significant small bowel Crohn’s disease might only be detected by capsule endoscopy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:1566–1574.Article PubMed PDF
34. Hosoe N, Matsuoka K, Naganuma M, et al. Applicability of second-generation colon capsule endoscope to ulcerative colitis: a clinical feasibility study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:1174–1179.Article PubMed
35. Okabayashi S, Kobayashi T, Nakano M, et al. A simple 1-day colon capsule endoscopy procedure demonstrated to be a highly acceptable monitoring tool for ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2404–2412.Article PubMed PDF
36. Hosoe N, Nakano M, Takeuchi K, et al. Establishment of a novel scoring system for colon capsule endoscopy to assess the severity of ulcerative colitis-capsule scoring of ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2641–2647.Article PubMed PDF
37. Takano R, Osawa S, Uotani T, et al. Evaluating mucosal healing using colon capsule endoscopy predicts outcome in patients with ulcerative colitis in clinical remission. World J Clin Cases 2018;6:952–960.Article PubMed PMC
38. Kopylov U, Yung DE, Engel T, et al. Fecal calprotectin for the prediction of small-bowel Crohn’s disease by capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;28:1137–1144.Article PubMed
39. Shimoyama T, Yamamoto T, Umegae S, Matsumoto K. Faecal biomarkers for screening small bowel inflammation in patients with Crohn’s disease: a prospective study. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2017;10:577–587.Article PubMed PMC
40. Klang E, Barash Y, Margalit RY, et al. Deep learning algorithms for automated detection of Crohn’s disease ulcers by video capsule endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:606–613.Article PubMed
41. Carpi F. Magnetic capsule endoscopy: the future is around the corner. Expert Rev Med Devices 2010;7:161–164.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Joëlle St-Pierre, David T. Rubin
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America.2025; 35(1): 1. CrossRef
Role of Noninvasive Imaging in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Suspected and Established Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Torsten Kucharzik, Mariangela Allocca, Joana Torres, Stuart A. Taylor
Gastroenterology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparative Study of MiroCam MC2000 and PillCam SB3 in Detecting Small Bowel Bleeding: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Crossover Study
Ji Eun Kim, Eun Ran Kim, Jae Jun Park, Kyeong Ok Kim, Yehyun Park, Young Joo Yang, Hyun Joo Jang
Gut and Liver.2025; 19(4): 569. CrossRef
The Role of Imaging in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: From Diagnosis to Individualized Therapy
Salvatore Lavalle, Alessandro Vitello, Edoardo Masiello, Giuseppe Dell’Anna, Placido Romeo, Angelo Montana, Giambattista Privitera, Michele Cosenza, Domenico Santangelo, Tommaso Russo, Federico Bonomo, Emanuele Sinagra, Partha Pal, Antonio Facciorusso, Fa
Diagnostics.2025; 15(19): 2457. CrossRef
Evaluation of the safety, efficacy and feasibility of ‘at-home’ capsule endoscopy
Ioanna Parisi, Angelica Vania Hosea, Sandro Stoffel, Martin Nemec, Sohail Badat, Edward Seward, Aradhna Kaushal, Robert Kerrison, Christian Von Wagner
Frontline Gastroenterology.2024; 15(4): 273. CrossRef
Discordance Rate and Risk Factor of Other Diagnostic Modalities for Small Bowel Tumors Detected by Device-Assisted Enteroscopy: A Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID) Multicenter Study
Jihye Park, Jin Su Kim, Joo Hye Song, Kwangwoo Nam, Seong-Eun Kim, Eui Sun Jeong, Jae Hyun Kim, Seong Ran Jeon
Gut and Liver.2024; 18(4): 686. CrossRef
Paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Asian-Pacific region: Recent advances in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques
James Guoxian Huang, Pornthep Tanpowpong
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 29(18): 2717. CrossRef
The role of video capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases: experience of the Department of Diagnostic and Operative Endoscopy
A. A. Likutov, T. A. Vlasko, V. V. Veselov
Ambulatornaya khirurgiya = Ambulatory Surgery (Russia).2023; 20(2): 116. CrossRef
Radiology plus ileocolonoscopy versus radiology alone in Crohn’s disease: prognosis prediction and mutual agreement
Hye Kyung Hyun, Jongwook Yu, Eun Ae Kang, Jihye Park, Soo Jung Park, Jae Jun Park, Tae Il Kim, Won Ho Kim, Jae Hee Cheon
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2022; 37(3): 567. CrossRef
Rebleeding Rate and Risk Factors for Rebleeding after Device-Assisted Enteroscopy in Patients with Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A KASID Multicenter Study
Yuna Kim, Jae-Hyun Kim, Eun-Ae Kang, Soo-Jung Park, Jae-Jun Park, Jae-Hee Cheon, Tae-Il Kim, Jihye Park, Seong-Ran Jeon
Diagnostics.2022; 12(4): 954. CrossRef
Magnetically Guided Capsule Endoscopy and Magnetic Resonance Enterography in Children With Crohn’s Disease: Manifestations and the Value of Assessing Disease Activity
Jia Li, Xuesong Zhao, Wen Su, Ruizhe Shen, Yuan Xiao, Xinqiong Wang, Xu Xu, Chundi Xu, Na Li, Yi Yu
Frontiers in Pharmacology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Outcomes between P1 and P0 Lesions for Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding with Negative Computed Tomography and Capsule Endoscopy
Young Kyu Cho, Heesu Park, Jung Rock Moon, Seong Ran Jeon, Hyun Gun Kim, Tae Hee Lee, Junseok Park, Jin-Oh Kim, Joon Seong Lee, Hyeon Jeong Goong, Bong Min Ko, Suyeon Park
Diagnostics.2021; 11(4): 657. CrossRef
Rediscovering histology: what is new in endoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease?
Virginia Solitano, Ferdinando D’Amico, Mariangela Allocca, Gionata Fiorino, Alessandra Zilli, Laura Loy, Daniela Gilardi, Simona Radice, Carmen Correale, Silvio Danese, Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, Federica Furfaro
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Calprotectin for the Detection of Small Bowel Crohn's Disease through Capsule Endoscopy: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Eun Suk Jung, Sang Pyo Lee, Sea Hyub Kae, Jung Han Kim, Hyeong Su Kim, Hyun Joo Jang
Gut and Liver.2021; 15(5): 732. CrossRef
Capsule Endoscopy in Crohn’s Disease—From a Relative Contraindication to Habitual Monitoring Tool
Adi Lahat, Ido Veisman
Diagnostics.2021; 11(10): 1737. CrossRef
Addition of castor oil as a booster in colon capsule regimens significantly improves completion rates and polyp detection
Serhiy Semenov, Mohd Syafiq Ismail, Fintan O'Hara, Sandeep Sihag, Barbara Ryan, Anthony O'Connor, Sarah O'Donnell, Deirdre McNamara
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics.2021; 12(6): 103. CrossRef
Predictors of Positive Video Capsule Endoscopy Findings for Chronic Unexplained Abdominal Pain: Single-Center Retrospective Study and Meta-Analysis
Wonshik Kim, Beomjae Lee, Ahyoung Yoo, Seunghan Kim, Moonkyung Joo, Jong-Jae Park
Diagnostics.2021; 11(11): 2123. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: when and how

Intest Res. 2020;18(3):265-274. Published online July 7, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2019.09165

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: when and how

Fig. 1. Types of capsule endoscopy. (A) PillCam Small Bowel Capsule 3 (SB3; Given Imaging Ltd.), (B) MiroCam capsule (Intromedic), and (C) PillCam Colon Capsule Endoscopy 2 (Given Imaging Ltd.).

Fig. 2. Endoscopic (A) and computed tomography (B) images of a retained capsule.

Fig. 3. Patency capsules (A) intact, (B) partially dissolved, and (C) fully dissolved.

Fig. 4. Suggested algorithm for capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease. IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; CT, computed tomography; GI, gastrointestinal.

Fig. 5. Suggested algorithm for capsule endoscopy in patients with confirmed Crohn’s disease (CD). MRE, magnetic resonance enterography; CTE, computed tomography enterography.

Fig. 6. Suggested algorithm for capsule endoscopy in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: when and how

Parameters	Number	Longitudinal extent	Descriptors
First tertile
Villous appearance	Normal - 0	Short segment - 8	Single - 1
	Edematous - 1	Long segment - 12	Patchy -14
		Whole tertile - 20	Diffuse -17
Ulcer	None - 0	Short segment - 5	< 1/4 - 9
	Single - 3	Long segment - 10	1/4 - 1/2 - 12
	Few - 5	Whole tertile - 15	> 1/2 - 18
	Multiple - 10
Second tertile
Villous appearance	Normal - 0	Short segment - 8	Single - 1
	Edematous - 1	Long segment - 12	Patchy -14
		Whole tertile - 20	Diffuse - 17
Ulcer	None - 0	Short segment - 5	< 1/4 - 9
	Single - 3	Long segment - 10	1/4 - 1/2 - 12
	Few - 5	Whole tertile - 15	> 1/2 - 18
	Multiple - 10
Third tertile
Villous appearance	Normal - 0	Short segment - 8	Single - 1
	Edematous - 1	Long segment - 12	Patchy - 14
		Whole tertile - 20	Diffuse - 17
Ulcer	None - 0	Short segment - 5	< 1/4 - 9
	Single -3	Long segment - 10	1/4 - 1/2 - 12
	Few - 5	Whole tertile - 15	> 1/2 - 18
	Multiple - 10
Stenosis (rated for the whole study)
Stenosis	None - 0	Ulcerated - 24	Traversed - 7
	Single -14	Non-ulcerated - 2	Not traversed - 10
	Multiple - 20

CECDAI	Proximal	Distal
A. Inflammation score
0=None
1=Mild to moderate edema/hyperemia/denudation
2=Severe edema/hyperemia/denudation
3=Bleeding, exudate, aphthae, erosion, small ulcer (≥0.5 cm)
4=Moderate ulcer (0.5-2 cm), pseudopolyp
5=Large ulcer (2 cm)
B. Extent of disease score
0=None
1=Focal disease (single segment)
2=Patchy disease (multiple segments)
3=Diffuse disease
C. Narrowing (stricture)
0=None
1=Single-passed
2=Multiple-passed
Segmental score=A×B+C
Total score=(A1×B1+C1)+(A2×B2+C2)

Descriptor (score most severe lesions)	Likert Scale Anchor (points)	Definition
Vascular pattern	Normal (0)	Normal vascular pattern
	Patchy obliteration (1)	Obliterated area ≤ 30%
	Obliterated (2)	Obliterated area > 30%
Bleeding	None (0)	No visible blood detected by SBI
	Mild (1)	No. bleeding picture detected by SBI ≤ 10
	Severe (2)	No. bleeding picture detected by SBI > 10
Erosions and ulcers	None (0)	Normal mucosa, no visible erosions or ulcers
	Erosions (1)	Tiny (≤ 5 mm) defects in the mucosa
	Superficial ulcer (2)	Larger (> 5 mm) defects in the mucosa
	Deep ulcer (3)	Larger (> 5 mm) and deeper excavated defects in the mucosa, with a slightly raised edge

Table 1. The Lewis Score for the Assessment of Small Bowel Lesions Using Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy

Adapted from Gralnek IM, et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:146-154, with permission from John Wiley and Sons [19].

Table 2. CECDAI Scoring System

CECDAI, capsule endoscopy Crohn’s disease activity index.

Adapted from Gal E, et al. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:1933-1937, with permission from Springer Nature [25].

Table 3. Capsule Scoring of Ulcerative Colitis (CSUC)

SBI, suspected blood indicator.

Adapted from Hosoe N, et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2641-2647, with permission from Oxford University Press [36].