| 1. |
- Baltes, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with Meckel's diverticulum : clinical features, diagnostic workup, and findings. A European multicenter I-CARE study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0016-5107. ; 97:5, s. 3-926
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Aims: Meckel's diverticulum (MD) may remain silent or be associated with adverse events such as GI bleeding. The main aim of this study was to evaluate indicative small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) findings, and the secondary aim was to describe clinical presentation in patients with MD. Methods: This retrospective European multicenter study included patients with MD undergoing SBCE from 2001 until July 2021. Results: Sixty-nine patients with a confirmed MD were included. Median age was 32 years with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 3:1. GI bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia was present in nearly all patients. Mean hemoglobin was 7.63 ± 1.8 g/dL with a transfusion requirement of 52.2%. Typical capsule endoscopy (CE) findings were double lumen (n = 49 [71%]), visible entrance into the MD (n = 49 [71%]), mucosal webs (n = 30 [43.5%]), and bulges (n = 19 [27.5%]). Two or more of these findings were seen in 48 patients (69.6%). Ulcers were detected in 52.2% of patients (n = 36). In 63.8% of patients (n = 44), a combination of double lumen and visible entrance into the MD was evident, additionally revealing ulcers in 39.1% (n = 27). Mean percent SB (small bowel) transit time for the first indicative image of MD was 57% of the total SB transit time. Conclusions: Diagnosis of MD is rare and sometimes challenging, and a preoperative criterion standard does not exist. In SBCE, the most frequent findings were double-lumen sign and visible diverticular entrance, sometimes together with ulcers.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Deding, Ulrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-reported outcomes and preferences for colon capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy : A systematic review with meta-analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Diagnostics. - : MDPI AG. - 2075-4418. ; 11:9
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Colon capsule endoscopy as an alternative to colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colonic disease may serve as a less invasive and more tolerable investigation for patients. Our aim was to examine patient-reported outcomes for colon capsule endoscopy compared to conventional optical colonoscopy including preference of investigation modality, tolerability and adverse events. A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed and Embase. Search results were thoroughly screened for in-and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent assessment of transparency and completeness, after which, data for meta-analysis were extracted. Pooled estimates of patient preference were calculated and heterogeneity was examined including univariate meta-regressions. Patient-reported tolerability and adverse events were reviewed. Out of fourteen included studies, twelve had investigated patient-reported outcomes in patients who had undergone both investigations, whereas in two the patients were randomized between investigations. Pooled patient preferences were estimated to be 52% (CI 95%: 41–63%) for colon capsule endoscopy and 45% (CI 95%: 33–57%) for conventional colonoscopy: not indicating a significant difference. Procedural adverse events were rarely reported by patients for either investigation. The tolerability was high for both colon capsule endoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patient preferences for conventional colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy were not significantly different. Procedural adverse events were rare and the tolerability for colon capsule endoscopy was consistently reported higher or equal to that of conventional colonoscopy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Elli, Luca, et al.
(författare)
-
Nomenclature and Definition of Atrophic Lesions in Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy : A Delphi Consensus Statement of the International CApsule endoscopy REsearch (I-CARE) Group
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Diagnostics. - : MDPI AG. - 2075-4418. ; 12:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- (1) Background: Villous atrophy is an indication for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). However, SBCE findings are not described uniformly and atrophic features are sometimes not recognized; (2) Methods: The Delphi technique was employed to reach agreement among a panel of SBCE experts. The nomenclature and definitions of SBCE lesions suggesting the presence of atrophy were decided in a core group of 10 experts. Four images of each lesion were chosen from a large SBCE database and agreement on the correspondence between the picture and the definition was evaluated using the Delphi method in a broadened group of 36 experts. All images corresponded to histologically proven mucosal atrophy; (3) Results: Four types of atrophic lesions were identified: mosaicism, scalloping, folds reduction, and granular mucosa. The core group succeeded in reaching agreement on the nomenclature and the descriptions of these items. Consensus in matching the agreed definitions for the proposed set of images was met for mosaicism (88.9% in the first round), scalloping (97.2% in the first round), and folds reduction (94.4% in the first round), but granular mucosa failed to achieve consensus (75.0% in the third round); (4) Conclusions: Consensus among SBCE experts on atrophic lesions was met for the first time. Mosaicism, scalloping, and folds reduction are the most reliable signs, while the description of granular mucosa remains uncertain.
|
|
| 5. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lazaridis, Lazaros Dimitrios, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommendations for small-bowel capsule endoscopy into clinical practice : Results of an official ESGE survey
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 0013-726X .- 1438-8812. ; 53:9, s. 970-980
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background We aimed to document international practices in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), measuring adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical and clinical recommendations. Methods Participants reached through the ESGE contact list completed a 52-item web-based survey. Results 217 responded from 47 countries (176 and 41, respectively, from countries with or without a national society affiliated to ESGE). Of respondents, 45 % had undergone formal SBCE training. Among SBCE procedures, 91 % were performed with an ESGE recommended indication, obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), and suspected/established Crohn’s disease being the commonest and with higher rates of positive findings (49.4 %, 38.2 % and 53.5 %, respectively). A watchful waiting strategy after a negative SBCE for OGIB or IDA was preferred by 46.7 % and 70.3 %, respectively. SBCE was a second-line exam for evaluation of extent of new Crohn’s disease for 62.2 % of respondents. Endoscopists adhered to varying extents to ESGE technical recommendations regarding bowel preparation ( > 60 %), use in those with pacemaker holders (62.5 %), patency capsule use (51.2 %), and use of a validated scale for bowel preparation assessment (13.3 %). Of the respondents, 67 % read and interpreted the exams themselves and 84 % classified exams findings as relevant or irrelevant. Two thirds anticipated future increase in SBCE demand. Inability to obtain tissue (78.3 %) and high cost (68.1 %) were regarded as the main limitations, and implementation of artificial intelligence as the top development priority (56.2 %). Conclusions To some extent, endoscopists follow ESGE guidelines on using SBCE in clinical practice. However, variations in practice have been identified, whose implications require further evaluation.
|
|
| 8. |
- Leenhardt, Romain, et al.
(författare)
-
Nomenclature and semantic descriptions of ulcerative and inflammatory lesions seen in Crohn’s disease in small bowel capsule endoscopy : An international Delphi consensus statement
- 2020
-
Ingår i: United European Gastroenterology Journal. - : Wiley. - 2050-6406 .- 2050-6414. ; 8:1, s. 99-107
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: In the medical literature, the nomenclature and descriptions (ND) of small bowel (SB) ulcerative and inflammatory (U-I) lesions in capsule endoscopy (CE) are scarce and inconsistent. Inter-observer variability in interpreting these findings remains a major limitation in the assessment of the severity of mucosal lesions, which can impact negatively on clinical care, training and research on SB-CE. Objective: Focusing on SB-CE in Crohn’s disease (CD), our aim is to establish a consensus on the ND of U-I lesions. Methods: An international panel of experienced SB-CE readers was formed during the 2016 United European Gastroenterology Week meeting. A core group of five CE and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experts established an Internet-based, three-round Delphi consensus but did not participate in the voting process. The core group built illustrated questionnaires, including SB-CE still frames of U-I lesions from patients with documented CD. Twenty-seven other experts were asked to rate and comment on the different proposals for the ND of the most frequent SB U-I lesions. For each round, we used a 6-point rating scale (varying from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). The consensus was reached when at least 80 % of the voting members scored the statement within the ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ categories. Results: A 100% participation rate was obtained for all the rounds. Consensual ND were reached for the following seven U-I lesions: aphthoid erosion, deep ulceration, superficial ulceration, stenosis, edema, hyperemia and denudation. Conclusion: Considering the most frequent SB U-I lesions seen in CE in CD, a consensual ND was reached by the international group of experts. These descriptions and names are useful not only for daily practice and medical education, but also for medical research.
|
|
| 9. |
- Spada, Cristiano, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1438-8812 .- 0013-726X. ; 46:10, s. 897-915
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
