Original ArticleClinical EndoscopyBlinded comparison of esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux
Section snippets
Patients and methods
This study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. All subjects signed a written informed consent.
Results
We attempted to contact 195 potentially eligible patients: 43 were found to fulfill exclusion criteria and 56 refused or did not respond to our telephone call (Fig. 1). A total of 96 eligible subjects were eventually enrolled. Six subjects had uninterpretable results for the following reasons. One elderly patient was unable to swallow the capsule, despite the absence of any history of stroke or other condition that might impair his swallowing ability. Two patients had the capsule retained in
Discussion
Standard, single-headed, small-bowel video capsules, which capture only 2 frames per second, are not suitable for esophageal imaging. A pilot study showed that esophageal transit time was only 2 seconds and that the gastroesophageal junction was visualized in only 24% of patients.8 Other small studies, published only in abstract form, have demonstrated that small-bowel capsules have low sensitivity or specificity for esophageal abnormalities.9, 10 There have been attempts to attach a string to
References (18)
Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus
Am J Gastroenterol
(2002)- et al.
Feasibility and safety of string, wireless capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus
Gastrointest Endosc
(2005) - et al.
Does this patient have Barrett's esophagus? The utility of predicting Barrett's esophagus at the index endoscopy
Am J Gastroenterol
(1999) - et al.
Accuracy of a narrow-diameter battery-powered endoscope in sedated and unsedated patients
Gastrointest Endosc
(2002) - et al.
Barrett's esophagus: a new look at surveillance based on emerging estimates of cancer risk
Am J Gastroenterol
(1999) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness model of endoscopic screening and surveillance in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
(2004) - et al.
Screening for high-grade dysplasia in gastroesophageal reflux disease: is it cost-effective?
Am J Gastroenterol
(2000) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of screening a population with chronic gastroesophageal reflux
Gastrointest Endosc
(2003) - et al.
Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma
N Engl J Med
(1999)
Cited by (80)
Video Capsule Endoscopy Beyond the Gastrointestinal Suite
2021, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North AmericaSystematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors for Barrett's esophagus
2019, Gastrointestinal EndoscopyAlternatives to Traditional Per-Oral Endoscopy for Screening
2017, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North AmericaBarrett's esophagus: diagnosis and management
2017, Gastrointestinal EndoscopyThe Role of Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Surveillance for Patients with Barrett Esophagus
2016, Medical Clinics of North AmericaScreening for Barrett's esophagus
2015, GastroenterologyCitation Excerpt :In initial studies, the PillCam ESO detected BE with 97% sensitivity and 99% specificity.82 However, further studies showed less than optimal sensitivity (60%–67%) and specificity (84%–100%) in detection of BE.79,83,84 The second-generation ESO2 device, which has a wider viewing angle and can generate 18 images per second, detected BE with 100% sensitivity and 74% specificity.