Digestive EndoscopyDetection of abnormal lesions recorded by capsule endoscopy: A prospective study comparing endoscopist's and nurse's accuracy
Introduction
Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a non-invasive endoscopic technique introduced in clinical practice since 2001. It is a revolutionary new diagnostic tool for the detection of small bowel diseases consisting of a swallowable capsule, able to record video images of the intestinal tract and transmit them to a data recorder, worn on a belt outside the body. After about 8 h of recording, the patient returns the data recorder, and images are downloaded to a computer workstation (RAPID® workstation, Given Imaging), where they can be displayed at a rate of 1–40 images/s. During the 8 h of recording the capsule acquires about 54,000 images.
The primary clinical indication for CE is obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) [1], but this technique is also indicated for other small bowel diseases, such as Crohn's disease (CD), hereditary polyposis syndrome, small bowel damage secondary to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), chronic diarrhoea [2], [3], [4], and for the follow-up of patients who underwent intestinal transplantation [5]. In a number of previous studies CE has showed its superiority over push-enteroscopy and radiographic examinations, such as small bowel enteroclysis, multi-slice computed tomography enteroclysis, magnetic resonance enteroclysis and scintigraphic methods in detecting small bowel lesions [6], [7], [8].
Major drawback of the technique is the time needed to download and, in particular, to review stored images. In this context, the traditional role of the nurse includes preparation of the patient with application of sensor arrays, administration of the capsule and, subsequently, download of images, while the physician is asked to interpret the videos. However, the mean time required for images review is considerably high, ranging from 60 to 120 min [7], [8]. On the other hand, CE is an operator-independent procedure, since the operator cannot modify in any view the characteristics of the images (i.e. by changing the camera's orientation); moreover, several different operators may review the same video without affecting both the quality and quantity of stored images. We hypothesise that a well-trained nurse might accurately review video images and identify all relevant abnormalities. If the nurse carefully selects critical images, the accuracy of the subsequent diagnosis made by the physician would be preserved with a considerable sparing of time.
In a small study by Levinthal et al. [9], the diagnostic accuracy by a nurse was assessed in 20 consecutive CE studies, all of which had been read in a blinded fashion by the gastroenterologist. The efficacy in abnormal images detection was estimated by comparing the number of significant lesions detected by the endoscopy nurse and the gastroenterologist. The nurse reached a 93% sensitivity (CI 74–99%) in identifying significant lesion when compared to the endoscopist. A recent study aimed at evaluating the ability of an experienced endoscopy nurse to pinpoint abnormal findings and to prepare CE records for physician interpretation, has demonstrated that a preliminary review by the nurse appear to be safe, reliable and cost-effective [10]. In both these studies [9], [10], the GI nurse and the physician were trained with 10 or 15 videos, respectively, before the study. However, the nurse's abnormal findings were compared with those of the physician's in a face-to-face session, without any formal statistical analysis.
The aim of our study was to assess whether an experienced endoscopy nurse might adequately select all significant images without affecting the diagnostic accuracy of the procedure. Moreover, the average cost of the procedure with the two different ways of analysis has been calculated.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
The study was carried out by an endoscopy nurse (G.C.) with 13 years of experience in following over 40,000 diagnostic or operative video endoscopies (gastroscopy, colonoscopy, push-enteroscopy and ERCP), and a by an endoscopist (V.A.) with 20-years experience with over 60,000 diagnostic or operative endoscopies (gastroscopy, colonoscopy and push-enteroscopy) performed. They were both trained to analyse CE videos by attending a specific 5-day course organised by the capsule distributor
Statistical analysis
For the analysis of agreement among the operators, the Cohen kappa coefficient was used [11] and calculated by the SPSS 13.0 for windows package software. Kappa coefficient may verify that agreement exceeds chance levels, according to the Fleiss’ scale [12]; more specifically, the agreement is scored as marginal (κ = 0–0.4), good (κ ≥ 0.4–0.75) and excellent (κ ≥ 0.75).
The cost of CE examination was calculated taking into account the following parameters:
- 1.
cost of 1 h of physician's time;
- 2.
cost of 1 h of
Results
The caecum was reached in 37 out of 41 cases (90%); all patients showed an adequate small bowel cleansing. In four subjects the capsule did not reach the caecum (two cases due to premature battery failure, and two cases because of small bowel stenosis, respectively). The mean small bowel transit time was 4 h and 33 min (range 65–490 min).
The nurse and the endoscopist selected a total of 65 and 53 thumbnails of abnormal lesions, respectively. The characteristics of detected lesions and relative
Discussion
CE is a new tool for the examination of small bowel disease with a clear-cut advantage over other endoscopic and radiologic techniques [6], [7], [8]. Its main drawback is that it is time consuming, especially in the evaluation of stored images. We hypothesised that a well-trained nurse may accurately select all significant images with a good agreement with the endoscopist; if this was the case, the time to make the final diagnosis would be considerably shortened (from 60–120 to 5–10 min),
References (14)
- et al.
The value of wireless capsule endoscopy in patients with complicated celiac disease
Gastrointest Endosc
(2005) - et al.
A prospective trial comparing small bowel radiographs and video capsule endoscopy for suspected small bowel disease
Gastroenterology
(2002) - et al.
The accuracy of an endoscopy nurse in interpreting capsule endoscopy
Am J Gastroenterol
(2003) - et al.
Accuracy of polyp detection by gastroenterologists and nurse endoscopists during flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomized trial
Gastroenterology
(1999) - et al.
The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement
Gastroenterology
(1996) - et al.
A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding
Am J Gastroenterol
(2005) - et al.
Diagnosing small bowel Crohn's disease with wireless capsule endoscopy
Gut
(2003)