Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining the Threshold: New Data on the Ability of Capsule Endoscopy to Discriminate the Size of Esophageal Varices

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy, EGD) to screen for esophageal varices (EV) is recommended in patients with portal hypertension. Reports indicate that capsule endoscopy (CE) is capable of identifying large/medium varices (L/MV) when the varix comprises more than 25% of the circumference of the field of view.

Aims

We evaluated the ability of CE to discriminate the size of EV using this grading scale.

Methods

Patients underwent CE and EGD on the same day. A blinded investigator interpreted capsule findings. CE labeled EV as L/MV if ≥25% of the lumen circumference was occupied, and small/none for <25%.

Results

A total of 37 patients were enrolled in this prospective, observational study at a single tertiary-care academic center. Three CE were excluded due to rapid esophageal transit time or technical malfunction. Using a 25% threshold, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for EC to discriminate L/MV were 23.5%, 88.2%, 66.7%, and 53.6%, respectively (κ = 0.12). Reducing the threshold to 12.5% resulted in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 88.2%, 64.7%, 71.4%, and 84.6%, respectively (κ = 0.53). A receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve showed a 15% threshold to be optimal in discriminating EV size using CE, resulting in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 76.5%, 82.4%, 81.3%, and 77.8%, respectively (κ = 0.59).

Conclusions

This study indicates that discriminating EV size by the current capsule scale is unreliable. Lowering the grading threshold improved the ability to discriminate EV size by CE. In the proper context, CE is an alternative to EGD to screen for EV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Conn HO, Lindenmuth WW, May CJ, et al. Prophylactic portacaval anastomosis. A tale of two studies. Medicine. 1972;51:27–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pagliaro L, D’Amico G, Sorenson TIA. Prevention of first bleeding in cirrhosis. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of non-surgical treatment. Ann Inter Med. 1992;117:59–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lay CS, Tsai YT, Teg C, et al. Endoscopic variceal prophylaxis of first variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with high-risk esophageal varices. Hepatology. 1997;25:1346–1350.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Amico G, Pagliaro L, Bosch J. Pharmacological treatment of portal hypertension: an evidence-based approach. Semin Liver Dis. 1999;19:475–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith JL, Graham DY. Variceal hemorrhage. A critical evaluation of survival analysis. Gastroenterology. 1982;82:968.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DeDombal FT, Clarke JR, Clamp SE, et al. Prognostic factors in upper GI bleeding. Endoscopy. 1986;18:6s.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Silvis SE, Nebel O, Rogers G, et al. Endoscopic complications. Results of the 1974 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey. JAMA. 1976;235:928.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Benjamin SB. Complications of conscious sedation. Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am. 1996;6:2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen D. Endoscopic screening for varices in cirrhosis: findings, implications, and outcomes. Gastroenterology. 2002;122:1620–1630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisen GM, Eliakim R, Zaman A. The accuracy of PillCam ESO capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy for the diagnosis of esophageal varices: a prospective three-center pilot study. Endoscopy. 2006;38:31–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nakos G, Karagiannis S, Ballas S, et al. A study comparing tolerability, satisfaction and acceptance of three different techniques for esophageal endoscopy: sedated conventional, unsedated peroral ultra thin, and esophageal capsule. Dis Esophagus. 2009;22:447–452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Frenette CT, Kuldau JG, Hillebrand DJ, et al. Comparison of esophageal capsule endoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy for diagnosis of esophageal varices. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:4480–4485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lapalus MG, Soussan EB, Gaudric M, et al. Esophageal capsule endoscopy versus EGD for the evaluation of portal hypertension: a French prospective multicenter comparative study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:112–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lu Y, Gao R, Liao Z, et al. Meta-analysis of capsule endoscopy in patient diagnosed or suspected with esophageal varices. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:254–1258.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pena LR, Cox T, Koch AG, Bosch A. Study comparing oesophageal capsule endoscopy versus EGD in the detection of varices. Dig Liver Dis. 2008;40:216–223.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lapalus MG, Dumortier J, Fumex F, et al. Esophageal capsule endoscopy versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy for evaluating portal hypertension: a prospective comparative study of performance and tolerance. Endoscopy. 2006;38:36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. deFranchis R, Eisen GM, Laine L, et al. Esophageal capsule endoscopy for screening and surveillance of esophageal varices in patients with portal hypertension. Hepatology. 2008;47:1595–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith BW, Jeffrey GP, Adams LA, et al. Utilisation of capsule endoscopy in variceal screening, surveillance. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22:A343.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Groce JR, Raju GS, Sood GK, Snyder N, et al. A prospective single blinded comparative trail of capsule endoscopy versus traditional EGD for variceal screening. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:A802.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jensen DM, Singh B, Chavalitdhamrong D et. al. Is capsule endoscopy enough to screen cirrhotics for high risk varices and other lesions? A blinded comparison of EGD & PillCam ESO. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 67: AB122.

  21. Carpinelli L, Primignani M, Preatoni P, et al. Portal hypertensive gastrophathy: reproducibility of a classification, prevalence of elementary lesions, sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of cirrhosis of the liver. A NIEC multicentre study, New Italian Endoscopic Club. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1997;29:533–540.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Beppu K, Inojuchi K, Koyanagi N, et al. Prediction of variceal hemorrhage by esophageal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1981;27:213–218.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Idezuki Y. General rules for recording endoscopic findings of esophagogastric varices (1991). Japanese Society of Portal Hypertension. World J Surg. 1995;19:420–422.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, 500 University Drive, Mail Code HU33, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA

    Ian Schreibman, Kevin Meitz, Matthew Downey, Tri Le & Thomas Riley

  2. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Allen R. Kunselman

Authors
  1. Ian Schreibman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Meitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allen R. Kunselman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew Downey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tri Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Riley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Schreibman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schreibman, I., Meitz, K., Kunselman, A.R. et al. Defining the Threshold: New Data on the Ability of Capsule Endoscopy to Discriminate the Size of Esophageal Varices. Dig Dis Sci 56, 220–226 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-010-1272-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-010-1272-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation