Impact of capsule endoscopy in obscure small-bowel bleeding: defining strict diagnostic criteria for a favorable outcome

BACKGROUND: The most frequent indication for capsule endoscopy is to diagnose the cause of obscure GI bleeding. The objective of the study was to determine the impact of capsule endoscopy on the outcome of patients with GI bleeding of obscure origin. METHODS: Ninety-six patients (53 men, 43 women; mean [standard deviation] age, 60.84 years [16.55 years]) were enrolled in the study. All patients have been subjected to gastroscopy, colonoscopy, small-bowel barium follow-through or enteroclysis, and push enteroscopy; no bleeding site had been identified. Capsule endoscopy was performed with the Given M2A video capsule system. By using strict criteria, studies were classified as having positive findings, findings of uncertain significance, and no findings. Outcome was defined as continued or complete resolution of bleeding. RESULTS: Positive findings, findings of uncertain significance, and no findings were identified in 41.7%, 20.8%, and 37.5% of our study population, respectively. The most common lesions seen were angiodysplasias of the small intestine. Therapeutic intervention was possible in 82.5% of patients with positive findings and in 35.0% of patients with findings of uncertain significance. Complete resolution of bleeding, after a median (interquartile range) follow-up period of 14 months (9-17 months), occurred significantly more often in patients with positive findings (68.4%) compared with patients with findings of uncertain significance and no findings (40.8%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy increases the diagnostic yield in the workup of patients with obscure small-bowel bleeding. Strictly defined positive findings are associated with a favorable outcome.     

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: role of videocapsule and double-balloon enteroscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE), which allows the non-invasive visualisation of mucosa throughout the entire small bowel, has revolutionised the exploration of small-bowel diseases, and particularly the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) after a negative initial evaluation, including gastroscopy and colonoscopy. CE has a high negative predictive value and a higher diagnostic yield than all other modalities, such as radiology (small-bowel X-rays or computed tomography scan) or push enteroscopy. CE may be the preferred initial diagnostic choice in OGIB because of its non-invasive quality and better tolerance. Double-balloon enteroscopy, also known as push-and-pull enteroscopy, has recently been developed. It has made it possible not only to explore the small bowel but also to carry out therapeutic interventions deep in the small bowel without the need for surgical laparotomy. This exploration should be considered as a second-line exploration for OGIB in patients with a positive finding on CE requiring endoscopic follow-up for histology or intervention, and in patients in whom suspicion of a small-bowel lesion is high despite a negative CE.     

胶囊内镜对不明原因消化道出血的诊断价值

目的 比较胶囊内镜与传统小肠俭查方法对不明原因消化道出血的诊断价值。方法 总结分析67例胃镜、肠镜检查阴性的消化道出血患者中消化道钡餐、肠系膜动脉造影、推进式小肠镜、胶囊内镜及剖腹探查包括手术中肠镜结果。结果 不明原因消化道出血上、中消化道钡餐检查检出率为17．6％，诊断率为13．8％；肠系膜动脉造影检查检出率和诊断率均为13．4％；推进式小肠镜检查检出率、诊断率为．32％；剖腹探查及术中肠镜检出率和诊断率均为83．3％；胶囊内镜检查检出率为80．6％，诊断率为67．7％结论 胶囊内镜检查对于不明原因消化道出血具有较高的检出率和诊断率．明显优于传统的检查方法。     

胶囊内镜在小肠疾病诊断中的作用

目的:小肠疾病很难诊断,现有的诊断技术又不尽如人意,而胶囊内镜能发现整个小肠内的微小病变。为此,我们对胶囊内镜在小肠疾病诊断中的价值进行评估。方法:自2002年5月至2003年9月,我们对经结肠镜、胃镜、X线钡餐造影、小肠钡灌造影、血管造影或核素扫描等检查未发现异常的79例疑患小肠疾病、尤其是不明原因消化道出血的患者,进行胶囊内镜检查,其中不明原因的消化道出血患者56例。结果:75例完成最终研究。75例患者中经胶囊内镜检查共发现异常63例,检出率为84％;其中能明确解释临床病因者50例,诊断率为66.6％,包括消化道血管病变21例、小肠炎症性肠病16例、小肠息肉5例、小肠恶性间质肿瘤2例、小肠类癌1例(该患者同时伴升结肠脂肪瘤)、淋巴瘤1例、粘膜下肿瘤3例及憩室1例。所获取的图像质量良好。结论:胶囊内镜对小肠疾病尤其是不明原因消化道出血具有良好的诊断价值。     

Double-balloon enteroscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: A single center experience in China

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic value of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). METHODS: The data about 75 OGIB patients who underwent DBE in January 2007-June 2009 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: DBE was successfully performed in all 75 patients without complication. Of the 75 patients, 44 (58.7%) had positive DBE findings, 22 had negative DBE findings but had potential bleeding at surgery and capsule endoscopy, etc . These 66 patients were fi...     

双气囊小肠镜与胶囊内镜诊断小肠出血病因比较

目的比较双气囊小肠镜和胶囊内镜在小肠出血中的诊断准确率和实用价值。方法24例原因不明的可疑小肠出血患者分别接受双气囊小肠镜和胶囊内镜检查。双气囊小肠镜首选进镜方式分为经口或经肛2种，首选方式检查后未发现病灶者，日后改换进镜方式再行检查。胶囊内镜采用以色列GIVEN公司产品。2种检查方法分别由专门医师独立操作并诊断，最后进行汇总比较。结果24例患者中21例通过小肠镜检查发现病灶，总检出率为87．5％。24例患者行胶囊内镜检查后，有阳性发现者11例(45．8％)，另13例无异常发现。双气囊小肠镜检查发现的阳性病灶均经活检病理和手术探查证实，其病因诊断准确率为87．5％，胶囊内镜诊断准确率为25％。在耐受性评估方面，胶囊内镜和全麻下经口进镜的耐受性最佳，以后依次为非麻醉经肛方式和非麻醉经口方式。所有小肠镜和胶囊内镜检查者中未见操作相关的严重不良反应。结论①经口和经肛方式结合能使双气囊小肠镜完成对全小肠的检查。②双气囊小肠镜在不明原因小肠出血的病因诊断方面明显优于胶囊内镜检查。③胶囊内镜在小肠多节段病变和长段病变的诊断上仍有一定价值。④胶囊内镜和全麻下经口双气囊小肠镜检查是一项易为患者接受的、安全的检查方法。     

Diagnostic Yield and Impact of Capsule Endoscopy on Management of Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding of Obscure Origin

This study assessed diagnostic yield and impact of capsule endoscopy on patient management. Seventy-five patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding were included. Clinical and followup information was collected by review of patient records and with personal contact with the referring physicians. All previous clinical information and interventions after capsule endoscopy and clinical outcome were noted. The indication was obscure-overt gastrointestinal bleeding in 36 patients (48%) and obscure-occult gastrointestinal bleeding in 39 patients (52%). Overall diagnostic yield was 66.7% considering relevant lesions. Followup was available in 31 patients. Capsule endoscopy changed clinical management in 61.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that patients with another potential source of bleeding and patients whose onset was hematochezia were not good candidates for capsule endoscopy. Capsule endoscopy has a high diagnostic yield and a positive influence on clinical management in a high proportion of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.     

A prospective two-center study comparing wireless capsule endoscopy with intraoperative enteroscopy in patients with obscure GI bleeding

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy enables noninvasive diagnostic examination of the entire small intestine. However, sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy have not been adequately defined. We, therefore, compared capsule endoscopy by using intraoperative enteroscopy as a criterion standard in patients with obscure GI bleeding. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients with obscure GI bleeding (11 with ongoing overt bleeding, 24 with previous overt bleeding, and 12 with obscure-occult bleeding) from two German gastroenterologic centers were included. All patients who had a prior nondiagnostic evaluation, including upper endoscopy, colonoscopy with a retrograde examination of the distal ileum, and push enteroscopy, underwent capsule endoscopy followed by intraoperative enteroscopy. RESULTS: Capsule endoscopy identified lesions in 100% of the patients with ongoing overt bleeding, 67% of the patients with previous overt bleeding, and 67% of the patients with obscure-occult bleeding. Angiectasias were the most common source of bleeding (n = 22). Capsule endoscopy showed the source of bleeding in 74.4% of all patients. The method was more effective in patients with ongoing bleeding. Compared with intraoperative enteroscopy sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of capsule endoscopy were 95%, 75%, 95%, and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy has high sensitivity and specificity to detect a bleeding source in patients with obscure GI bleeding. Thus, wireless capsule endoscopy can be recommended as part of the routine work-up in patients with obscure GI bleeding.     

Wireless capsule endoscopy for obscure small-bowel disorders: final results of the first pediatric controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Obscure small-bowel disorders are jejunal and ileal lesions undiagnosed by traditional imaging techniques (endoscopic, radiologic). We evaluated the diagnostic usefulness and safety of capsule endoscopy for obscure small-bowel disorders in children and adolescents. METHODS: Comparative, prospective, self-controlled trials in patients (age, 10-18 y) suspected to have either small-bowel Crohn's disease, polyps, or obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Capsule results were compared with the diagnostic imaging studies normally used in this age group. RESULTS: Among 20 patients suspected of Crohn's disease, multiple lesions consistent with this diagnosis were observed by capsule endoscopy in 50%. Small-bowel Crohn's disease was ruled out in 8 patients. Eosinophilic enteropathy was found in 2 others. For polyp detection (n = 6), capsule endoscopy yielded 100% concordance with the control studies when analyzed per patient. However, capsule endoscopy revealed a greater number (50%) of polyps. Among patients with obscure bleeding (n = 4), the capsule examination confirmed a diagnosis of vascular malformations in 3. Capsule endoscopy more accurately identified the precise source of bleeding compared with angiography. All 30 capsule studies were well tolerated, although 1 capsule was retained owing to an inflammatory stenosis. The capsule eventually was expelled after corticosteroid therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy correctly diagnosed or excluded a bleeding source, small-bowel polyps, or Crohn's disease of the small bowel in 29 of 30 patients. Capsule endoscopy permits an accurate, noninvasive approach for diagnosing obscure small bowel lesions in children over the age of 10.     

Capsule enteroscopy vs. other diagnostic procedures in diagnosing obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND: Capsule enteroscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. The costs of capsule enteroscopy examination, however, make it uncertain whether the clinically relevant diagnostic gain is also associated with cost savings. AIM: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of capsule enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: Retrospective study was carried out in nine Italian gastroenterology units from 2003 to 2005. Data on 369 consecutive patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding were collected. The diagnostic yield of capsule enteroscopy vs. other imaging procedures was evaluated as a measure of efficacy. The values of Diagnosis Related Group 175 (euro 1884.00 for obscure-occult bleeding and euro 2141.00 for obscure-overt bleeding) were calculated as measures of economic outcomes in the cost analysis. RESULTS: Obscure and occult gastrointestinal bleeding was recorded in 177 patients (48%) with a mean duration of anemia history of 17.6+/-20.7 months. Among patients, 60.9% had had at least one hospital admission, 21.2% at least two, and 1.2% of obscure bleeders up to nine admissions. Overall, 58.4% of patients had positive findings with capsule enteroscopy compared with 28.0% with other imaging procedures (P<0.001). The mean cost of a positive diagnosis with capsule enteroscopy was euro 2090.76 and that of other procedures was euro 3828.83 with a mean cost saving of euro 1738.07 (P<0.001) for one positive diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule enteroscopy is a cost-saving approach in the evaluation of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.     

Capsule endoscopy retention as a helpful tool in the management of a young patient with suspected small-bowel disease

Capsule endoscopy is an easy and painless procedure permitting visualization of the entire small-bowel during its normal peristalsis. However, important problems exist concerning capsule retention in patients at risk of small bowel obstruction. The present report describes a young patient who had recurrent episodes of overt gastrointestinal bleeding of obscure origin, 18 years after small bowel resection in infancy for ileal atresia. Capsule endoscopy was performed, resulting in capsule retention in the distal small bowel. However, this event contributed to patient management by clearly identifying the site of obstruction and can be used to guide surgical intervention, where an anastomotic ulcer is identified.     

Double balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated meta-analysis

Background and Aim: Uncertainty remains about the best test to evaluate patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Previous meta‐analyses demonstrated similar diagnostic yields with capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) but relied primarily on data from abstracts and were not limited to bleeding patients. Many studies have since been published. Therefore, we performed a new meta‐analysis comparing CE and DBE focused specifically on OGIB. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed of comparative studies using both CE and DBE in patients with OGIB. Data were extracted and analyzed to determine the weighted pooled diagnostic yields of each method and the odds ratio for the successful localization of a bleeding source. Results: Ten eligible studies were identified. The pooled diagnostic yield for CE was 62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.3–76.1) and for DBE was 56% (95% CI 48.9–62.1), with an odds ratio for CE compared with DBE of 1.39 (95% CI 0.88–2.20; P = 0.16). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the yield for DBE performed after a previously positive CE was 75.0% (95% CI 60.1–90.0), with the odds ratio for successful diagnosis with DBE after a positive CE compared with DBE in all patients of 1.79 (95% CI 1.09–2.96; P = 0.02). In contrast, the yield for DBE after a previously negative CE was only 27.5% (95% CI 16.7–37.8). Conclusions: Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy provide similar diagnostic yields in patients with OGIB. However, the diagnostic yield of DBE is significantly higher when performed in patients with a positive CE.     

Diagnostic yield of dual-phase computed tomography enterography in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and a non-diagnostic capsule endoscopy

Background and Aim: In patients with obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, capsule endoscopy is widely used to determine the source of bleeding. However, there is currently no consensus on how to further evaluate patients with obscure GI bleeding with a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy examination. This study aims to determine the diagnostic yield of dual‐phase computed tomographic enterography (CTE) in patients with obscure GI bleeding and a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy. Methods: Patients with obscure GI bleeding who were referred for capsule endoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Obscure GI bleeding was defined as overt if there was obvious GI bleeding; otherwise it was defined as occult. Patients with a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy and no contraindications underwent a CTE. Results: Capsule endoscopy was performed in 52 patients; 26 patients (50%) had occult GI bleeding and 26 patients (50%) had overt GI bleeding. CTE was then performed in 25 of the 48 patients without a definitive source of bleeding seen on capsule endoscopy. The diagnostic yield of CTE was 0% (0/11) in patients with occult bleeding versus 50% (7/14) in patients with overt bleeding (P < 0.01). Using clinical follow up as the gold standard, for the 25 patients with a non‐diagnostic capsule, CTE had a sensitivity of 33% (95% confidence interval 0.15, 0.56) and a specificity of 75% (95% confidence interval 0.22, 0.99). Conclusions: In patients with a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy examination, CTE is useful for detecting a source of GI bleeding in patients with overt, but not occult, obscure GI bleeding.     

Capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding: Results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND: A video capsule has been developed to acquire photographic images of the small intestine during normal peristaltic motion. METHODS: Patients between 21 and 80 years of age referred for enteroscopy because of obscure GI bleeding were offered entry into a trial in which they would undergo both capsule endoscopy and subsequent push enteroscopy. Results of capsule examinations were compared with push enteroscopy findings. Capsule endoscopy was performed with the Given M2A video capsule system. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (12 women, 9 men, average age 61 years) were enrolled, all of whom completed the study. A bleeding site was found in 11 of 20 patients during capsule endoscopy. No additional intestinal diagnoses were made by enteroscopy. The yield of push enteroscopy in the evaluation of obscure bleeding was 30% (6/20), the yield of capsule endoscopy 55% (11/20). This difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0625). Capsule endoscopy found a distal source of bleeding in 5 of 14 patients who had normal push enteroscopic examinations. Patients preferred capsule endoscopy to enteroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that capsule endoscopy provides excellent visualization of the small intestine, is well tolerated by patients, and is safe. Capsule endoscopy identified small intestinal bleeding sites beyond the range of push enteroscopy.     

Wireless capsule endoscopy for diagnosis of small intestinal lesions

Background: Capsule endoscopy represents a new and highly innovative method of visualizing the small intestine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the practicality, usefulness and diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy in a group of patients with suspected small intestinal disease. Methods: Eleven patients underwent capsule endoscopy using the M2A Capsule Endoscope? (Given Imaging, Yogneam, Israel). The indications for the procedure were: obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in seven patients, evaluation of Crohn's disease in three patients and unexplained abdominal pain and weight loss in one patient. Results: Abnormalities were detected in six of 11 patients overall. Detection of abnormalities was highest among patients with obscure GI bleeding where active bleeding and/or the source of bleeding was identified in five of the seven (71.4%) patients. One of the three patients with Crohn's disease had an ileal ulcer detected, while the remaining patient with unexplained weight loss and pain had a normal examination. Conclusion: We have found in our preliminary experience that capsule endoscopy is a useful and practical procedure to perform especially for evaluation of obscure GI bleeding.     

Are repeat upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy necessary within six months of capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding?

Background and Aim: Medicare reimbursement for capsule endoscopy for the investigation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding in Australia requires endoscopy and colonoscopy to have been performed within 6 months. This study aims to determine the diagnostic yield of repeating these procedures when they had been non‐diagnostic more than 6 months earlier. Methods: Of 198 consecutive patients who were referred for the investigation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, 50 underwent repeat endoscopy and colonoscopy solely to enable reimbursement (35 females and 15 males; mean age 59.4 [range: 21–82] years). The average duration of obscure bleeding was 50.16 (range: 9–214) months. The mean number of prior endoscopies was 3 (median: 2) and 2.8 colonoscopies (median: 2). The most recent endoscopy had been performed 18.9 (median: 14; range: 7–56) months, and for colonoscopy, 19.1 (median 14; range 8‐51) months earlier. Results: A probable cause of bleeding was found at endoscopy in two patients: gastric antral vascular ectasia (1) and benign gastric ulcer (1). Colonoscopy did not reveal a source of bleeding in any patient. Capsule endoscopy was performed in 47 patients. Twenty four (51%) had a probable bleeding source identified, and another five (11%) a possible source. These included angioectasia (17 patients), mass lesion (2), non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug enteropathy (2), Cameron's erosions (2), and Crohn's disease (1). Four patients undergoing repeat capsule endoscopy had a probable bleeding source detected. Conclusion: The yield of repeat endoscopy and colonoscopy immediately prior to capsule endoscopy is low when these procedures have previously been non‐diagnostic. Such an approach is also not cost‐effective.     

Bleeding Dieulafoy’s-like lesions of the gut identified by capsule endoscopy

Dieulafoy’s-like lesions (DLs-like) represent a cause of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, enteroscopy being the main diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Frequently, more than one enteroscopy is needed to identify the bleeding vessel. In our practice, video capsule endoscopy (VCE) identified and guided therapy in four cases of DLs-like; three of them were localized on the small bowel. We report, for the first time, a diagnosis of colonic DL-like performed by colon capsule endoscopy. Two patients presented with severe cardiovascular disorders, being hemodynamically unstable during VCE examination. Based on the VCE findings, only one invasive therapeutic procedure per patient was necessary to achieve hemostasis. VCE and enteroscopy may be regarded as complementary procedures in patients with gut DLs-like.     

Capsule endoscopy： Current status in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a safe, non invasive diagnostic modality for the evaluation of small bowel lesions. Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) is one of the most important indications of capsule endoscopy. Capsule endoscopy has a very high diagnostic yield especially if the bleeding is ongoing. This technique appears to be superior to other techniques for the detection of suspected lesions and the source of bleeding. Capsule endoscopy has been shown to change the outcome in patients with obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleed.     

Darier's disease with esophageal involvement

Abstract

Objective. Nowadays, capsule endoscopy (CE) is the first-line procedure after negative upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Approximately, two-thirds of patients undergoing CE for OGIB will have a small-bowel abnormality. However, several patients who underwent CE for OGIB had the source of their blood loss in the stomach or in the colon. The aim of the present study is to determine the incidence of bleeding lesions missed by the previous gastroscopy/colonoscopy with CE and to evaluate the indication to repeat a new complete endoscopic workup in subjects related to a tertiary center for obscure bleeding before CE. Methods and methods. We prospectively reviewed data from 637/1008 patients underwent to CE for obscure bleeding in our tertiary center after performing negative gastroscopy and colonoscopy. Results. CE revealed a definite or likely cause of bleeding in stomach in 138/637 patients (yield 21.7%) and in the colon in 41 patients (yield 6.4%) with a previous negative gastroscopy and colonoscopy, respectively. The lesions found were outside the small bowel in only 54/637 (8.5%) patients. In 111/138 patients, CE found lesions both in stomach and small bowel (small-bowel erosions in 54, AVMs in 45, active small-bowel bleeding in 4, neoplastic lesions in 3 and distal ileum AVMs in 5 patients). In 24/41 (58.5%) patients, CE found lesions both in small bowel and colon (multiple small-bowel erosions in 15; AVMs in 8 and neoplastic lesion in 1 patients. All patients underwent endoscopic therapy or surgery for their nonsmall-bowel lesions. Conclusions. Lesions in upper or lower GI tract have been missed in about 28% of patients submitted to CE for obscure bleeding. CE may play an important role in identifying lesions missed at conventional endoscopy.     

A prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy and push enteroscopy in patients with GI bleeding of obscure origin

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy is used to investigate the small bowel in patients with GI bleeding of obscure etiology. Capsule endoscopy was compared prospectively with push enteroscopy in 20 patients with GI hemorrhage. METHODS: Twenty patients (8 men, 12 women; mean age 65.5 years, range 38-80 years) were enrolled in the study. All had undergone non-diagnostic EGD, colonoscopy, and barium contrast radiography of the small bowel. All patients underwent capsule endoscopy followed by push enteroscopy. The physician performing the enteroscopy (senior endoscopist) interpreted the capsule endoscopy in an unblinded manner, while a second blinded reviewer (endoscopy fellow) interpreted the capsule endoscopy to establish interinterpreter reliability. RESULTS: There was complete agreement between the blinded and the unblinded physicians in 18 of 20 cases; minor disparities were noted in the remaining two cases. In the small bowel, capsule endoscopy identified positive findings in 14 (70%) patients, whereas, push enteroscopy identified positive findings in 5 (25%) patients. Despite these results, the findings were definitive in only 6 of the 20 patients by using capsule endoscopy, and in two of 20 patients with push enteroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: When strict standards of interpretation were used, capsule endoscopy resulted in more positive findings than push enteroscopy, but the number of definitive findings for both imaging methods was low. There was a high degree of reliability between a novice and an experienced endoscopist with respect to the interpretation of capsule endoscopy.