Cristiano Spada

Prof. Dr. Cristiano Spada

Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

26Years (2001-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
2 March 2012 in Endoscopy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CSCristiano Spada
Cristiano Spada
CHC. Hassan
C. Hassan
JGJ. P. Galmiche
J. P. Galmiche
HNH. Neuhaus
H. Neuhaus
JDJ. M. Dumonceau
J. M. Dumonceau
GCG. Costamagna
G. Costamagna
PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an innovative noninvasive, and painless ingestible capsule technique that allows exploration of the colon without the need for sedation and gas insufflation. Although it is already available in European and other countries, the clinical indications for CCE as well as the reporting and work-up of detected findings have not yet been standardized. The aim of this evidence-based and consensus-based guideline, commissioned by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to furnish healthcare providers with a comprehensive framework for potential implementation of this technique in a clinical setting.

1 September 2011 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CSCristiano Spada
Cristiano Spada
CHCesare Hassan
Cesare Hassan
MMMiguel Munoz-Navas
Miguel Munoz-Navas
HNHorst Neuhaus
Horst Neuhaus
JDJacques Deviere
Jacques Deviere
GCGuido Costamagna
Guido Costamagna

1 November 2016 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CSCristiano Spada
Cristiano Spada
SPShabana F. Pasha
Shabana F. Pasha
SGSeth A. Gross
Seth A. Gross
JLJonathan A. Leighton
Jonathan A. Leighton
FSFelice Schnoll-Sussman
Felice Schnoll-Sussman
CHCesare Hassan
Cesare Hassan
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique used to explore the colon without sedation or air insufflation. A second-generation capsule was recently developed to improve accuracy of detection, and clinical use has expanded globally. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of CCE in detecting colorectal polyps. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases from 1966 through 2015 for studies that compared accuracy of colonoscopy with histologic evaluation with CCE. The risk of bias within each study was ascertained according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Systematic Reviews recommendations. Per-patient accuracy values were calculated for polyps, overall and for first-generation (CCE-1) and second-generation (CCE-2) capsules. We analyzed data by using forest plots, the I2 statistic to calculate heterogeneity, and meta-regression analyses. Fourteen studies provided data from 2420 patients (1128 for CCE-1 and 1292 for CCE-2). CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >6 mm with 86% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 82%-89%) and 58% sensitivity (95% CI, 44%-70%), respectively, and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 74.2%-95.0%) and 85.7% specificity (95% CI, 80.2%-90.0%), respectively. CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >10 mm with 87% sensitivity (95% CI, 81%-91%) and 54% sensitivity (95% CI, 29%-77%), respectively, and 95.3% specificity (95% CI, 91.5%-97.5%) and 97.4% specificity (95% CI, 96.0%-98.3%), respectively. CCE-2 identified all 11 invasive cancers detected by colonoscopy. The sensitivity in detection of polyps >6 mm and >10 mm increased substantially between development of first-generation and second-generation colon capsules. High specificity values for detection of polyps by CCE-2 seem to be achievable with a 10-mm cutoff and in a screening setting.

1 December 2005 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PFPietro Familiari
Pietro Familiari
MBMilutin Bulajić
Milutin Bulajić
MMMassimiliano Mutignani
Massimiliano Mutignani
LLLinda S. Lee
Linda S. Lee
GSGianluca Spera
Gianluca Spera
Guido CostamagnaGuido Costamagna
Guido Costamagna

1 June 2010 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CSCristiano Spada
Cristiano Spada
CHCesare Hassan
Cesare Hassan
RMRiccardo Marmo
Riccardo Marmo
LPLucio Petruzziello
Lucio Petruzziello
MRMaria Elena Riccioni
Maria Elena Riccioni
GCGuido Costamagna
Guido Costamagna

1 February 2011 in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CSCristiano Spada
Cristiano Spada
MRMaria Elena Riccioni
Maria Elena Riccioni
CHCesare Hassan
Cesare Hassan
LPLucio Petruzziello
Lucio Petruzziello
PCPaola Cesaro
Paola Cesaro
GCGuido Costamagna
Guido Costamagna
Aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of substituting sodium phosphate (NaP) with polyethylene glycol (PEG)-boosters in the protocol preparation for PillCam Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE). CCE represents a new diagnostic, endoscopic technology for colonic exploration. Bowel preparation for CCE is necessary not only to clean the colon, but also to promote capsule propulsion. For this reason, NaP boosters have been added to a 4 L PEG-preparation. NaP has been recently related with major side-effects. Forty patients were prospectively randomized to Standard (n=20) or Modified (n=20) regimen. Standard regimen included clear liquid diet, 4 L of PEG, and 1 or 2 NaP boosters. In the Modified regimen, NaP boosters were substituted by 1 or 2 PEG boosters; 4 senna tablets and a low-residue diet were also included. Patients underwent CCE and conventional colonoscopy, carried out on the same day. CCE excretion rate, colon transit time, colon cleansing, and accuracy were evaluated. Hundred percent and 75% of CCE were excreted with the Standard and Modified regimen, respectively (P=0.02). Mean±SE colonic transit time of capsule was 2.17±1.43 hours in the Standard group, and 5.32±2.53 hours in the Modified group (P<0.001). Adequate preparation was achieved in 42.5% of the cases, without statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (35% vs. 53%; P=NS). CCE sensitivity and specificity for ≥6 mm polyps were 63% and 87%, without difference between the 2 groups. The exclusion of NaP booster from CCE preparation resulted into a clinically meaningful reduction of the capsule excretion rate that was only partially compensated by the PEG booster.