Background: Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability. Methods: Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery). Results: We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (p < 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score. Conclusions: Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.

Evidence for an urgent approach to ongoing overt suspected small-bowel bleeding (SSBB) is scarce. We aimed to analyze our series of urgent small-bowel capsule endoscopies (SBCEs) for ongoing overt SSBB and to identify factors associated with positive findings and outcomes. A retrospective study of all SBCEs performed in the first 48 h after admission for overt SSBB between January 2006 and February 2022 was performed. Descriptive and inferential analyses (univariate and multivariable) were performed. Eighty-three urgent SBCEs were performed for overt SSBB. Patients were mostly men (69.2%, median age 68) and were followed for a median of 58.2 months (range 5–176). The diagnostic yield was 80.7%; in 60.2%, blood was detected in the small bowel (SB), while in 50.6%, a bleeding lesion was identified, mostly angioectasia. Patients with diabetes mellitus or taking NSAIDs were more prone to present SB findings, yet the explanatory power was low. Endoscopic or surgical treatments were performed in 28.9% and 19.3%, respectively, with the “non-conservative” therapeutic yield being 56.6%. Rebleeding occurred in 20.5% and was associated in the multivariable analysis with the female gender and anticoagulants use. This cohort of urgent SBCE, the largest from a European center, reinforces the usefulness of SBCE for ongoing overt SSBB management. This prompt performance of this procedure is highly effective, regardless of patients’ features.

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of small-bowel angioectasia on survival, given the hypothesis that angioectasia might be an independent risk factor of frailty and poor outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing small-bowel capsule endoscopy between 2010 and 2013 for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding from a Portuguese tertiary centre were included. Follow-up started after capsule endoscopy and ended upon death or end of the study (November 2020). Survival analysis was performed using a Cox proportional-hazards model, in order to analyse the effect of small-bowel angioectasia on survival as well as potentially confounding factors (age, vascular diseases and chronic kidney disease). Results: A total of 176 patients were included in this study (50.6% male), with a median age of 68.5 years (IQR 24). The median follow-up was 7 years (IQR 4), during which 67 (38.1%) patients died. Seventy-three (41.5%) patients had at least one small-bowel angioectasia on capsule endoscopy. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, only age, peripheral arterial disease, history of previous mesenteric ischaemia and chronic kidney disease were independent risk factors of death. The presence of small-bowel angioectasia did not affect survival in this analysis (HR 1.30; 95% CI 0.75–2.23; p = 0.35). Conclusion: In this retrospective cohort study, some comorbidities and age were independent predictors of poor survival. The presence of small-bowel angioectasia per se did not affect survival.

Background and aims: As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, departments had to adapt their activities, jeopardizing patient’s best interests. Our aim is to evaluate the patient’s perspective to the implementation of SARS-CoV-2 measures in a gastroenterology department in a Portuguese Hospital. Methods: A survey with 13 questions was created and available to patients with at least one gastroenterology appointment at our center in the year 2019. Results: Nine hundred seventy-three patients completed the survey, 51.6% (n = 502) females, and 82.6% (n = 804) with less than 65 years of age. 50.7% of 962 patients were not working. 49.5% had an appointment for monitoring a suspected or established inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). 76.8% and 69.6% subjects agreed in postponing endoscopic and non-endoscopic procedures, respectively. 93.6%, 94.3% and 95.7% patients declared to be worried about the postponing of endoscopic procedures, non-endoscopic procedures and medical visits, respectively. 88.8% supported remote consultations and 77.3% were satisfied with this type of appointment, independently of the age group (P = 0.66). 80.9% of IBD patients treated with immunosuppression or biologics were concerned about a severe infection by COVID-19. Conclusion: A great part of our respondents belong to IBD appointments. The majority of our patients agreed in postponing procedures, although they feel concerned. Almost all patients supported remote consultations and most patients found them positive.

Although several devices are available for small bowel capsule endoscopy, few studies have compared their visualization quality and diagnostic yield, despite users reporting subjective differences between them. This study aims to compare two widely used systems (Mirocam^® MC1600 and OMOM^® HD). Patients who underwent OMOM^® HD capsule enteroscopy between August 2022 and February 2023 were prospectively included consecutively (cases). Controls were retrospectively selected from a database of patients who underwent Mirocam^® MC1600 enteroscopy between March 2018 and July 2022 in a 1:1 ratio. Controls were matched for potential confounders (age, sex, indication, hospitalization, comorbidities, and opioid prescription). The small bowel cleanliness (global and divided by tertiles), the diagnostic yield (positive findings) and the transit times (TT) were compared. Overall, 214 patients were included (107:107). Global bowel preparation was similar between the OMOM^® and Mirocam^® groups. However, the average scores for each tertile were significantly higher when the OMOM^® HD capsule was used (p < 0.05). Small bowel TT was shorter for OMOM^® HD (265 ± 118 versus 307 ± 87 min, p = 0.020), while the diagnostic yield (55.0%) and relative distribution of lesions were similar. This study suggests that capsule characteristics, namely resolution, and illumination, systematically interfere with the perception of preparation quality. However, this did not affect the diagnostic yield.