Capsule endoscopy (CE) has transformed investigation of the small bowel providing a non-invasive, well tolerated means of accurately visualising the distal duodenum, jejunum and ileum. Since the introduction of small bowel CE thirteen years ago a high volume of literature on indications, diagnostic yields and safety profile has been presented. Inclusion in national and international guidelines has placed small bowel capsule endoscopy at the forefront of investigation into suspected diseases of the small bowel. Most commonly, small bowel CE is used in patients with suspected bleeding or to identify evidence of active Crohn's disease (CD) (in patients with or without a prior history of CD). Typically, CE is undertaken after upper and lower gastrointestinal flexible endoscopy has failed to identify a diagnosis. Small bowel radiology or a patency capsule test should be considered prior to CE in those at high risk of strictures (such as patients known to have CD or presenting with obstructive symptoms) to reduce the risk of capsule retention. CE also has a role in patients with coeliac disease, suspected small bowel tumours and other small bowel disorders. Since the advent of small bowel CE, dedicated oesophageal and colon capsule endoscopes have expanded the fields of application to include the investigation of upper and lower gastrointestinal disorders. Oesophageal CE may be used to diagnose oesophagitis, Barrett's oesophagus and varices but reliability in identifying gastroduodenal pathology is unknown and it does not have biopsy capability. Colon CE provides an alternative to conventional colonoscopy for symptomatic patients, while a possible role in colorectal cancer screening is a fascinating prospect. Current research is already addressing the possibility of controlling capsule movement and developing capsules which allow tissue sampling and the administration of therapy.

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a first line small bowel investigative modality which provides more sensitive mucosal imaging than comparators. It is a non-invasive, non-irradiating tool well tolerated by patients. The risk of retention of the capsule can be minimised by ensuring luminal patency using the Agile patency device. Research continues into how to minimise missed pathology and variability in the identification of pathology or interpretation of images. The consensus is that bowel preparation using laxatives improves visibility and diagnostic yield. Research includes the development of image recognition software, both to eliminate sequentially identical images to improve viewing speed and to select or enhance images likely to represent pathology. However, careful reading by experienced capsule endoscopists remains the benchmark. This should be performed at a speed comfortable to the viewer, probably at a maximum of 15 frames per second. Some prior experience of endoscopy appears to be helpful for novice capsule endoscopists and formal training on a hands-on training course seems to improve pathology recognition, for novices and for those with CE experience.

Background: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, NHS England introduced colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) at scale to support the recovery of endoscopy. Symptomatic patients referred with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) ≤ 100 μg Hb/g faeces were offered CCE.Aims: To evaluate the safety, diagnostic accuracy and utility of CCE in this setting.Methods: Consenting patients, referred on a suspected CRC pathway with FIT ≤ 100 μg Hb/g faeces, were offered CCE, colonoscopy or CT colonography. Each cohort was to be age‐, sex‐, symptom‐ and FIT‐matched. We performed a paired comparison of findings in those who required colorectal endoscopy after CCE and recorded clinical outcomes.Results: We recruited 4878 patients for CCE, 5025 for colonoscopy and 466 for CT colonography patients. CCE was safely tolerated by 98.4% of patients. CCE identified a matched mass lesion in all patients with CRC when the examination was complete and adequately prepared. More polyps ≥ 10 mm and 6–9 mm were detected by CCE than by colonoscopy or CT colonography. Per‐patient sensitivities for polyps ≥ 10 mm and 6–9 mm were 97% in those with a paired, complete and adequately prepared CCE than colonoscopy. Completion (74%) and bowel preparation adequacy rates (74%) were poorer than those of colonoscopy and CTC (both 88%). However, CCE usefully performed a filter function in 86% of patients.Conclusions: CCE is safe and accurate for the diagnosis of colorectal disease. In the suspected CRC pathway, its ‘filter function’ complements existing colorectal diagnostic services by creating additional capacity.

Objective: Identification of a cost-effective treatment strategy is an unmet need in Crohn’s disease (CD). Here we consider the patient outcomes and cost impact of pan-intestinal video capsule endoscopy (PVCE) in the English National Health Service (NHS). Design: An analysis of a protocolized CD care pathway, informed by guidelines and expert consensus, was performed in Microsoft Excel. Population, efficacy and safety data of treatments and monitoring modalities were identified using a structured PubMed review with English data prioritized. Costs were taken from the NHS and Payer Provided Services (PSS) 2016–17 tariffs for England and otherwise literature. Analysis was via a discrete-individual simulation with discounting at 3.5% per annum. Setting: NHS provider and PSS perspective Participants: 4000 simulated CD patients Interventions: PVCE versus colonoscopy ± magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) Main outcome measures: Costs in 2017 GBP and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) Results: The mean, total 20-year cost per patient was £42 266 with colonoscopy ± MRE and £38 043 with PVCE. PVCE incurred higher costs during the first 2 years due to higher treatment uptake. From year 3 onwards, costs were reduced due to fewer surgeries. Patients accrued 10.67 QALY with colonoscopy ± MRE and 10.96 with PVCE. PVCE dominated (less cost and higher QALY) colonoscopy ± MRE and was likely (>74%) to be considered cost-effective by the NHS. Results were similar if a lifetime time horizon was used. Conclusions: PVCE is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to colonoscopy ± MRE for CD surveillance. Switching to PVCE resulted in lower treatment costs and gave patients better quality of life.