Review Article

Capsule Endoscopy for Crohn’s Disease: Current Status of Diagnosis and Management

Table 3

Comparison of video capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance enterography or enteroclysis: diagnostic yield or performance for suspected or established Crohn’s disease.

StudyDesignNumber of casesTestsDefinition/description for positive findingsDiagnostic yieldSensitivity/specificity

Albert et al. (2005) [32] Prospective25 suspected CDVCEAphthous mucosal lesions, irregularly shaped or fissural ulcers (occasionally associated with bleeding), cobblestone appearance, luminal narrowing due to edema and/or fibrous scarring, and granularity with attenuated or lost vascular patternNA92%/100%
MREThickening of the bowel wall (>4 mm) and enhancement of the bowel wall after application of intravenous contrast mediumNA77%/80%
Prospective27 established CDVCESame as above93%NA
MRESame as above88%NA

Gölder et al. (2006) [33] Prospective18 (2 suspected and 16 established CD)VCEGrade 0: no inflammation
Grade 1: <3 aphthous lesions or a single ulcer
Grade 2: >3 aphthous lesions or >1 ulceration or an inflammatory stenosis
76%(1)NA
MRECBowel wall thickening with contrast enhancement, mesenteric injection, and enlarged lymph nodes41%NA

Tillack et al. (2008) [34]Prospective19 established CDVCEGrade 0: no mucosal pathology
Grade 1: minor inflammation (focal denudation of villi, superficial aphthae and erosions, focal erythema, and <2 ulcers)
Grade 2: major inflammation (>ulcers, deep ulcers, fissures, cobblestone pattern, and fibrinous exudates)
Obstruction grade 0: no obstruction
Obstruction grade 1: stenosis (delayed capsule propulsion, propagation stop)
95%NA
MREGrade 0: no mucosal or mural pathology
Grade 1: minor inflammation (subtle irregularity of the fold pattern, subtly increased contrast uptake, no wall thickening, no submucosal edema, and no extramural hypervascularity)
Grade 2: major inflammation (ulcers, deep mucosal fissures disrupting the fold pattern, cobblestone pattern, markedly increased contrast uptake, wall thickening > 4 mm, submucosal edema, extramural hypervascularity, and contrast enhancing lymphadenopathy (>15 mm))
Obstruction grade 0: no obstruction: stenosis with prestenotic dilation (luminal narrowing <5 mm)
95%NA

Jensen et al. (2011) [22]Prospective80VCE(2)More than 3 ulcerations (aphthous lesions or ulcers), irregular ulcers/fissures, or stenosis caused by fibrosis or inflammation30%(3)100%/91%
MRE(2)Mucosal ulcerations, bowel wall thickening, bowel wall hyperenhancement, small bowel stenosis, creeping fat, dilated vasa recta, and the presence of an abscess or fistula in conjunction with a diseased small bowel segment28%(3)76%/85%

Wiarda et al. (2012) [24]Prospective38 (20 suspected and 18 established CD)VCE(4)Mild: erythematous and/or edematous mucosa and/or small ulcerative lesions (<0.5 mm) within otherwise normal appearing mucosa
Moderate: larger ulcerative lesions (≥0.5 mm and <20 mm)
Severe: large ulcerative lesions (≥20 mm) and/or significant stenotic lesions, with or without macroscopic signs of inflammation.
NA57%/89%
(for 25 nonstenotic CD)
MRECBowel wall thickness >4 mm, intramural and mesenteric edema, mucosal hyperemia, wall enhancement and enhancement pattern and transmural ulcerations, and fistula formationNA73%/90% (for all participants)

CD, Crohn’s disease; VCE, video capsule endoscopy; NA, not available; MRE, magnetic resonance enterography; MREC, magnetic resonance enteroclysis.
(1)Diagnostic yield for small intestinal CD.
(2)VCE and MRE were performed for 69 of 80 and 72 of 80 patients, respectively.
(3)Diagnostic yield for terminal ileal CD.
(4)VCE was not done for 13 patients showing small intestinal stenosis in MREC.