Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus recommendations for and against capsule endoscopya
| For gastrointestinal bleeding, capsule endoscopy is recommended: |
| In patients with documented overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (excluding hematemesis and negative findings on high-quality upper-GI endoscopy and colonoscopy) |
| As soon as possible in patients with an overt, obscure bleeding episode |
| Possibly as part of a repeat study (with endoscopy or colonoscopy) in patients with previous negative capsule endoscopy results who continue to have obscure bleeding |
| In selected patients with suspected obscure GI bleeding and unexplained mild chronic iron-deficiency anemia |
| For celiac disease, capsule endoscopy is recommended: |
| In patients with unexplained symptoms despite treatment and appropriate investigations |
| … But capsule endoscopy is discouraged: |
| To make a diagnosis in patients with suspected celiac disease |
| For Crohn disease, capsule endoscopy is recommended: |
| In patients presenting with clinical features consistent with Crohn disease and negative ileocolonoscopy and imaging studies |
| In patients with Crohn disease and clinical features unexplained by ileocolonoscopy or imaging studies |
| In patients with Crohn disease, when the assessment of small-bowel mucosal healing (beyond the reach of ileocolonoscopy) is needed (conditional recommendation) |
| In patients with a suspected small-bowel recurrence of Crohn disease after colectomy, undiagnosed by ileocolonoscopy or imaging studies |
| For polyposis, capsule endoscopy is recommended: |
| For ongoing surveillance in patients with polyposis syndromes who require small-bowel studies (conditional recommendation) |
| For colon studies, capsule endoscopy is discouraged: |
| As a routine substitute for colonoscopy |
| As a substitute for colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease to assess the extent and severity of the disease |
↵a The strength of these recommendations is strong, except for the 2 conditional recommendations noted. However, the quality of evidence is low or very low for all.
Based on information in reference 6.