The clinical impact of capsule endoscopy: to believe or not to believe.

The study by Estevez et al., 'Diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes after capsule endoscopy in 100 consecutive patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding' published in this issue of the journal on a large patient cohort refined a subgroup of patients who could best benefit from capsule endoscopy (CE), e.g. patients with overt bleeding and a requirement for transfusion, and a subgroup of patients in whom CE is clearly not indicated, e.g. patients with overt bleeding and no transfusion requirement. Although the results are promising, some further comments on limitations appear appropriate. The entire small intestine was accessible only in a subgroup of patients and there is a necessity for further technical improvement. A large proportion of the significant lesions detected by CE may also have been detected by conventional diagnostic work-up. The clinical relevance of potentially bleeding lesions that were detected by CE is unresolved. For example, the presence of angiodysplasias per se does not imply a significant bleeding source because their natural history, morphological criteria to characterize the bleeding risk, and occurrence in asymptomatic populations are still unknown. Most of the treatment modifications after CE did not reflect a specific impact of CE on changes in treatment modalities (iron supplementation, eradication of Helicobacter pylori, gluten-free diet, suspension of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). The authors merit credits for their contribution to our understanding on how to put CE into a rational diagnostic algorithm. It seems to be clear that this decision will not be made by the believer or non-believer in CE alone, but also by health insurance companies.