Multicenter retrospective study demonstrates the safety and clinical utility of capsule endoscopy in preschool children, highlighting its value when inflammatory markers or imaging are abnormal.
To evaluate the safety and clinical utility of capsule endoscopy in preschool-aged children. A multicenter retrospective study design was used, including data from eight specialized pediatric hospitals in China. Children aged < 6 years who were hospitalized and underwent capsule endoscopy between January 2020 and August 2025 were included. This study included 155 patients (mean age 56.9 ± 14.2 months). The most common indication was chronic abdominal pain (50.97%), followed by suspected inflammatory bowel disease (22.58%), gastrointestinal bleeding (16.13%), and unexplained anemia (8.39%). Abnormal findings were identified in 69 cases, which established a definitive diagnosis in 55 patients (diagnostic yield, 35.5%), including 15 with isolated small-bowel disease. Capsule retention occurred in three patients with Crohn’s disease. Fifty patients swallowed the capsule independently, while others required endoscopic placement; endoscopic assistance increased the success rate of capsule delivery to 100% in preschool children. When preschool children exhibited elevated inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein(CRP) 6 mg/L [interquartile range (IQR), 0.81-23 mg/L] vs. 0.95 mg/L [IQR, 0.51–3.58 mg/L]; erythrocyte sedimentation rate(ESR) 16 mm/h [IQR, 6–27 mm/h] vs. 7 mm/h [IQR, 4–14 mm/h]), lower albumin levels (38.47 ± 8.83 g/L vs. 42.50 ± 4.92 g/L), and intestinal wall thickening on imaging (56.36% vs. 20.00%), the diagnostic positive rate significantly increased. Capsule endoscopy is safe for preschool children. Capsule retention is mainly associated with underlying diseases. Capsule endoscopy is recommended to assess small-bowel lesions in children with elevated inflammatory markers, reduced albumin levels, or radiographic evidence of bowel wall thickening, facilitating early diagnosis and treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: