胶囊内镜联合多层螺旋CT对不明原因消化道出血诊断效率的临床研究

目的比较胶囊内镜(CE)、多层螺旋CT(MSCT)及两种检测手段联用对不明原因的消化道出血(OGIB)检测和诊断效率的差异。 方法纳入2017年1月至2018年8月经重庆市人民医院三院消化内科及重庆市西南医院影像科接受检查的患者,同时符合入选标准并不符合排除标准,按照年龄和出血方式对其进行分组,对患者行CE和MSCT检查,比较两种检查方式的病变检出率、病因诊断率及检测、诊断的一致性。 结果CE的病变检出率和病因诊断率均显著高于MSCT(P<0.05),CE联合MSCT病变检出率和病因诊断率显著高于CE和MSCT(P<0.05)。在显性出血组,CE的病变检出率和病因诊断率显著高于MSCT(P<0.05),CE联合MSCT病变检出率显著高于MSCT(P<0.05)。隐性出血组中,CE与MSCT的病变检出率和病因诊断率间无显著性差异(P>0.05),CE联合MSCT的病变检出率和病因诊断率显著高于CE和MSCT(P<0.05)。青年组中CE的病变检出率和病因诊断率均显著高于MSCT(P<0.05),CE联合MSCT的病变检出率和病因诊断率均显著高于MSCT(P<0.05),与CE间无显著差异(P>0.05)。在中老年组中,CE的病变检出率和病因诊断率与MSCT间无显著差异(P>0.05),CE联合MSCT的病变检出率和病因诊断率均显著高于CE和MSCT(P<0.05)。 结论CE、MSCT均为安全、有效的OGIB检测手段,CE对于OGIB的病变检测率和病因诊断率均显著高于MSCT,尤其在显性出血组和青年人群中。两者联合应用检测效率显著高于CE和MSCT,但在青年人群中,两者联合使用检测效率与单独使用CE无显著差异。     

胶囊内镜与多排螺旋CT在诊断不明原因消化道出血中的临床价值

目的探讨胶囊内镜（capsule endoscopy,CE）与多排螺旋CT（mutiple-detector computertomography,MDCT）在不明原因消化道出血中的诊断价值。方法应用CE和MDCT对60例不明原因消化道出血患者进行比较研究,并与手术病理结果对照。结果CE的诊断阳性率为60．0％（36／60）,MDCT的诊断阳性率为38．3％（23／60）,P〈0．01。CE和MDCT联合诊断的阳性率为66．7％（40／60）,与单纯CE相比P〉0．05,与单纯MDCT相比P〈0．01。诊断的主要病变有间质瘤、血管瘤、克罗恩病、血管畸形、Meckel憩室、钩虫病等。在手术确诊病例中,两者的诊断阳性率差异无统计学意义。结论对不明原因消化道出血,CE的诊断阳性率高于MDCT,联合检查并未提高诊断阳性率,但综合考虑CE和MDCT检查的优缺点,认为MDCT检查在小肠肿瘤的病变性质及肠外情况全面了解中具有优势,建议对不明原因消化道出血进行CE和MDCT的联合检查。     

胶囊内镜诊断不明原因消化道出血临床研究

胶囊内镜对小肠病变的诊断价值已得到肯定，尤其是对不明原因消化道出血的诊断，有其他传统方法不可替代的优势。我们在3年间进行该类检查56例，报道如下。     

胶囊内镜对不明原因消化道出血的诊断分析

目的探讨胶囊内镜(CE)对不明原因的消化道出血(OGIB)中的诊断价值。方法对本院65例不明原因的消化道出血患者做胶囊内镜检查,详细观察统计分析其影像资料。结果 65例患者顺利完成检查,胶囊内镜摄片时间平均为507min(480～545min),检查过程中均无不适,65例患者均获得清晰图像,本组65例内镜检查结果阳性48例,一例可疑阳性,16例阴性。小肠多发溃疡并出血17例,空肠憩室并出血6例,空肠肿瘤6例,回肠出血3例,缺血性肠病2例,小肠血管瘤2例,小肠crohn疾病5例,血管畸形2例,Meckel憩室1例,空肠息肉3例,NSAID相关性小肠病1例,诊断阳性率73.85%(48/65)。结论胶囊内镜检查安全、无创,检出率较高,对不明原因的消化道出血患者的诊断具有较高的临床价值。     

胶囊内镜诊断不明原因消化道出血的价值

背景：不明原因消化道出血（OGIB）的诊断是临床难题之一。随着内镜技术的革新,OGIB的诊治水平不断提高。目的：评价胶囊内镜诊断OGIB的价值。方法：回颐性分析南京鼓楼医院2003年5月～2008年4月行胶囊内镜检查的OGIB患者的资料。结果：胶囊内镜的OGIB总检出率为82．6％（228／276）。小肠病变检出率为77．5％（214／276）,其中以血管动静脉畸形（AVM）最为常见,其次为小肠占位和小肠克罗恩病（CD）。14例（5．1％）患者的出血部位位于小肠以外,其中5例位于胃内,9例为结肠病变。所有患者均未出现肠梗阻症状。与〈50岁的患者相比。≥50岁者的小肠AVM检出率显著增高（33．9％对19．6％,P=0．016）,小肠占位和寄生虫病检出率均无明显差异。男性患者的小肠CD检出率显著高于女性患者（17．1％对6．8％,P=0．018）。结论：胶囊内镜检查安全、无创伤,诊断OGIB的价值较高。OGIB以小肠AVM最为多见,其次为小肠占位和CD。     

胶囊内镜对不明原因消化道出血的诊断价值

目的 比较胶囊内镜与传统小肠俭查方法对不明原因消化道出血的诊断价值。方法 总结分析67例胃镜、肠镜检查阴性的消化道出血患者中消化道钡餐、肠系膜动脉造影、推进式小肠镜、胶囊内镜及剖腹探查包括手术中肠镜结果。结果 不明原因消化道出血上、中消化道钡餐检查检出率为17．6％，诊断率为13．8％；肠系膜动脉造影检查检出率和诊断率均为13．4％；推进式小肠镜检查检出率、诊断率为．32％；剖腹探查及术中肠镜检出率和诊断率均为83．3％；胶囊内镜检查检出率为80．6％，诊断率为67．7％结论 胶囊内镜检查对于不明原因消化道出血具有较高的检出率和诊断率．明显优于传统的检查方法。     

应用胶囊内镜诊断不明原因消化道出血的临床价值探讨

[目的]探讨胶囊内镜(CE)对不明原因消化道出血(OGIB)的诊断价值。[方法]106例OGIB患者依据不同的临床表现分为隐性出血组和显性出血组,均采用CE检查,对诊断结果进行分析总结。[结果]106例OGIB患者中74例获阳性诊断(69.8%),显性出血组占50例(69.5%),隐性出血组占24例(70.6%),2组阳性诊断率比较,差异无统计学意义;阳性诊断结果中以血管病变居多,其次为小肠恶性肿瘤。[结论]CE检查诊断OGIB的价值较高,是一种安全、简便的诊断方法。     

国产胶囊内镜对不明原因消化道出血的诊断价值

[目的]探讨国产OMOM型智能胶囊(OMOM)在不明原因消化道出血(OGIB)患者中的诊断价值。[方法]对36例OGIB患者进行OMOM检查,总结并分析其临床资料。[结果]36例均完成检查,其中25例发现病变,阳性检出率69.4%;≥60岁患者以小肠血管畸形为主。检查过程中无任何不适及并发症。[结论]OMOM对OGIB诊断具有较高的诊断率及准确性,临床安全性好。     

胶囊内镜在不明原因消化道出血诊断中的应用

背景：胶囊内镜是明确不明原因消化道出血（OGIB）的检查手段之一,其诊断率可能受到检查时机和出血自然病程的影响。目的：探讨胶囊内镜在OGIB诊断中的应用价值和最佳检查时机。方法：收集2010年10月～2012年6月厦门大学附属中山医院46例接受胶囊内镜检查的OGIB患者。回顾性分析胶囊内镜检查诊断OGIB的阳性率、疑诊率、敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值,比较不同检查时机对OGIB检出率的影响。结果：胶囊内镜检查诊断OGIB的阳性率为71．7％,疑诊率为13．0％,阴性率为15．2％,诊断敏感性、特异性以及阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为96．3％、75．0％、92．9％、85．7％。活动性出血组的检出率显著高于出血停止组（96．3％对68．4％,P=0．030）,显性出血者的检出率与隐性出血者相比差异无统计学意义（100％对75．0％,P=0．148）。出血停止≤2周者的检出率显著高于出血停止〉2周者（90．9％对37．5％,P=0．041）。结论：胶囊内镜是诊断OGIB的一种安全、有效的检查手段,出血后尽早行胶囊内镜检查可能提高阳性诊断率并为进一步干预创造条件。     

影响胶囊内镜诊断不明原因消化道出血因素的分析

目的为提高胶囊内镜诊断不明原因消化道出血的诊断率,探讨影响胶囊内镜诊断不明原因消化道诊断率的因素。方法胶囊内镜检查172例,其中不明原因的消化道出血的患者61例,分为2组,A组为胶囊内镜检查明确出血病变者,B组为无明确出血病变者,根据年龄、性别、病史、病变程度、病变表现、排空时间、肠道清洁、检出率、诊断率等对比分析。结果消化道出血的检出率为88．52％,包括胃炎、肠炎、血管畸形、肠息肉、食管静脉曲张等。出血的诊断率为67．2％,包括小肠糜烂,克罗恩病、糜烂性胃炎、溃疡病、肿瘤等。两组病人年龄、性别比较无明显差异,A组病史活动性出血者多,病史长,合并症多,小肠转运时间较长,肠道清洁好,病变程度重,病变检出率高。结论注意病人的选择、合理的小肠转运时间、肠道清洁好、了解出血原因和排序、提高病变鉴别、图像解读及临床综合判断和随访等,可以提高胶囊内镜检查的诊断率,使不明原因消化道出血病变得到及时明确的处理。     

Are repeat upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy necessary within six months of capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding?

Background and Aim: Medicare reimbursement for capsule endoscopy for the investigation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding in Australia requires endoscopy and colonoscopy to have been performed within 6 months. This study aims to determine the diagnostic yield of repeating these procedures when they had been non‐diagnostic more than 6 months earlier. Methods: Of 198 consecutive patients who were referred for the investigation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, 50 underwent repeat endoscopy and colonoscopy solely to enable reimbursement (35 females and 15 males; mean age 59.4 [range: 21–82] years). The average duration of obscure bleeding was 50.16 (range: 9–214) months. The mean number of prior endoscopies was 3 (median: 2) and 2.8 colonoscopies (median: 2). The most recent endoscopy had been performed 18.9 (median: 14; range: 7–56) months, and for colonoscopy, 19.1 (median 14; range 8‐51) months earlier. Results: A probable cause of bleeding was found at endoscopy in two patients: gastric antral vascular ectasia (1) and benign gastric ulcer (1). Colonoscopy did not reveal a source of bleeding in any patient. Capsule endoscopy was performed in 47 patients. Twenty four (51%) had a probable bleeding source identified, and another five (11%) a possible source. These included angioectasia (17 patients), mass lesion (2), non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug enteropathy (2), Cameron's erosions (2), and Crohn's disease (1). Four patients undergoing repeat capsule endoscopy had a probable bleeding source detected. Conclusion: The yield of repeat endoscopy and colonoscopy immediately prior to capsule endoscopy is low when these procedures have previously been non‐diagnostic. Such an approach is also not cost‐effective.     

Best candidates for capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

Background and Aim: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has an important role in the diagnosis of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there was still controversy regarding the best candidates for CE. The present retrospective study aimed to access the best candidates for CE. Methods: There were 91 consecutive patients referred to the present study for 94 CE examinations from May 2002 to January 2005. They were divided into two groups (41 with active bleeding, and 50 with previous bleeding). Results: The CE findings were positive in 74.7%, suspicious in 11% of cases and negative in 14.3% of cases, respectively. The positive and suspected positive yield of CE were 75.6% and 19.5% in the active bleeding group, 74% and 4% in the previous bleeding group (P = 0.01), 75.7% and 21.6% in the overt bleeding group, 75% and 0% in the occult bleeding group (P = 0.206), 89.7% and 3.4% in patients who bled 2 weeks previously, 52.38% and 4.76% in patients who bled >2 weeks previously (P = 0.003), 75.6% and 19.5% in active bleeding group, 89.7% and 3.4% in patients who bled 2 weeks ago (P = 0.128). Conclusions: The best candidates for the procedure are those with active bleeding, or active bleeding in the previous 2 weeks.     

A prospective, single-blind trial comparing wireless capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND: Wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are new methods enabling diagnostic endoscopy of the entire small intestine. However, which of the two is superior is unclear. We therefore prospectively compared the clinical efficacy of CE and DBE. METHODS: We prospectively examined 32 patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. CE preceded DBE by 1-7 days, and all patients underwent DBE twice, by antegrade and retrograde approaches, to evaluate the entire small intestine. Physicians evaluating the results of CE and DBE were blind to the results of the other method. We evaluated diagnosis, diagnostic yield of the two methods, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: CE revealed abnormal findings in 29 (90.6%) of 32 patients. CE definitively or probably detected the sources of bleeding in 23 (71.9%) of the 32 patients, including angioectasias (eight), erosions (seven), ulcers (five), tumor (one), and hemorrhagic polyps (two). DBE definitely or probably detected the sources of bleeding in 21 (65.6%) of the 32 patients, including angioectasias (seven), erosions (four), ulcers (five), tumor (one), hemorrhagic polyps (two) and diverticula (two). CE yielded more abnormal findings than DBE (CE 90.6%, DBE 65.6%) (P = 0.032), although there were no significant differences in diagnostic yield between the methods. We were able to perform additional treatment or biopsy with DBE in 13 patients, including coagulation therapy (ten), endoscopic mucosal resection (one), biopsy (seven), and extraction of retained CE (two). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the superiority of CE in detecting abnormal lesions, and the superiority of DBE in endoscopic management.     

Diagnostic yield of dual-phase computed tomography enterography in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and a non-diagnostic capsule endoscopy

Background and Aim: In patients with obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, capsule endoscopy is widely used to determine the source of bleeding. However, there is currently no consensus on how to further evaluate patients with obscure GI bleeding with a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy examination. This study aims to determine the diagnostic yield of dual‐phase computed tomographic enterography (CTE) in patients with obscure GI bleeding and a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy. Methods: Patients with obscure GI bleeding who were referred for capsule endoscopy were prospectively enrolled. Obscure GI bleeding was defined as overt if there was obvious GI bleeding; otherwise it was defined as occult. Patients with a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy and no contraindications underwent a CTE. Results: Capsule endoscopy was performed in 52 patients; 26 patients (50%) had occult GI bleeding and 26 patients (50%) had overt GI bleeding. CTE was then performed in 25 of the 48 patients without a definitive source of bleeding seen on capsule endoscopy. The diagnostic yield of CTE was 0% (0/11) in patients with occult bleeding versus 50% (7/14) in patients with overt bleeding (P < 0.01). Using clinical follow up as the gold standard, for the 25 patients with a non‐diagnostic capsule, CTE had a sensitivity of 33% (95% confidence interval 0.15, 0.56) and a specificity of 75% (95% confidence interval 0.22, 0.99). Conclusions: In patients with a non‐diagnostic capsule endoscopy examination, CTE is useful for detecting a source of GI bleeding in patients with overt, but not occult, obscure GI bleeding.     

The role of video capsule endoscopy for evaluating obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: usefulness of early use

Background We report our preliminary experience with the use of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) in 64 patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) and suspected small intestine disease.Methods To be eligible for VCE, patients had to have undergone upper endoscopy, small bowel series, and colonscopy without discovering any source of bleeding. To find the best timing to perform VCE, the patients were retrospectively divided in two groups of 32 cases each: group 1 with patients who had been submitted to VCE within 15 days from OGIB diagnosis, and group 2 with patients who had been submitted to VCE at least 15 days after OGIB diagnosis.Results Lesions were found by VCE in 29 (91%) in group 1: angioectasia-like lesions of the small bowel in 12, some erosions of the ileum without signs of bleeding in 14, a polyp with erosions in 1, and a bleeding site where the surgery showed a tumor of the ileum in 2 patients. In 2 cases, VCE missed showing two small tumors that were revealed by laparoscopy in 1 case and by push enteroscopy in the other. In group 2, lesions were found by VCE in 11 (34%): angioectasia-like lesions of the small bowel in 6, some erosions in 3, a short segmental stenosis in 1, and two polyps in 1. In 1 case, VCE missed showing a small polyp in the jejunum that was revealed by push enteroscopy. In none of these cases was a bleeding site identified. VCE was well tolerated and able to acquire good images in patients with OGIB. It showed lesions in 91% of the patients in group 1 and 34% of cases in group 2.Conclusions Our data suggest that the optimal timing to perform VCE is within a few days after the occurrence of bleeding, possibly within 2 weeks.