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.     

A prospective study comparing video capsule endoscopy with double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE: Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding from jejunal and ileal lesions remains undiagnosed using traditional imaging techniques (radiologic, endoscopic). This prospective study compares the diagnostic detection rate of small-bowel lesions using wireless video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with the detection rate using double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Tolerance, adverse events, endoscopic interventions, and prognosis were described as secondary aims. METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding were evaluated (22 males and 13 females; mean age 63.2 yr; range, 19-86 yr). The detection rates of the Given M2A wireless VCE and DBE were compared. RESULTS: Small-bowel abnormalities were detected using VCE in 28 (80%) of the 35 patients with OGIB, compared with 21 (60%) of the 35 patients using DBE (p = 0.01). Both examinations were well tolerated, but VCE was more acceptable to patients. No major adverse event occurred after either examination. Biopsies (n = 27), argon plasma coagulation (n = 19), tattoo injection (n = 8), and polypectomy (n = 2) were feasible with DBE when indicated in 27 of the 35 patients (77%). During a median (range) follow-up period of 5 (2-12) months, 26 (74%) patients remained clinically stable and did not require blood transfusions after DBE procedures. Eighteen (51%) of those who remained clinically stable had received APC therapy. CONCLUSIONS: High detection rates of the causes of OGIB are feasible with VCE and DBE. Although the detection rate of VCE was superior, our results indicate that the procedures are complementary; an initial diagnostic imaging employing VCE might be followed by therapeutic and interventional DBE.     

Double-balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy have comparable diagnostic yield in small-bowel disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy (CE) with double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in small-bowel (SB) disease using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a search of studies comparing CE with DBE in SB disease. Data on diagnostic yield of CE and DBE were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. The weighted incremental yield (IY(W)) (yield of CE--yield of DBE) of CE over DBE and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for pooled data were calculated using a fixed-effect model (FEM) for analyses without, and a random-effect model (REM) for analyses with, significant heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eleven studies compared CE and DBE; the pooled overall yield for CE and DBE was 60% (n = 397) and 57% (n = 360), respectively (IY(W), 3%; 95% CI, -4% to 10%; P = .42; FEM). Ten studies reported vascular findings; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 24% (n = 371) and 24% (n = 364), respectively (IY(W), 0%; 95% CI, -5% to 6%; P = .88; REM). Nine studies reported inflammatory findings; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 18% (n = 343) and 16% (n = 336), respectively (IY(W), 0%; 95% CI, -5% to 6%; P = .89; FEM). Nine studies reported polyps/tumors; the pooled yield for CE and DBE was 11% (n = 343) and 11% (n = 336), respectively (IY(W), -1%; 95% CI, -5% to 4%; P = .76; FEM). CONCLUSIONS: CE and DBE have comparable diagnostic yield in SB disease, including obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. CE should be the initial diagnostic test because of its noninvasive quality, tolerance, ability to view the entire SB, and for determining the initial route of DBE. Because of its therapeutic capabilities, DBE may be indicated in patients with a positive finding on CE requiring a biopsy or therapeutic intervention, if suspicion for a SB lesion is high despite a negative CE, and in patients with active bleeding.     

Double balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated meta-analysis

Background and Aim: Uncertainty remains about the best test to evaluate patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Previous meta‐analyses demonstrated similar diagnostic yields with capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) but relied primarily on data from abstracts and were not limited to bleeding patients. Many studies have since been published. Therefore, we performed a new meta‐analysis comparing CE and DBE focused specifically on OGIB. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed of comparative studies using both CE and DBE in patients with OGIB. Data were extracted and analyzed to determine the weighted pooled diagnostic yields of each method and the odds ratio for the successful localization of a bleeding source. Results: Ten eligible studies were identified. The pooled diagnostic yield for CE was 62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.3–76.1) and for DBE was 56% (95% CI 48.9–62.1), with an odds ratio for CE compared with DBE of 1.39 (95% CI 0.88–2.20; P = 0.16). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the yield for DBE performed after a previously positive CE was 75.0% (95% CI 60.1–90.0), with the odds ratio for successful diagnosis with DBE after a positive CE compared with DBE in all patients of 1.79 (95% CI 1.09–2.96; P = 0.02). In contrast, the yield for DBE after a previously negative CE was only 27.5% (95% CI 16.7–37.8). Conclusions: Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy provide similar diagnostic yields in patients with OGIB. However, the diagnostic yield of DBE is significantly higher when performed in patients with a positive CE.     

Hyperamylasemia of uncertain significance associated with oral double-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND: Double-balloon enterocopy (DBE) is still under evaluation, including its yield and safety aspects. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to consider the relationship between DBE and hyperamylasemia. DESIGN: Single-center prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital, conducted from March to October 2006. PATIENTS: Thirty-five oral DBEs were carried out in 31 patients (17 men, 14 women). Serum amylase, lipase, C-reactive protein (CRP), and urine amylase were taken before the procedure and 4 and 24 hours after the investigation. Abdominal pain was evaluated with a 3-step scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Only 1 patient had acute pancreatitis after DBE. RESULTS: An elevation of amylase levels after the procedure was found in 51.4% and abdominal pain or nausea or vomiting in 34.3%, but 8.6% of these patients had no hyperamylasemia after DBE. CRP was determined in 25 procedures and the serum lipase level in 14 of these 25 DBEs; elevation of both factors after the procedure was found in 36%. The CRP level was elevated in 60% after the procedure. We found a positive correlation between abdominal pain and serum lipase level (r = 0.72, P = .0032) and negative correlation between abdominal pain and age (r = -0.445, P = .0076). Significant hyperamylasemia seems to be associated with longer duration of DBE (borderline statistically significant, P = .045; 95% CI for difference of means 0.985-82.306). LIMITATIONS: Nonblinded nonrandomized study. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperamylasemia after DBE seems to be rather common, mainly in the longest examinations. Although association of significant hyperamylasemia and acute pancreatitis is possible, it is not obligatory.     

Different roles of capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy in obscure small intestinal diseases

AIM: To compare the roles of capsule endoscopy(CE)and double-balloon enteroscopy(DBE) in the diagnosis of obscure small bowel diseases.METHODS: From June 2009 to December 2014, 88 patients were included in this study; the patients had undergone gastroscopy, colonoscopy, radiological small intestinal barium meal, abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan and mesenteric angiography, but their diagnoses were still unclear. The patients with gastrointestinal obstructions,fistulas, strictures, or cardiac pacemakers, as well as pregnant women, and individuals who could not accept the capsule-retention or capsule-removal surgery were excluded. Patients with heart, lung and other vital organ failure diseases were also excluded. Everyone involved in this study had undergone CE and DBE. The results were divided into:(1) the definite diagnosis(the diagnosis was confirmed at least by one of the biopsy,surgery, pathology or the drug treatment effects with follow-up for at least 3 mo);(2) the possible diagnosis(a possible diagnosis was suggested by CE or DBE,but not confirmed by the biopsy, surgery or follow-up drug treatment effects); and(3) the unclear diagnosis(no exact causes were provided by CE and DBE for the disease). The detection rate and the diagnostic yield of the two methods were compared. The differencein the etiologies between CE and DBE was estimated,and the different possible etiologies caused by the age groups were also investigated.RESULTS: CE exhibited a better trend than DBE for diagnosing scattered small ulcers(P = 0.242, Fisher's test), and small vascular malformations(χ 2 = 1.810,P = 0.179, Pearson χ 2 test), but with no significant differences, possible due to few cases. However,DBE was better than CE for larger tumors(P =0.018, Fisher's test) and for diverticular lesions with bleeding ulcers(P = 0.005, Fisher's test). All three hemangioma cases diagnosed by DBE in this study(including sponge hemangioma, venous hemangioma,and hemangioma with hamartoma lesions) were all confirmed by biopsy. Two parasite cases were found by CE, but were negative by DBE. This study revealed no obvious differences in the detection rates(DR) of CE(60.0%, 53/88) and DBE(59.1%, 52/88). However,the etiological diagnostic yield(DY) difference was apparent. The CE diagnostic yield was 42.0%(37/88),and the DBE diagnostic yield was 51.1%(45/88).Furthermore, there were differences among the age groups(χ 2 = 22.146, P = 0.008, Kruskal Wallis Test). Small intestinal cancer(5/6 cases), vascular malformations(22/29 cases), and active bleeding(3/4cases) appeared more commonly in the patients over50 years old, but diverticula with bleeding ulcers were usually found in the 15-25-year group(4/7cases). The over-25-year group accounted for the stromal tumors(10/12 cases).CONCLUSION: CE and DBE each have their own advantages and disadvantages. The appropriate choice depends on the patient's age, tolerance, and clinical manifestations. Sometimes CE followed by DBE is necessary.     

What is the learning curve associated with double-balloon enteroscopy? Technical details and early experience in 6 U.S. tertiary care centers

BACKGROUND: Performance parameters for double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) have not been described. OBJECTIVE: To determine the learning curve for DBE. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six U.S. tertiary centers. PATIENTS: A total of 188 subjects undergoing 237 DBE procedures; 130 (69%) with obscure GI bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Performance parameters from each center's initial 10 cases were compared to the subsequent examinations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Exam duration, depth of insertion, and findings on DBE examination. RESULTS: DBE was introduced by mouth in 149 (63%) cases, by rectum in 77 (33%) cases, and through a stoma in 6 (2.5%) patients. The mean (+/-SD) duration was 109.1 +/- 44.6 minutes for the first 10 cases and 92.4 +/- 37.6 minutes for subsequent cases (P = .005) but did not change for rectal DBE procedures. There was no change in mean depth of insertion, but the mean fluoroscopy time declined significantly (P = .025). Diagnostic or therapeutic maneuvers were performed in 64% of cases; DBE led to a diagnosis in 81 (43%) patients. A total of 78% of patients had prior capsule endoscopy (CE) with significant agreement between DBE and CE (kappa = 0.74). One perforation occurred (0.4%). Per-rectal cases failed to reach the small bowel in 24 (31%) cases. LIMITATIONS: All patients did not undergo initial CE. The therapeutic DBE scope was not available for the initial 8 months of the study. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant decline in overall procedural time and fluoroscopy time after the initial 10 DBE cases. There was no improvement in performance parameters when DBE was performed via the rectal approach despite increased, but limited, operator experience.     

Evaluation of capsule endoscopy in active, mild-to-moderate, overt, obscure GI bleeding

BACKGROUND: The role of capsule endoscopy (CE) in the diagnosis of active mild-to-moderate GI bleeding (GIB) immediately after a negative EGD and ileocolonoscopy has not been prospectively evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diagnostic yield and clinical significance of CE in patients with acute, obscure, overt, mild-to-moderate GIB. DESIGN: A single-center prospective study. PATIENTS: During a 3-year period, 573 patients admitted to the hospital with acute mild-to-moderate GIB were included in this study. Among them, 37 patients (6.5%) with negative endoscopic findings, after urgent upper- and lower-GI endoscopies, underwent CE within the first 48 hours to identify the source of bleeding. RESULTS: CE revealed active bleeding in 34 patients and a diagnostic yield of 91.9%, including angiodysplasias in 18 patients, ulcers in 3 patients, and tumors in 2 patients. In the remaining 11 patients (32%), CE revealed the site of bleeding: distal duodenum in 1 case (9%), jejunum in 6 cases (54%), ileum in 2 cases (18%), and cecum in 2 cases (18%). From the 37 bleeders, 16 were managed conservatively, 14 endoscopically, and 7 surgically. During a 12-month follow-up period, bleeding recurrence was observed in 5 of 32 (15.6%). LIMITATIONS: This study had a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: CE appeared to have a high diagnostic yield in patients with acute, mild-to-moderate, active hemorrhage of obscure origin when performed in the hospital after a negative standard endoscopic evaluation and has important clinical value in guiding medical management.     

胶囊内镜结合双气囊内镜检查在小肠疾病诊断中的作用

目的 探讨胶囊内镜结合双气囊内镜检查在小肠疾病诊断中的作用.方法 连续调查299例因不明原因消化道出血或腹痛、腹泻等原因而行胶囊内镜检查者,对胶囊内镜阴性或诊断不确定者建议双气囊内镜检查.分析胶囊内镜后双气囊内镜检查者诊断和随访资料.结果 296例完成胶囊内镜检查,发现阳性138例(46.6%),可疑阳性68例(23.0%),阴性90例(30.4%).45例胶囊内镜可疑阳性者和7例阴性者接受双气囊内镜检查,分别检出31例和1例小肠病变.双气囊内镜可能存在假阴性结果8例,未发现假阳性者;胶囊内镜可能存在假阴性结果2例,并有8例假阳性.在胶囊内镜结果提示下,90.3%(28/31)患者经单侧双气囊内镜检查即发现病灶.平均随访期为17个月,93.5%的双气囊内镜明确诊断者得到有效治疗.二种检查方法耐受性好,无严重不良反应发生.结论 胶囊内镜对小肠病变检出率高,但其诊断不确定性也较高.双气囊内镜能明确大部分胶囊内镜可疑阳性者.胶囊内镜结合双气囊内镜检查的诊断策略能提高小肠疾病诊断率、指导治疗并改善患者预后.     

A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with small bowel diseases

AIM To compare the diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy(CE) with that of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE).METHODS Pubmed, Embase, Elsevier ScienceDirect,the China Academic Journals Full-text Database, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched for the trials comparing the yield of CE with that of DBE.Outcome measure was odds ratio (OR) of the yield. Fixed or random model method was used for data analysis.RESULTS Eight studies (n = 277) which prospectively compared the yield of CE and DBE were collected. The results of meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference between the yield of CE and DBE [170/277 vs 156/277, OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.64-2.29)]. Based on sub analysis, the yield of CE was significantly higher than that of double-balloon enteroscopy without combination of oral and anal insertion approaches [137/219 vs 110/219, OR 1.67 (95% CI 1.14-2.44), P ＜ 0.01), but not superior to the yield of DBE with combination of the two insertion approaches [26/48 vs 37/48, OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.05-2.21), P ＞ 0.05)]. A focused meta-analysis of the fully published articles concerning obscure GI bleeding was also performed and showed similar results wherein the yield of CE was significantly higher than that of DBE without combination of oral and anal insertion approaches [118/191 vs 96/191, fixed model OR 1.61(95% CI 1.07-2.43), P ＜0.05)] and the yield of CE was significantly lower than that of DBE by oral and anal combinatory approaches [11/24 vs 21/24, fixed modelOR 0.12 (95% CI 0.03-0.52), P ＜ 0.01)].CONCLUSION With combination of oral and anal approaches, the yield of DBE might be at least as high as that of CE. Decisions made regarding the initial approach should depend on patient's physical status, technology availability, patient's preferences, and potential for therapeutic endoscopy.     

Follow-up of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding after capsule endoscopy and intraoperative enteroscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is highly sensitive to detect the bleeding source in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding compared with intraoperative enteroscopy (IOE). Long-term follow-up information of patients undergoing CE and IOE for investigation and treatment of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding is lacking. METHODOLOGY: 50 patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding underwent CE and IOE. Follow-up data of 47 patients (30 men, 17 women, mean age 60.9 +/- 16.8 years) were available (3 patients lost in follow-up). Clinical outcome was assessed with a standardized patient questionnaire and personal communication with referring physicians. RESULTS: Bleeding sources were detected and effective treated during intraoperative enteroscopy (argon plasma coagulation or surgical resection) in 34 patients [(angiodysplasias (n = 22), ulcers (n = 5), malignant tumors (n = 3), Meckel's diverticulum (n = 1), jejunal varices (n = 1), bleeding ileum diverticulosis (n = 1), hyperplastic polyp (n = 1)]. Mean follow-up was 346.3 days (range 253-814 days). Clinical signs of recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 12 of 47 patients (25.5%) [positive fecal occult blood test (n = 2), anemia (n = 2), melena (n = 3), hematochezia (= 5)]. In 3 patients (6.4%) no further therapy was necessary, 9 patients (19.1%) needed blood transfusions (range 2-62 units), endoscopic or surgical interventions to control rebleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study support the proposal that capsule endoscopy could be used as the first-choice investigation in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.     

Initial experience with double-balloon enteroscopy at a U.S. center

BACKGROUND: Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) allows direct visualization and intervention in the entire small intestine. Concerns include long procedure times and a long learning curve after training. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the initial experience of a single endoscopist when using DBE; assess resource utilization, safety, clinical utility, and the learning curve. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary-referral center. PATIENTS: A total of 137 consecutive patients with bleeding or other small-intestine disorders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical impact at the time of DBE and changes in the procedure time and extent with experience. RESULTS: Two hundred DBE procedures were performed without major complications. For 115 oral DBEs, the mean (SD) procedure duration was 101 +/- 35 minutes and length of examined small intestine was 220 +/- 80 cm, with no significant change with experience. For 85 anal DBEs, the mean (SD) procedure duration was 96 +/- 33 minutes, and the length examined was 124 +/- 60 cm; the length examined increased with experience, but the duration did not decrease. The percentage of patients in which a DBE had a helpful clinical impact rose from 58% in the first 50 DBEs, to 86% in the last 50 of 200 DBEs. The total enteroscopy rose from 8% in the first 50 DBEs, to 63% in the last 50 of 200 DBEs. LIMITATIONS: No follow-up data on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: DBEs required significant time and did not always allow for a total enteroscopy. DBEs were safe and helpful in the management of most patients. An experienced endoscopist may perform a safe and useful DBE after limited training, but the development of expertise may require more than 100 to 150 DBE procedures.     

Double Balloon Enteroscopy Detects Small Bowel Mass Lesions Missed by Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND: Small bowel mass lesions (SBML) are a relatively common cause of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Their detection has been limited by the inability to endoscopically examine the entire small intestine. This has changed with the introduction of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) into clinical practice. STUDY AIM: To evaluate the detection of SBML by DBE and CE in patients with OGIB who were found to have SBML by DBE and underwent both procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all patients undergoing DBE for OGIB at seven North American tertiary centers was performed. Those patients who were found to have SBML as a cause of their OGIB were further analyzed. RESULTS: During an 18 month period, 183 patients underwent DBE for OGIB. A small bowel mass lesion was identified in 18 patients. Of these, 15 patients had prior CE. Capsule endoscopy identified the mass lesion in five patients; fresh luminal blood with no underlying lesion in seven patients, and non-specific erythema in three patients. Capsule endoscopy failed to identify all four cases of primary small bowel adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Double balloon enteroscopy detects small bowel mass lesions responsible for OGIB that are missed by CE. Additional endoscopic evaluation of the small bowel by DBE or intraoperative enteroscopy should be performed in patients with ongoing OGIB and negative or non-specific findings on CE.     

MANAGEMENT OF OBSCURE GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING BASED ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF CAPSULE ENDOSCOPIC BLEEDING FINDINGS

Background: Double‐balloon endoscopy (DBE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) have been useful in managing obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). However, DBE is invasive, complex and time‐consuming, therefore indications should probably be selective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the classification of the CE bleeding findings for determining the indications and timing of DBE in patients with OGIB. Methods: From February 2003 to January 2009, 123 patients with OGIB who underwent CE were included in this study. These CE findings were classified based on the bleeding source. Type CE‐I, II, III, IV and 0 indicate active bleeding, previous bleeding, lesions without active bleeding, a lesion outside of the small bowel, and no findings, respectively. We compared diagnostic yield and outcome between the classification and the findings of DBE or enteroclysis. Results: Comparisons of the positive findings rate with DBE or enteroclysis, the treatment rate and the rebleeding rate with the classification showed: CE‐Ia, 100% (6/6), 50% (3/6), 33.3% (2/6); Ib, 66.7% (4/6), 0% (0/6), 16.7% (1/6); IIa, 33.3% (1/3), 33.3% (1/3), 33.3% (1/3); IIb, 53.8% (7/13),15.4% (2/13), 30.8% (4/13); III, 100% (84/84), 9.5% (8/84), 8.3% (7/84); IV, 100% (2/2), 50% (1/2), 0% (0/2); and 0, 0% (0/9), 0% (0/9), 0% (0/9), respectively. Conclusions: The proportion of patients requiring treatment, the positive findings rate with DBE or enteroclysis and the rebleeding rates tended to be higher in the higher ranked classification types (CE‐I > II > III > IV > 0). These findings suggest that the classification can provide useful information on determining the indications and timing of DBE.     

Double-balloon endoscopy: who needs it?

Objective. Double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) made the small bowel accessible to inspection and therapy in its entirety. However, DBE is a time-consuming procedure that requires a highly skilled endoscopist, several nurses and - more often than not - anesthesiological support. This makes the selection of patients for DBE a pivotal point. The mainstay of this screening examination of the small bowel is capsule endoscopy (CE). The aim of this study was to describe the results of this screening procedure and the subsequent DBE in patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding (MGIB). Material and methods. Patients referred for CE from March 2004 to September 2006 were evaluated retrospectively. If CE revealed pathology suitable for DBE, the procedure was then carried out. All referred patients were followed-up at the end of the period with regard to final diagnosis and symptom resolution. Results. A total of 83 patients were referred for suspected MGIB. Indications for DBE were found in 26 patients (31%). A total of 34 DBEs (27 oral, 7 anal) were performed. Insertion length for the oral and anal DBE was 200 cm (range 40-500 cm) beyond the ligament of Treitz and 137 cm (range 10-200 cm) beyond the ileocecal valve, respectively. In 2 out of 4 patients where insertion was attempted, a total inspection of the small bowel was possible (50%). The diagnostic yield was 77% (CI: 58-89%) with a therapeutic yield of 73% (CI: 54-86%). None of the 57 patients for whom there was no indication for DBE required DBE within the next 12 months. Conclusions. CE can be applied as a screening procedure for DBE and allows for an approximately two-thirds reduction in the need for DBE as well as enabling a choice to be made between the oral and anal route.     

Does the "Suspected Blood Indicator" improve the detection of bleeding lesions by capsule endoscopy?

BACKGROUND: The "Suspected Blood Indicator" (SBI), a feature included in the software for interpretation of capsule endoscopy (CE), is designed to facilitate detection of bleeding lesions in the small bowel. This study evaluated the sensitivity and the specificity of the SBI in patients who underwent CE for obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). METHODS: CE recordings from patients with OGIB recruited in 7 centers were read by experts blinded to the red SBI tags. They classified lesions of interest as bleeding or as having a potential for bleeding that was high (P2), low (P1), or absent (P0). The SBI tags then were marked by a another investigator. Concordance was acknowledged when frames selected by the expert reader, and those tagged by the SBI had the same time code. RESULTS: A total of 156 recordings were evaluated. In 83, there was either no lesion (n = 71) or a P0 lesion (n = 12); these CE recordings were regarded as normal. Among the 73 abnormal recordings, 114 P2 and 92 P1 lesions were identified. A total of 154 red tags were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of SBI were 37%, 59%, 50%, and 46%, respectively, for detection of the presence of a P2 or P1 lesion in front of a red tag. CONCLUSIONS: SBI-based detection of intestinal lesions with the potential for bleeding is of limited clinical value in practice and does not reduce the time required for interpretation of CE.     

A comparison between capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy using propensity score-matching analysis in patients with previous obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

Background: Recently, diagnosis of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) has improved greatly due to introduction of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). However, the efficacy of CE over DBE in patients with previous OGIB remains unclear. This study aimed to compare, in terms of diagnostic yield, the efficacy of DBE with that of CE in patients with previous OGIB.

Patients and methods: We enrolled 223 consecutive patients with previous OGIB who were treated between May 2007 and March 2012. We retrospectively evaluated the respective diagnostic yields of CE and DBE in patients with previous OGIB using propensity score-matching analysis. We compared the diagnostic yield of CE with that of DBE.

Results: The diagnostic yields were 41.9% in DBE group and 11.6% in CE group, respectively (p?<?.01). On logistic regression analysis, DBE was significantly superior to CE after matching (Odds ratio [OR], 4.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–12.6; p?<?.01), even after adjustment for propensity score (OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.56?20.5; p?<?.01).

Conclusions: Our results indicate that DBE might be more useful and perhaps safer than CE in achieving a positive diagnosis in patients with previous OGIB.     

Safety and Outcomes of Capsule Endoscopy in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Device: a Single-Center Retrospective Case Series

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) is common. Capsule endoscopy (CE) can be used in the diagnosis of obscure GIB. Safety and outcomes of CE in patients with CF-LVAD are unknown. The aim is to define the safety and outcomes of CE in this population. Paitents with CF-LVAD undergoing CE at a single center between 2007 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-four CE studies were performed. Positive CE occurred in 19 studies. No clinically significant cardiac events occurred. Medical intervention was the most common management strategy. Rebleeding after CE occurred in 10 patients. Patients with active bleeding or lesions such as arteriovenous malformations (AVM) incurred a higher risk of rebleeding, transfusion, and repeated endoscopy. CE is safe in patients with CF-LVAD. The risk of rebleeding was more common in patients with active bleeding or AVM lesions although this result did not reach statistical significance.     

Directions for further improvements of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective. Double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) made the small bowel accessible to inspection and therapy in its entirety. However, DBE is a time-consuming procedure that requires a highly skilled endoscopist, several nurses and – more often than not – anesthesiological support. This makes the selection of patients for DBE a pivotal point. The mainstay of this screening examination of the small bowel is capsule endoscopy (CE). The aim of this study was to describe the results of this screening procedure and the subsequent DBE in patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding (MGIB). Material and methods. Patients referred for CE from March 2004 to September 2006 were evaluated retrospectively. If CE revealed pathology suitable for DBE, the procedure was then carried out. All referred patients were followed-up at the end of the period with regard to final diagnosis and symptom resolution. Results. A total of 83 patients were referred for suspected MGIB. Indications for DBE were found in 26 patients (31%). A total of 34 DBEs (27 oral, 7 anal) were performed. Insertion length for the oral and anal DBE was 200 cm (range 40–500 cm) beyond the ligament of Treitz and 137 cm (range 10–200 cm) beyond the ileocecal valve, respectively. In 2 out of 4 patients where insertion was attempted, a total inspection of the small bowel was possible (50%). The diagnostic yield was 77% (CI: 58–89%) with a therapeutic yield of 73% (CI: 54–86%). None of the 57 patients for whom there was no indication for DBE required DBE within the next 12 months. Conclusions. CE can be applied as a screening procedure for DBE and allows for an approximately two-thirds reduction in the need for DBE as well as enabling a choice to be made between the oral and anal route.     

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。