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.     

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: role of videocapsule and double-balloon enteroscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE), which allows the non-invasive visualisation of mucosa throughout the entire small bowel, has revolutionised the exploration of small-bowel diseases, and particularly the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) after a negative initial evaluation, including gastroscopy and colonoscopy. CE has a high negative predictive value and a higher diagnostic yield than all other modalities, such as radiology (small-bowel X-rays or computed tomography scan) or push enteroscopy. CE may be the preferred initial diagnostic choice in OGIB because of its non-invasive quality and better tolerance. Double-balloon enteroscopy, also known as push-and-pull enteroscopy, has recently been developed. It has made it possible not only to explore the small bowel but also to carry out therapeutic interventions deep in the small bowel without the need for surgical laparotomy. This exploration should be considered as a second-line exploration for OGIB in patients with a positive finding on CE requiring endoscopic follow-up for histology or intervention, and in patients in whom suspicion of a small-bowel lesion is high despite a negative CE.     

Video capsule endoscopy vs double-balloon enteroscopy in the diagnosis of small bowel bleeding: A systematic review and metaanalysis

AIM To compare the diagnostic accuracy of video capsule endoscopy(VCE) and double-balloon enteroscopy(DBE) in cases of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding(OGIB) of vascular origin.METHODS MEDLINE(via PubMed), LILACS(via BVS) and Cochrane/CENTRAL virtual databases were searched for studies dated before 2017. We identified prospective and retrospective studies, including observational, cohort, single-blinded and multicenter studies, comparing VCE and DBE for the diagnosis of OGIB, and data of all the vascular sources of bleeding were collected. All patients were subjected to the same gold standard method. Relevant data were then extracted from each included study using a standardized extraction form. We calculated study variables(sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy) and performed a meta-analysis using Meta-Disc software.RESULTS In the per-patient analysis, 17 studies(1477 lesions) were included. We identified3150 exams(1722 VCE and 1428 DBE) in 2043 patients and identified 2248 sources of bleeding, 1467 of which were from vascular lesions. Of these lesions, 864(58.5%) were diagnosed by VCE, and 613(41.5%) were diagnosed by DBE. The pretest probability for bleeding of vascular origin was 54.34%. The sensitivity of DBE was 84%(95%CI: 0.82-0.86; heterogeneity: 78.00%), and the specificity was92%(95%CI: 0.89-0.94; heterogeneity: 92.0%). For DBE, the positive likelihood ratio was 11.29(95%CI: 4.83-26.40; heterogeneity: 91.6%), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.20(95%CI: 0.15-0.27; heterogeneity: 67.3%). Performing DBE after CE increased the diagnostic yield of vascular lesion by 7%, from 83% to90%.CONCLUSION The diagnostic accuracy of detecting small bowel bleeding from a vascular source is increased with the use of an isolated video capsule endoscope compared with isolated DBE. However, concomitant use increases the detection rate of the bleeding source.