双气囊小肠镜与胶囊内镜在小肠出血应用中的对比研究

目的比较双气囊小肠镜与胶囊内镜在小肠出血中的病变检出率、病因诊断率、耐受性和安全性,初步探讨双气囊小肠镜对小肠出血的内镜下治疗。方法2006年4月至2009年10月烟台毓璜顶医院消化内科收治的可疑小肠出血患者159例,其中81例患者行双气囊小肠镜检查,首选进镜方式分为经口或经肛2种,首选方式检查后未发现病灶者,日后改换进镜方式再行检查。对活动性出血病灶行内镜下止血治疗。另78例患者行胶囊内镜检查。两组患者分别由专门医师独立操作并诊断,最后进行汇总分析,对比双气囊小肠镜与胶囊内镜的临床应用价值。结果双气囊小肠镜组的病变检出率为95.06%,病因诊断率为82.72%,23例检查时见病变活动性出血,行内镜下止血治疗,21例止血成功,内镜止血成功率为91.30%;胶囊内镜组的病变检出率82.05%,病因诊断率为66.67%。双气囊小肠镜组的病因检出率及病因诊断率均显著高于胶囊内镜组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。在耐受性方面,胶囊内镜的耐受性最好,双气囊小肠镜的耐受性依次为:全麻下经肛进镜、全麻下经口进镜、非麻醉经肛进镜、非麻醉经口进镜。所有患者均未发生严重并发症。结论双气囊小肠镜对小肠出血的病因诊断明显优于胶囊内镜,并且可行内镜下止血治疗,是一项安全、有效的临床诊疗方法。     

双气囊小肠镜在原因不明的慢性腹痛诊断中的价值

目的比较双气囊小肠镜和胶囊内镜对原因不明的慢性腹痛患者的病变检出情况,评价双气囊小肠镜对原因不明的慢性腹痛的诊断价值,探讨小肠疾病导致慢性腹痛的常见病因。方法将46例经胃镜、结肠镜、钡餐等检查结果阴性的慢性腹痛患者行双气囊小肠镜检查,首选进镜方式为经口和经肛2种,首选方式检查后未发现病灶者,改换进镜方式再行检查。另70例患者行胶囊内镜检查。两组患者的相关检查分别由专门医师独立操作并诊断,最后进行汇总分析。结果双气囊小肠镜组46例患者中,15例经口进镜,22例经肛门进镜,9例行口-肛门进镜。通过双气囊小肠镜检查发现病灶28例,小肠病变检出率60.87%;胶囊内镜组70例患者中,29例发现小肠病变,小肠病变检出率为41.43%;双气囊小肠镜的病变检出率明显高于胶囊内镜,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。双气囊小肠镜组和胶囊内镜组检出病变中,以克罗恩病最为常见（分别为9例和8例）,其次为非特异性肠炎。结合小肠镜检查结果、手术及临床上药物治疗效果,双气囊小肠镜组诊断疾病的准确率为82.14%（23/28）。其中除1例患者发生急性胰腺炎外,其余患者均未见严重的不良反应及出血、穿孔等严重的并发症。结论双气囊小肠镜对小肠病变所致的慢性腹痛阳性病变检出率高于胶囊内镜,诊断准确率较高,是一种安全可靠的检查手段;导致慢性腹痛的小肠疾病最常见病因为克罗恩病,其次为非特异性肠炎。     

胶囊内镜检查对双气囊小肠镜进镜方式选择的指导作用

目的:探讨胶囊内镜检查对双气囊小肠镜进镜方式选择的指导作用．方法:胶囊内镜检查阴性或可疑病变者20例行双气囊小肠镜检查(均在麻醉下进行),包括经口和经肛进镜方式．根据胶囊内镜时间指数 (胶囊内镜从幽门至病灶的通过时间／幽门至回盲瓣的通过时间)选择首次进镜方式,时间指数>0．50时首先考虑经肛进镜检查,对未发现异常者择期改换方式再行检查．分析按胶囊内镜时间指数选择双气囊小肠镜进镜方式的准确性．结果:胶囊内镜检查阴性者5例,行经口双气囊小肠镜检查,有1例在改为经肛检查后检出病灶．胶囊内镜检查怀疑小肠病变者15例,有 12例(80．0％)经双气囊小肠镜结合活检病理确诊．以时间指数>0．50为标准,4例(分别为0．99, 0．8,0．65和0．59)首选经肛进镜检查,后二者(时间指数分别为0．65和0．59)需换从口侧进镜检查而检出病灶;如以时间指数>0．75为标准,该 2例不再需要改换方式再行检查,另2例病变部位被判断为回肠远端,经肛进镜即可准确到达病灶．结论:胶囊内镜检查可指导对双气囊小肠镜进镜方式的选择,时间指数>0．75提示首选经肛进镜检查．     

34例不明原因疑小肠出血的病因诊断--推进式双气囊小肠镜与小肠钡灌检查对比研究

背景:不明原因小肠出血的病因诊断较为困难,不同检查手段的临床实用价值有待进一步探讨.目的:通过对不明原因疑小肠出血患者分别行推进式双气囊小肠镜和小肠钡灌检查,比较两者对小肠出血的病变检出率、病因诊断准确率和临床实用价值.方法:34例不明原因疑小肠出血患者分别接受推进式双气囊小肠镜和小肠钡灌检查.推进式双气囊小肠镜检查的进镜方式分为经口腔和经肛门两种,以首选进镜方式检查后未发现病灶者,择期改换进镜方式再行检查.小肠钡灌检查采用插管式稀钡灌注法.两项检查分别由消化科和放射科医师独立操作并诊断,最后进行汇总分析.结果:在34例行推进式双气囊小肠镜检查的患者中,首选从口腔进镜者22例,其中14例(63.6%)检出病灶;8例未发现病灶者择期再从肛门进镜检查,6例检出病灶.12例首选从肛门进镜者中8例(66.7%)检出病灶;4例择期再从口腔进镜检查,3例检出病灶.推进式双气囊小肠镜检查的病变整体检出率为91.2%(31/34);小肠钡灌检查的病变整体检出率为50.0%(17/34).推进式双气囊小肠镜检查发现的阳性病灶均经活检病理检查、手术探查以及临床治疗和随访结果证实,病因诊断准确率为100%(31/31);小肠钡灌检查的病因诊断准确率为48.4%(15/31).全麻下经口腔进镜推进式双气囊小肠镜检查的患者耐受性最佳,其后依次为非麻醉经肛门进镜、非麻醉经口腔进镜和小肠钡灌检查.所有受检者均未发生严重操作相关并发症.结论:经口腔和经肛门进镜方式结合能使推进式双气囊小肠镜完成对全小肠的检查,其在不明原因小肠出血的病因诊断方面明显优于小肠钡灌检查.小肠钡灌对肠腔狭窄和小肠肿瘤仍是一项较有价值的检查方法,同时可作为选择后续检查方法的筛选性手段.全麻下经口腔进镜推进式双气囊小肠镜检查是一项安全、易为患者接受、病变检出率和病因诊断准确率均较高的小肠疾病检查方法.     

小肠肿瘤诊断:双气囊小肠镜与其他检查手段的对比研究

目的比较双气囊小肠镜与小肠稀钡灌注和胶囊内镜检查在小肠肿瘤诊断中的诊断率和准确率。方法对59例临床怀疑小肠肿瘤患者行双气囊小肠镜检查。其中有34例和17例患者分别同期行插管法小肠稀钡灌注或胶囊内镜检查。检查分别由专职医师独立操作并诊断，最后进行汇总比较。结果34例小肠稀钡灌注检查者中，19例诊断为小肠肿瘤或怀疑小肠肿瘤，诊断率为55．9％，最终经双气囊小肠镜确诊为12例，诊断准确率为63．2％（12／19例）；在15例小肠稀钡灌注阴性者中，双气囊小肠镜发现肿瘤3例。17例胶囊内镜检查者中，8例检查结果为小肠肿瘤或怀疑小肠肿瘤，诊断率为47．1％，最终经双气囊小肠镜确诊为4例，诊断准确率为4／8例；在9例胶囊内镜阴性者中，双气囊小肠镜发现小肠肿瘤2例。59例患者中，经一侧进镜检查后（经口或经肛）发现小肠肿瘤36例，完成双侧检查后发现肿瘤16例。7例患者在双侧检查后未发现任何病变。双气囊小肠镜对小肠肿瘤的检出率为88．1％，并经病理和临床随访确诊。上述三项检查中未见明显的与操作相关的并发症。结论双气囊小肠镜在小肠肿瘤诊断率及准确率方面明显优于小肠稀钡灌注和胶囊内镜检查。     

胶囊内镜与双气囊小肠镜对小肠疾病诊断的荟萃分析

目的比较胶囊内镜和双气囊小肠镜对小肠疾病的阳性检出率。方法从Medline、Embase、Elsevier Science Direct和中国期刊全文数据库中检索比较胶囊内镜和双气囊小肠镜对小肠疾病阳性检出率的前瞻性研究。对各项研究中2种内镜的阳性检出率比数比（OR）行荟萃分析，经异质性检验后采用固定效应模型或随机效应模型进行统计分析。并根据可能产生异质性的原因进行分层分析。结果共有8项研究入选（n=277）。荟萃结果表明，胶囊内镜和双气囊小肠镜对小肠疾病阳性检出率没有显著差别[170／277比156／277，随机效应模式：OR为1．21（95％可信区间CI：0．64，2．29）]。分层分析提示：胶囊内镜的阳性率显著高于未采用经口和经肛这2种进镜方式相结合的双气囊小肠镜[137／219比110／219，固定效应模式：OR为1．67（95％CI：1．14，2．44），（P〈0．01）]；而低于用这2种进镜方式相结合的双气囊小肠镜检查，但差异没有统计学意义[26／48比37／48，随机效应模式：OR0．33（95％CI：0．05，2．21），（P〉0．05）]。进一步对5项全文发表的关于对不明原因消化道出血诊断的研究进行荟萃，结果仍然提示胶囊内镜的阳性检出率明显高于未采用经口和经肛这2种进镜方式相结合的双气囊小肠镜[118／191比96／191，固定效应模式：OR1．61（95％CI：1．07，2．43），（P〈0．05）]，但显著低于2种进镜方式相结合的双气囊小肠镜检查[11／24比21／24，固定效应模式：OR0．12（95％CI：0．03，0．52），（P〈0．01）]。结论双气囊小肠镜经口和经肛2种进镜方式联合应用的阳性率可能高于胶囊内镜，对这2种内镜的选择，应该取决于病人的一般状况及其意愿，医疗单位所具备的能力，以及病灶是否可能需要采取进一步的介入治疗。     

胶囊内镜与双气囊内镜诊断小肠疾病的比较

目的比较胶囊内镜和双气囊内镜对小肠疾病的检出率和诊断准确性，探讨其联合应用的临床意义。方法对116例不明原因消化道出血和102例不明原因腹痛或腹泻患者，共218例进行内镜检查。其中165例首选胶囊内镜，53例首选双气囊内镜。对胶囊内镜检查阴性或可疑病变者建议双气囊内镜检查，反之亦然。比较两种检查方法对小肠疾病的检出率、诊断率以及患者依从性、不良反应发生率等。结果1例胶囊内镜和2例双气囊内镜操作失败。51例患者行64次双气囊内镜检查，其中34例经口、4例经肛检查，13例分别接受经口和经肛检查。胶囊内镜对小肠病变的总检出率及对不明原因消化道出血的小肠疾病检出率（72．0％和88．0％），均明显高于双气囊内镜（41．2％和60．0％），诊断率也高于后者（51．8％和39．2％）。5例胶囊内镜检查阴性再经双气囊内镜检查者中，1例发现病灶；15例胶囊内镜检查怀疑小肠病变者中，12例经双气囊内镜结合活检病理确诊。而3例双气囊内镜未发现异常者再经胶囊内镜检查发现小肠病变。所有患者均未发生严重不良反应。结论胶囊内镜对小肠疾病检出率高，可作为怀疑小肠疾病，尤其是不明原因消化道出血的首选检查方法；双气囊内镜在胶囊内镜检查阴性者中仍可发现部分病灶，并能明确多数胶囊内镜下可疑病变，可作为胶囊内镜检查后的补充检测手段。     

双气囊小肠镜在诊断小肠克罗恩病中的价值

目的 探讨双气囊小肠镜在诊断小肠克罗恩病中的价值.方法 对65例临床怀疑小肠克罗恩病的患者进行检查,并与先前进行的插管法小肠钡灌肠和胶囊内镜检查结果进行对比分析.结果 65例患者行双气囊小肠镜检查诊断为小肠克罗恩病58例,并经病理和临床随访确诊.其中45例患者首选从肛门进镜行小肠镜检查,确认克罗恩病34例（75.6%）,另11例后从口腔进镜,发现病变者8例（72.7%）;20例首选经口进镜,检出克罗恩病11例（55%）,另9例患者日后经肛进镜检查中检出5例（55.6%）.先前进行的46例小肠钡灌肠检查中,24例诊断或疑似小肠克罗恩病,诊断率为52.2%,与小肠镜结果比较,符合小肠克罗恩病诊断例数为18例,诊断正确率为75%（18/24）.22例胶囊内镜检查者中,14例诊断或疑似小肠克罗恩病,诊断率为63.6%,最终经双气囊小肠镜确诊的病例数为11例,诊断准确率为78.6%（11/14）.结论 经口和经肛方式结合能使双气囊小肠镜完成对全小肠的检查;双气囊小肠镜是小肠克罗恩病诊断的较为理想的方法,并能对病变范围和严重程度作出正确判断,插管法小肠钡灌肠是一项决定小肠镜进镜方式选择上有价值的筛选性手段.     

双气囊小肠镜在68例小肠疾病诊断中的价值

目的 评价双气囊小肠镜对小肠疾病的诊断价值及安全性和耐受性.方法 2003年5月至2005年7月,对68例经常规检查无异常发现、疑患小肠疾病患者进行双气囊小肠镜检查,其中不明原因反复消化道出血39例、不完全性小肠梗阻7例、慢性腹痛14例、慢性腹泻8例.结果 68例患者中,36例经口进镜,25例经肛进镜,7例患者分别经口及经肛进镜检查.除3例因肠腔狭窄中止进镜外,其余病例均能检查1/2-3/4的小肠,7例患者结合经口及经肛途径完成全小肠检查.68例患者中41例检出阳性病灶,总阳性率为60.3%;其中不明原因消化道出血阳性率为62.6%（26/39）,不完全性小肠梗阻阳性5例,慢性腹痛阳性率为43%（6/14）,慢性腹泻阳性4例.除11例经口进镜者行异丙芬静脉全身麻醉外,其他经口及经肛进镜患者均能耐受整个检查,未出现出血、穿孔等严重并发症.结论 双气囊小肠镜是一种对小肠疾病诊断价值较高、安全可靠的检查手段.     

双气囊小肠镜在小肠疾病诊断中的应用

目的评价双气囊小肠镜对小肠疾病的诊断价值。方法19例经B超、CT、胃镜、肠镜等常规检查不能明确病凼的患者,其中腹痛待查5例,腹泻待查2例,不明原因的消化道出血7例,腹痛伴有黑便2例,腹痛伴有腹泻3例,接受双气囊小肠镜检查,评价其病变检出率、并发症及患者的耐受性等。结果19例患者经口进镜2例,经肛进镜5例,接受经口＋经肌检查12例。19例患者中15例发现阳性病灶,总体病因确诊率78．9％;不明原因消化道出血病因确诊率71．4％,腹痛、腹泻的病因确诊率分别为80％和50％,2例腹痛伴有黑便者及3例腹痛伴有腹泻者均获得病因学诊断,未见操作相关的严重不良反应和并发症,结论双气囊小肠镜是一种对小肠疾病诊断价值较高、安全可靠的检查手段。     

双气囊小肠镜的临床应用及评价

目的探讨双气囊电子小肠镜对小肠疾病的诊断价值及其安全性。方法对怀疑或证实有小肠疾病的156例患者进行小肠镜检查,经口检查22例,经肛门检查32例,双侧对接检查102例。结果小肠镜对小肠病变的阳性检出率为69.2%(108/156),小肠出血患者的病变检出率最高(83.3%),腹痛患者的病变检出率较低(51.7%),两组检出率相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。肿瘤是小肠出血最多见的病因(25.0%),其次为憩室(19.4%)。黑便患者主要经口进镜检出(59.5%),鲜血便患者主要通过经肛进镜检出(74.3%),两者相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。小肠镜检查无明显并发症出现。结论双气囊小肠镜检查成功率高,安全可靠,可作为小肠疾病诊断的首选方法。     

Investigation of the small bowel in gastrointestinal bleeding--enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy

The last frontier in luminal endoscopy has been conquered. Bleeding lesions in the small intestine can present a frustrating clinical problem, but recent advances have made investigating the small bowel easier and less invasive. Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy are two new technologies that promise to lower the barrier to evaluation of the entire small intestine. Recent studies show that capsule endoscopy improves outcomes in patients who have OGIB. Although outcome studies regarding double balloon enteroscopy have not been performed, the opportunity to treat lesions throughout the small bowel without resorting to surgery is a tremendous advance. These improvements suggest that the corner may have been turned in the diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Perhaps to the next generation of gastroenterologists, small bowel bleeding will not be obscure.     

双气囊电子小肠镜诊断67例不明原因腹痛的价值

目的 评价双气囊电子小肠镜对不明原因慢性腹痛的诊断价值,探讨小肠病变所致腹痛病因.方法 对2005年6月至2008年6月中南大学湘雅医院67例有慢性腹痛症状,经胃镜、结肠镜、全消化道钡餐、腹部B超及心电图检查阴性的患者行双气囊电子小肠镜检查.结果 67例患者中,36例经肛进镜,19例经口进镜,12例患者接受2次检查分别经口和经肛进镜.41例发现病灶,阳性检出率为61.19%.41例病变包括克罗恩病15例(36.59%),非特异性小肠炎10例(24.39%),肿瘤8例(19.51%),其他病变8例(19.51%).结论 双气囊电子小肠镜对小肠病变所致慢性腹痛具有较高临床诊断价值.小肠克罗恩病、非特异性小肠炎及小肠肿瘤为不明原因小肠源性腹痛最常见病因.     

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.     

A prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy and push enteroscopy in patients with GI bleeding of obscure origin

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy is used to investigate the small bowel in patients with GI bleeding of obscure etiology. Capsule endoscopy was compared prospectively with push enteroscopy in 20 patients with GI hemorrhage. METHODS: Twenty patients (8 men, 12 women; mean age 65.5 years, range 38-80 years) were enrolled in the study. All had undergone non-diagnostic EGD, colonoscopy, and barium contrast radiography of the small bowel. All patients underwent capsule endoscopy followed by push enteroscopy. The physician performing the enteroscopy (senior endoscopist) interpreted the capsule endoscopy in an unblinded manner, while a second blinded reviewer (endoscopy fellow) interpreted the capsule endoscopy to establish interinterpreter reliability. RESULTS: There was complete agreement between the blinded and the unblinded physicians in 18 of 20 cases; minor disparities were noted in the remaining two cases. In the small bowel, capsule endoscopy identified positive findings in 14 (70%) patients, whereas, push enteroscopy identified positive findings in 5 (25%) patients. Despite these results, the findings were definitive in only 6 of the 20 patients by using capsule endoscopy, and in two of 20 patients with push enteroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: When strict standards of interpretation were used, capsule endoscopy resulted in more positive findings than push enteroscopy, but the number of definitive findings for both imaging methods was low. There was a high degree of reliability between a novice and an experienced endoscopist with respect to the interpretation of capsule endoscopy.     

Patient burden and patient preference: Comparing magnetic resonance enteroclysis,capsule endoscopy and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy

Background and Aim: We aimed to prospectively determine patient burden and patient preference for magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy in patients with suspected or known Crohn's disease (CD) or occult gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Methods: Consecutive consenting patients with CD or OGIB underwent magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy. Capsule endoscopy was only performed if magnetic resonance enteroclysis showed no high‐grade small bowel stenosis. Patient preference and burden was evaluated by means of standardized questionnaires at five moments in time. Results: From January 2007 until March 2009, 76 patients were included (M/F 31/45; mean age 46.9 years; range 20.0–78.4 years): 38 patients with OGIB and 38 with suspected or known CD. Seventeen patients did not undergo capsule endoscopy because of high‐grade stenosis. Ninety‐five percent (344/363) of the questionnaires were suitable for evaluation. Capsule endoscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy with respect to bowel preparation, swallowing of the capsule (compared to insertion of the tube/scope), burden of the entire examination, duration and accordance with the pre‐study information. Capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance enteroclysis were significantly preferred over balloon‐assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, and magnetic resonance enteroclysis was significantly preferred over balloon‐assisted enteroscopy for bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination. Balloon‐assisted enteroscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for insertion of the scope and procedure duration. Pre‐ and post‐study the order of preference was capsule endoscopy, magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy. Conclusion: Capsule endoscopy was preferred to magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy; it also had the lowest burden. Magnetic resonance enteroclysis was preferred over balloon‐assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination, and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for scope insertion and study duration.