Comparison of magnetic resonance enteroclysis and capsule endoscopy with balloon-assisted enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding
| Autor: | M. F. J. Stolk, Bart M. Wiarda, Hugo Hazenberg, Jan Dees, Ernst J. Kuipers, Peter Mensink, Jacob Stoker, Dimitri Heine |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Gastroenterology & Hepatology, AGEM - Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, CCA -Cancer Center Amsterdam, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine |
| Rok vydání: | 2012 |
| Předmět: |
Enteroscopy
Male medicine.medical_specialty Constriction Pathologic Magnetic resonance enteroclysis Capsule Endoscopy Sensitivity and Specificity law.invention Balloon assisted enteroscopy Capsule endoscopy law Intestine Small medicine Humans In patient Reference standards Intubation Gastrointestinal Double-Balloon Enteroscopy business.industry Gastroenterology Middle Aged Reference Standards medicine.disease Magnetic Resonance Imaging Stenosis Outcome and Process Assessment Health Care Female Radiology business Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding |
| Zdroj: | Endoscopy, 44(7), 668-673. Georg Thieme Verlag |
| ISSN: | 1438-8812 0013-726X |
| DOI: | 10.1055/s-0032-1309386 |
| Popis: | Background and study aims: New modalities are available for visualization of the small bowel in patients with possible obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), but their performance requires further comparison. This study compared the diagnostic yield of magnetic resonance enteroclysis (MRE) and capsule endoscopy in patients with OGIB, using balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) as the reference standard. Patients and methods: Consecutive consenting patients who were referred for evaluation of OGIB were prospectively included. Patients underwent MRE followed by capsule endoscopy and BAE. Patients with high grade stenosis at MRE did not undergo capsule endoscopy. The reference standard was BAE findings in visualized small-bowel segments and expert panel consensus for segments not visualized during BAE. Results: Over a period of 26 months, 38 patients were included (20 female [53 %]; mean age 58 years, range 28-75 years). Four patients (11 %) did not undergo capsule endoscopy due to high grade small-bowel stenosis at MRE (n=3; 8%) or timing issues (n=1; 3%). Capsule endoscopy was non-diagnostic in one patient. The reference standard identified abnormal findings in 20 patients (53 %). MRE had sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 21%, 100%, infinity, and 0.79, respectively. The corresponding values for capsule endoscopy were 61%, 85%, 4.1, and 0.46. The reference standard and capsule endoscopy did not differ in percent positive findings (P=0.34), but MRE differed significantly from the reference BAE (P |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|