BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the relative accuracy of capsule endoscopy (CE) versus double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) to investigate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). CE is less invasive, but DBE more directly examines the small bowel, and allows tissue sampling plus therapeutic intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the yield and outcome of DBE following CE in patients with obscure GIB. METHODS: After DBE became readily available at the Centre for Therapeutic Endoscopy and Endoscopic Oncology (St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario), all patients with obscure GIB seen from December 2002 to June 2007 were evaluated identically, first with CE, then with DBE (some with further interventions). Findings, adverse outcomes and interventions are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (25 women) with a mean (range) age of 64.1 years (34 to 83 years) are reported. Eight patients underwent DBE twice, for a total of 59 DBEs. Fourteen patients had overt GIB and the median (range) number of red blood cell unit transfusions was 10 (0 to 100). The positive findings for each type of lesion were compared in these 51 patients: angiodysplasia (CE 64.7% and DBE 61%, P=0.3), ulcers (CE 19.6% and DBE 18.6%, P=0.5), bleeding lesions (CE 43.1% and DBE 15.3%, P=0.0004) and mass (CE 10.2% and DBE 8.5%, P=0.5). DBE provided the advantage of therapeutic intervention: argon plasma coagulation (33 of 59 DBEs), clipping (two of 59), both argon plasma coagulation and clipping (three of 59), polypectomy (two of 59), tattooing (52 of 59) and biopsies (11 of 59). DBE detected lesions not seen by CE in 21 patients; lesions were treated in 18 patients. However, CE detected 31 lesions not seen by DBE. No major complications occurred with either examination. CONCLUSION: Overall detection rates for both techniques are similar. Each technique detected lesions not seen by the other. These data suggest that CE and DBE are complementary and that both evaluate obscure GIB more fully than either modality alone.
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the relative accuracy of capsule endoscopy (CE) versus double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) to investigate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). CE is less invasive, but DBE more directly examines the small bowel, and allows tissue sampling plus therapeutic intervention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the yield and outcome of DBE following CE in patients with obscure GIB. METHODS: After DBE became readily available at the Centre for Therapeutic Endoscopy and Endoscopic Oncology (St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario), all patients with obscure GIB seen from December 2002 to June 2007 were evaluated identically, first with CE, then with DBE (some with further interventions). Findings, adverse outcomes and interventions are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (25 women) with a mean (range) age of 64.1 years (34 to 83 years) are reported. Eight patients underwent DBE twice, for a total of 59 DBEs. Fourteen patients had overt GIB and the median (range) number of red blood cell unit transfusions was 10 (0 to 100). The positive findings for each type of lesion were compared in these 51 patients: angiodysplasia (CE 64.7% and DBE 61%, P=0.3), ulcers (CE 19.6% and DBE 18.6%, P=0.5), bleeding lesions (CE 43.1% and DBE 15.3%, P=0.0004) and mass (CE 10.2% and DBE 8.5%, P=0.5). DBE provided the advantage of therapeutic intervention: argon plasma coagulation (33 of 59 DBEs), clipping (two of 59), both argon plasma coagulation and clipping (three of 59), polypectomy (two of 59), tattooing (52 of 59) and biopsies (11 of 59). DBE detected lesions not seen by CE in 21 patients; lesions were treated in 18 patients. However, CE detected 31 lesions not seen by DBE. No major complications occurred with either examination. CONCLUSION: Overall detection rates for both techniques are similar. Each technique detected lesions not seen by the other. These data suggest that CE and DBE are complementary and that both evaluate obscure GIB more fully than either modality alone.
Authors: Shou-jiang Tang; Dimitrios Christodoulou; Simon Zanati; Elena Dubcenco; Rima Petroniene; Maria Cirocco; Gabor Kandel; Gregory B Haber; Paul Kortan; Norman E Marcon Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: William S Mow; Simon K Lo; Stephan R Targan; Marla C Dubinsky; Leo Treyzon; Maria T Abreu-Martin; Konstantinos A Papadakis; Eric A Vasiliauskas Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jessie Westerhof; Jan J Koornstra; Reinier A Hoedemaker; Wim J Sluiter; Jan H Kleibeuker; Rinse K Weersma Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-04-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Veronica Baptista; Neil Marya; Anupam Singh; Abbas Rupawala; Bilal Gondal; David Cave Journal: World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol Date: 2014-11-15