Literature DB >> 23368649

Using of magnetic resonance enterography in the management of Crohn's disease of the small intestine: first year of experience.

Juan L Mendoza1, Yago González-Lama, Carlos Taxonera, Cristina Suárez-Ferrer, Fátima Matute, María I Vera, Natalia López-Palacios, Pablo Rodríguez, Marta Calvo, Ramiro Méndez, Miguel Pastrana, Concepción González, Raquel Lana, Ricardo Rodríguez, Luis Abreu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: to describe the experience at two tertiary centres during the first year of use of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) for the management of Crohn's disease (CD): indications and influence of the technique in clinical decision making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: retrospective descriptive study in which patients who underwent MRE were included consecutively. Epidemiological and clinical data were collected from the patients, as well as the indication for the study and how it influenced clinical decision making in the 10 days following the radiological study.
RESULTS: 24 MREs were performed in suspected CD and 126 known CD; partial bowel obstruction in 53 patients (42%), monitoring of medical treatment in 34 (27%), due to incomplete ileocolonoscopy in 16 (13%), extension study of the small intestine in 15 (12%) and suspected complicated CD in 8 patients (6%). The MRE influenced in a change in treatment in 83 (55.3%) patients: 16 (10.7%) started with immunosuppressants, 41 (27.3%) with anti-TNFα were started on or switched, 15 (10%) were ordered surgery and in 3 (2%) changed from combined therapy to monotherapy. The MRE had less influence on clinical decision making in the group in which the indication was suspected CD (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: the use of MRE helped on decision making in more than half of patients, especially with regards to decisions related to the use of biological therapies and the indication for surgery. MRE was less useful in suspected CD patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23368649     DOI: 10.4321/s1130-01082012001100005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Esp Enferm Dig        ISSN: 1130-0108            Impact factor:   2.086


  6 in total

1.  Combination of colonoscopy and magnetic resonance enterography is more useful for clinical decision making than colonoscopy alone in patients with complicated Crohn's disease.

Authors:  Shintaro Sagami; Taku Kobayashi; Nao Kikkawa; Satoko Umeda; Masaru Nakano; Takahiko Toyonaga; Shinji Okabayashi; Ryo Ozaki; Toshifumi Hibi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Changes in the Management of Patients with Crohn's Disease Based on Magnetic Resonance Enterography Patterns.

Authors:  Evelyn Sayuri S Chinem; Barbara C Esberard; Andre da L Moreira; Tatiana G Barbassa; Guilherme M da Cunha; Antonio Jose de V Carneiro; Heitor S de Souza; Ana Teresa P Carvalho
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 2.260

Review 3.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Small Bowel in Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Osman Ahmed; David Mario Rodrigues; Geoffrey C Nguyen
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-21

4.  Impact of Intestinal Ultrasound on Classification and Management of Crohn's Disease Patients with Inconclusive Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Rune Wilkens; Kerri L Novak; Eleonore Lebeuf-Taylor; Stephanie R Wilson
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-19

Review 5.  Small bowel imaging in Crohn's disease patients.

Authors:  James Gauci; Lara Sammut; Martina Sciberras; Naomi Piscopo; Kristian Micallef; Kelvin Cortis; Pierre Ellul
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-05-04

6.  Layered enhancement at magnetic resonance enterography in inflammatory bowel disease: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Davide Bellini; Flaminia Rivosecchi; Nicola Panvini; Marco Rengo; Damiano Caruso; Iacopo Carbone; Riccardo Ferrari; Pasquale Paolantonio; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.