BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of celiac disease is dependent on the quality of biopsy specimens obtained at EGD. Endoscopists may obtain a single- or double-biopsy specimen with each pass of the forceps. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of biopsy specimens obtained with the single-biopsy and double-biopsy techniques. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. tertiary-care university hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing upper endoscopy with confirmed, suspected, or unknown celiac disease status. INTERVENTIONS: Four biopsy specimens from the second portion of the duodenum: 2 by using the single-biopsy technique (1 bite per pass of the forceps) and an additional 2 by using the double-biopsy technique (2 bites per pass of the forceps). Specimens were blindly reviewed to determine orientation, consecutive crypt-to-villous units, and Marsh score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of well-oriented biopsy specimens. RESULTS: Patients (N = 86) were enrolled, 47% with known celiac disease, 36% with suspected celiac disease, and 17% with an unknown celiac disease status. Well-oriented biopsy specimens were noted in 66% of patients with the single-biopsy technique and 42% of patients with the double-biopsy technique (P < .01). Analysis of matched pairs showed improved orientation with the single-biopsy technique (odds ratio 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-7.1; P < .01). This persisted in subgroup analysis of patients with known celiac disease (P = .02), villous atrophy (P = .02), and a final diagnosis of celiac disease (P < .01). LIMITATIONS: A single-center trial. CONCLUSION: The single-biopsy technique improves the yield of well-oriented duodenal biopsy specimens. Endoscopists should consider taking only 1 biopsy specimen per pass of the forceps in patients undergoing biopsies of the duodenal mucosa.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of celiac disease is dependent on the quality of biopsy specimens obtained at EGD. Endoscopists may obtain a single- or double-biopsy specimen with each pass of the forceps. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of biopsy specimens obtained with the single-biopsy and double-biopsy techniques. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. tertiary-care university hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing upper endoscopy with confirmed, suspected, or unknown celiac disease status. INTERVENTIONS: Four biopsy specimens from the second portion of the duodenum: 2 by using the single-biopsy technique (1 bite per pass of the forceps) and an additional 2 by using the double-biopsy technique (2 bites per pass of the forceps). Specimens were blindly reviewed to determine orientation, consecutive crypt-to-villous units, and Marsh score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of well-oriented biopsy specimens. RESULTS:Patients (N = 86) were enrolled, 47% with known celiac disease, 36% with suspected celiac disease, and 17% with an unknown celiac disease status. Well-oriented biopsy specimens were noted in 66% of patients with the single-biopsy technique and 42% of patients with the double-biopsy technique (P < .01). Analysis of matched pairs showed improved orientation with the single-biopsy technique (odds ratio 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-7.1; P < .01). This persisted in subgroup analysis of patients with known celiac disease (P = .02), villous atrophy (P = .02), and a final diagnosis of celiac disease (P < .01). LIMITATIONS: A single-center trial. CONCLUSION: The single-biopsy technique improves the yield of well-oriented duodenal biopsy specimens. Endoscopists should consider taking only 1 biopsy specimen per pass of the forceps in patients undergoing biopsies of the duodenal mucosa.
Authors: Govind K Makharia; Prashant Singh; Carlo Catassi; David S Sanders; Daniel Leffler; Raja Affendi Raja Ali; Julio C Bai Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Apostolos Pappas; Wei Keith Tan; William Waldock; Susan Richardson; Monika Tripathi; Wladyslaw Januszewicz; Geoffrey Roberts; Maria O'Donovan; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Massimiliano di Pietro Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Norelle R Reilly; Steffen Husby; David S Sanders; Peter H R Green Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Michelle Jansen; Menno van Zelm; Michael Groeneweg; Vincent Jaddoe; Willem Dik; Marco Schreurs; Herbert Hooijkaas; Henriette Moll; Johanna Escher Journal: J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 7.527
Authors: Jonas F Ludvigsson; Carolina Ciacci; Peter Hr Green; Katri Kaukinen; Ilma R Korponay-Szabo; Kalle Kurppa; Joseph A Murray; Knut Erik Aslaksen Lundin; Markku J Maki; Alina Popp; Norelle R Reilly; Alfonso Rodriguez-Herrera; David S Sanders; Detlef Schuppan; Sarah Sleet; Juha Taavela; Kristin Voorhees; Marjorie M Walker; Daniel A Leffler Journal: Gut Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Leonid Shamban; Serge Sorser; Stan Naydin; Benjamin Lebwohl; Mousa Shukr; Charlotte Wiemann; Daniel Yevsyukov; Michael H Piper; Bradley Warren; Peter H R Green Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-12-06