BACKGROUND: Optimal management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diagnostic yields and downstream clinical outcomes comparing video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with push enteroscopy (PE). METHODS:Patients with OGIB and negative esophagogastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies were randomly assigned to VCE or PE and followed for 12 months. End points included diagnostic yield, acute or chronic bleeding, health resource utilization and crossovers. RESULTS: Data from 79 patients were analyzed (VCE n=40; PE n=39; 82.3% overt OGIB). VCE had greater diagnostic yield (72.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05), especially in the distal small bowel (58% versus 13%; P<0.01). More VCE-identified lesions were rated possible or certain causes of bleeding (79.3% versus 35.0%; P<0.05). During follow-up, there were no differences in the rates of ongoing bleeding (acute [40.0% versus 38.5%; P not significant], chronic [32.5% versus 45.6%; P not significant]), nor in health resource utilization. Fewer VCE-first patients crossed over due to ongoing bleeding (22.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A VCE-first approach had a significant diagnostic advantage over PE-first in patients with OGIB, especially with regard to detecting small bowel lesions, affecting clinical certainty and subsequent further small bowel investigations, with no subsequent differences in bleeding or resource utilization outcomes in follow-up. These findings question the clinical relevance of many of the discovered endoscopic lesions or the ability to treat most of these effectively over time. Improved prognostication of both patient characteristics and endoscopic lesion appearance with regard to bleeding behaviour, coupled with the impact of therapeutic deep enteroscopy, is now required using adapted, high-quality study methodologies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Optimal management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diagnostic yields and downstream clinical outcomes comparing video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with push enteroscopy (PE). METHODS:Patients with OGIB and negative esophagogastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies were randomly assigned to VCE or PE and followed for 12 months. End points included diagnostic yield, acute or chronic bleeding, health resource utilization and crossovers. RESULTS: Data from 79 patients were analyzed (VCE n=40; PE n=39; 82.3% overt OGIB). VCE had greater diagnostic yield (72.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05), especially in the distal small bowel (58% versus 13%; P<0.01). More VCE-identified lesions were rated possible or certain causes of bleeding (79.3% versus 35.0%; P<0.05). During follow-up, there were no differences in the rates of ongoing bleeding (acute [40.0% versus 38.5%; P not significant], chronic [32.5% versus 45.6%; P not significant]), nor in health resource utilization. Fewer VCE-first patients crossed over due to ongoing bleeding (22.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A VCE-first approach had a significant diagnostic advantage over PE-first in patients with OGIB, especially with regard to detecting small bowel lesions, affecting clinical certainty and subsequent further small bowel investigations, with no subsequent differences in bleeding or resource utilization outcomes in follow-up. These findings question the clinical relevance of many of the discovered endoscopic lesions or the ability to treat most of these effectively over time. Improved prognostication of both patient characteristics and endoscopic lesion appearance with regard to bleeding behaviour, coupled with the impact of therapeutic deep enteroscopy, is now required using adapted, high-quality study methodologies.
Authors: Christopher W Teshima; Ernst J Kuipers; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Peter B F Mensink Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.029
Authors: Wai K Leung; Simon S M Ho; Bing-Yee Suen; Larry H Lai; Simon Yu; Enders K W Ng; Simon S M Ng; Philip W Y Chiu; Joseph J Y Sung; Francis K L Chan; James Y W Lau Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Laurel Fisher; Mary Lee Krinsky; Michelle A Anderson; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Subhas Banerjee; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Brooks D Cash; G Anton Decker; Robert D Fanelli; Cindy Friis; Norio Fukami; M Edwyn Harrison; Steven O Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Terry Jue; Khalid Khan; John T Maple; Laura Strohmeyer; Ravi Sharaf; Jason A Dominitz Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Eric H Choi; Klaus Mergener; Carol Semrad; Laurel Fisher; David R Cave; Milan Dodig; Carol Burke; Jonathan A Leighton; David Kastenberg; Peter Simpson; James Sul; Kanishka Bhattacharya; Roger Charles; Lauren Gerson; Luke Weber; Glenn Eisen; Warren Reidel; John J Vargo; Jamile Wakim-Fleming; Simon K Lo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Andréia Sopran Scopel; Fernando Issamu Tabushi; Luis Fernando Kubrusly; Paula Bechara Poletti; Artur Adolfo Parada; Milena Perez Moreira; Thiago Festa Secchi Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2020-11-20
Authors: Alin Gabriel Ionescu; Adina Dorina Glodeanu; Mihaela Ionescu; Sorin Ioan Zaharie; Ana Maria Ciurea; Andreea Loredana Golli; Nikolaos Mavritsakis; Didi Liliana Popa; Cristin Constantin Vere Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 2.447