OBJECTIVES: Small bowel (SB) endoscopic healing has not been well studied in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This study aims to evaluate the utility of magnetic resonance (MR) enterography (MRE) for SB lesions in comparison with balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) findings. METHODS: In total, 139 patients with CD in clinical-serological remission were prospectively followed after BAE and MRE procedures. We applied a modified version of the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) for an endoscopic evaluation of the SB, called the Simple Endoscopic Active Score for CD (SES-CDa). We also used the MR index of activity (MaRIA) for MR evaluations. The primary end points were time to clinical relapse (CD activity index of >150 with an increase of >70 points) and serological relapse (abnormal elevation of C-reactive protein). RESULTS: Clinical and serological relapses occurred in 30 (21.6%) and 62 (44.6%) patients, respectively. SB endoscopic healing (SES-CDa<5) was observed in 76 (54.7%) patients. A multiple regression analysis showed that the lack of SB endoscopic healing was an independent risk factor for clinical relapses (hazard ratio (HR): 5.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.06-13.81) and serological relapses (HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.65-5.51), respectively. MR ulcer healing (MaRIA score <11) demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy (90.9%; 95% CI: 87.9-93.2%) for endoscopic healing. The kappa coefficient between BAE and MRE for longitudinal responsiveness was 0.754 (95% CI: 0.658-0.850) for clinical relapse and 0.783 (95% CI: 0.701-0.865) for serological relapse. CONCLUSIONS: SB inflammation was associated with a poor prognosis in patients with clinical-serological remission. MRE is a valid and reliable examination for SB inflammatory activity both for cross-sectional evaluations and prognostic prediction.
OBJECTIVES:Small bowel (SB) endoscopic healing has not been well studied in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This study aims to evaluate the utility of magnetic resonance (MR) enterography (MRE) for SB lesions in comparison with balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) findings. METHODS: In total, 139 patients with CD in clinical-serological remission were prospectively followed after BAE and MRE procedures. We applied a modified version of the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) for an endoscopic evaluation of the SB, called the Simple Endoscopic Active Score for CD (SES-CDa). We also used the MR index of activity (MaRIA) for MR evaluations. The primary end points were time to clinical relapse (CD activity index of >150 with an increase of >70 points) and serological relapse (abnormal elevation of C-reactive protein). RESULTS: Clinical and serological relapses occurred in 30 (21.6%) and 62 (44.6%) patients, respectively. SB endoscopic healing (SES-CDa<5) was observed in 76 (54.7%) patients. A multiple regression analysis showed that the lack of SB endoscopic healing was an independent risk factor for clinical relapses (hazard ratio (HR): 5.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.06-13.81) and serological relapses (HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.65-5.51), respectively. MR ulcer healing (MaRIA score <11) demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy (90.9%; 95% CI: 87.9-93.2%) for endoscopic healing. The kappa coefficient between BAE and MRE for longitudinal responsiveness was 0.754 (95% CI: 0.658-0.850) for clinical relapse and 0.783 (95% CI: 0.701-0.865) for serological relapse. CONCLUSIONS:SB inflammation was associated with a poor prognosis in patients with clinical-serological remission. MRE is a valid and reliable examination for SB inflammatory activity both for cross-sectional evaluations and prognostic prediction.
Authors: Jean Frédéric Colombel; William J Sandborn; Walter Reinisch; Gerassimos J Mantzaris; Asher Kornbluth; Daniel Rachmilewitz; Simon Lichtiger; Geert D'Haens; Robert H Diamond; Delma L Broussard; Kezhen L Tang; C Janneke van der Woude; Paul Rutgeerts Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H Yamamoto; Y Sekine; Y Sato; T Higashizawa; T Miyata; S Iino; K Ido; K Sugano Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A Jauregui-Amezaga; J Rimola; I Ordás; S Rodríguez; A Ramírez-Morros; M Gallego; M C Masamunt; J Llach; B González-Suárez; E Ricart; J Panés Journal: Gut Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet; Edward V Loftus; Jean-Frederic Colombel; William J Sandborn Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Cornelia Tillack; Julia Seiderer; Stephan Brand; Burkhard Göke; Maximilian F Reiser; Claus Schaefer; Helmut Diepolder; Thomas Ochsenkühn; Karin A Herrmann Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: L Peyrin-Biroulet; W Sandborn; B E Sands; W Reinisch; W Bemelman; R V Bryant; G D'Haens; I Dotan; M Dubinsky; B Feagan; G Fiorino; R Gearry; S Krishnareddy; P L Lakatos; E V Loftus; P Marteau; P Munkholm; T B Murdoch; I Ordás; R Panaccione; R H Riddell; J Ruel; D T Rubin; M Samaan; C A Siegel; M S Silverberg; J Stoker; S Schreiber; S Travis; G Van Assche; S Danese; J Panes; G Bouguen; S O'Donnell; B Pariente; S Winer; S Hanauer; J-F Colombel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 10.864
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