Clinical impact of videocapsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy in non-bleeding small bowel lesions.

IF 4.2 3区 医学
Matilde Topa, Nicoletta Nandi, Lucia Scaramella, Michele Puricelli, Marco Pennazio, Reena Sidhu, David S Sanders, Gian Eugenio Tontini, Roberto Penagini, Maurizio Vecchi, Luca Elli
{"title":"Clinical impact of videocapsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy in non-bleeding small bowel lesions.","authors":"Matilde Topa,&nbsp;Nicoletta Nandi,&nbsp;Lucia Scaramella,&nbsp;Michele Puricelli,&nbsp;Marco Pennazio,&nbsp;Reena Sidhu,&nbsp;David S Sanders,&nbsp;Gian Eugenio Tontini,&nbsp;Roberto Penagini,&nbsp;Maurizio Vecchi,&nbsp;Luca Elli","doi":"10.1177/17562848231176424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are part of the diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of indications other than suspected small bowel bleeding (OSBB). The literature is currently lacking studies describing these procedures in this particular setting.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We assessed the clinical impact of VCE and DBE in a large monocentric cohort of OSBB patients, as compared to a control group of suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB) patients who underwent enteroscopy over the same period.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Monocentric, retrospective, cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected the data of consecutive patients with OSBB undergoing VCE and/or DBE from March 2001 to July 2020. The demographic and clinical parameters of the patients, technical characteristics, and adverse events for each procedure were collected. The impact of VCE and DBE was defined in terms of diagnostic yield (DY). The patients were subdivided according to the main indication into four groups: celiac disease, Crohn's disease (CD), neoplasia, and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 611 VCEs and 387 DBEs were performed for OSBB. The main indications were complicated celiac disease and CD. The DYs of VCE and DBE overall were 53 and 61.7%, respectively, with some variance among the four groups. We report no statistical differences in the DY of VCE and DBE in SSBB vs OSBB (57.7% vs 53%, <i>p</i> = 0.0859 and 68.8% vs 61.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.0582, respectively). OSBB patients were significantly younger than those with SSBB. However, similarly to SSBB (<i>k</i> = 0.059), poor agreement between the enteroscopic techniques was found in the OSBB population (<i>k</i> = 0.109). The safety of both procedures in OSBB was comparable to that in SSBB patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VCE and DBE are effective and safe in suspected OSBB, where their role is similar to that in SSBB, their main indication.</p>","PeriodicalId":23022,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","volume":"16 ","pages":"17562848231176424"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5f/34/10.1177_17562848231176424.PMC10331340.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848231176424","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are part of the diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of indications other than suspected small bowel bleeding (OSBB). The literature is currently lacking studies describing these procedures in this particular setting.

Objectives: We assessed the clinical impact of VCE and DBE in a large monocentric cohort of OSBB patients, as compared to a control group of suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB) patients who underwent enteroscopy over the same period.

Design: Monocentric, retrospective, cohort study.

Methods: We collected the data of consecutive patients with OSBB undergoing VCE and/or DBE from March 2001 to July 2020. The demographic and clinical parameters of the patients, technical characteristics, and adverse events for each procedure were collected. The impact of VCE and DBE was defined in terms of diagnostic yield (DY). The patients were subdivided according to the main indication into four groups: celiac disease, Crohn's disease (CD), neoplasia, and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms.

Results: A total of 611 VCEs and 387 DBEs were performed for OSBB. The main indications were complicated celiac disease and CD. The DYs of VCE and DBE overall were 53 and 61.7%, respectively, with some variance among the four groups. We report no statistical differences in the DY of VCE and DBE in SSBB vs OSBB (57.7% vs 53%, p = 0.0859 and 68.8% vs 61.7%, p = 0.0582, respectively). OSBB patients were significantly younger than those with SSBB. However, similarly to SSBB (k = 0.059), poor agreement between the enteroscopic techniques was found in the OSBB population (k = 0.109). The safety of both procedures in OSBB was comparable to that in SSBB patients.

Conclusion: VCE and DBE are effective and safe in suspected OSBB, where their role is similar to that in SSBB, their main indication.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

视频胶囊内窥镜和器械辅助小肠镜在非出血性小肠病变中的临床应用。
背景:视频胶囊内窥镜(VCE)和双气囊小肠镜(DBE)是诊断和治疗指征的一部分,而不是怀疑小肠出血(OSBB)。文献目前缺乏在这种特殊情况下描述这些程序的研究。目的:我们在一个大型单中心OSBB患者队列中评估VCE和DBE的临床影响,并与同期接受肠镜检查的疑似小肠出血(SSBB)患者的对照组进行比较。设计:单中心、回顾性、队列研究。方法:我们收集了2001年3月至2020年7月连续接受VCE和/或DBE的OSBB患者的数据。收集患者的人口学和临床参数、技术特征和每次手术的不良事件。VCE和DBE的影响是根据诊断率(DY)来定义的。根据主要适应症将患者细分为四组:乳糜泻、克罗恩病(CD)、瘤变和持续性胃肠道症状。结果:OSBB共行vce 611例,DBEs 387例。主要适应症为合并乳糜泻和乳糜泻。VCE和DBE的总天数分别为53%和61.7%,四组间存在一定差异。我们报告SSBB与OSBB的VCE和DBE的DY无统计学差异(分别为57.7%对53%,p = 0.0859和68.8%对61.7%,p = 0.0582)。OSBB患者明显比SSBB患者年轻。然而,与SSBB相似(k = 0.059),在OSBB人群中发现肠镜技术之间的一致性较差(k = 0.109)。两种方法在OSBB患者中的安全性与SSBB患者相当。结论:VCE和DBE治疗疑似OSBB是安全有效的,其作用与SSBB相似,是其主要适应症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology Medicine-Gastroenterology
自引率
2.40%
发文量
103
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology is an open access journal which delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed original research articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at an international audience of clinicians and researchers in gastroenterology and related disciplines, providing an online forum for rapid dissemination of recent research and perspectives in this area. The editors welcome original research articles across all areas of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes original research articles and review articles primarily. Original research manuscripts may include laboratory, animal or human/clinical studies – all phases. Letters to the Editor and Case Reports will also be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信