Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2014 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3

Is there a difference between capsule endoscopy and computed tomography as a first-line study in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding?

Sayfa
257–263
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

However, CE and CT, when used together, had a significantly greater diagnostic yield than did CE or CT when used alone.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/Aims: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is currently recommended as the first-line study in the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), while computed tomography (CT) is often thought of as complementary to CE.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Patients were divided into two groups: the CT before CE group (CT first group; n=75) and the CE before CT group (CE first group; n=24).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:However, CE and CT, when used together, had a significantly greater diagnostic yield than did CE or CT when used alone.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background/Aims: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is currently recommended as the first-line study in the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), while computed tomography (CT) is often thought of as complementary to CE. This study evaluated CT as a first-line study in OGIB and compared it with CE.Materials and Methods: Ninety-nine patients with OGIB who received both CE and CT were included. CT included conventional CT and CT enterography (CTE). Patients were divided into two groups: the CT before CE group (CT first group; n=75) and the CE before CT group (CE first group; n=24). The two groups were compared retrospectively.Results: Overt OGIB was present in 92% of patients. Mucosal lesions (46%) were the most common diagnoses, while tumors accounted for 7%. The diagnostic yield of CE was significantly higher than that of CT for both groups (CT first group, p<0.001; CE first group, p=0.013). In the CT first group, the diagnostic yield using both CT and CE (48/75; 64%) was significantly higher than that for CT alone (12/75; 16%, p=0.005). In the CE first group, the diagnostic yield with both CT and CE versus CE alone was 70.9% versus 62.5%, respectively, with a significant difference (p=0.045).Conclusion: There was no significant clinical difference associated with the order in which the tests were performed. However, CE and CT, when used together, had a significantly greater diagnostic yield than did CE or CT when used alone.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

JEON, S. R., JİN-OH, K., GUN, K. H., HEE, L. T., JUN-HYUNG, C., JU, P. E., SEOP, L. D., JUNG, K. W., MİN, K. B., YOUNG, C. J., SEONG, L. J., SUNG, L. M. (2014). Is there a difference between capsule endoscopy and computed tomography as a first-line study in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding?. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3, 257–263. https://ajindex.com/articles/411330

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (3)

  1. Zuckerman GR, Prakash C, Askin MP, Lewis BS. AGA technical review on the evaluation and management of occult and ob- scure gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterology 2000; 118: 201-21. [CrossRef] Raju GS, Gerson L, Das A, Lewis B, American Gastroenterologi- cal Association. American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute technical review on obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 1697-717.
  2. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Fisher L, Lee Krinsky M, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the manage- ment of obscure GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 471-9. [CrossRef] Cellier C. Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: Role of videocapsule and double-balloon enteroscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroen- terol 2008; 22: 329-40. [CrossRef] Dulai GS, Jensen DM. Severe gastrointestinal bleeding of obscure origin. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2004; 14: 101-13. [CrossRef] Triester SL, Leighton JA, Leontiadis GI, et al. A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic mo- dalities in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 2407-18. [CrossRef] Shim KN, Chan DK, Do JH, et al. Guideline for capsule endos- copy: obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Endosc 2013; 46: 45-53. [CrossRef] Delvaux M, Gay G. International Conference on Capsule and Dou- ble-Balloon Endoscopy (ICCD). Paris, 27-28 August 2010. Endos- copy 2011; 43: 533-9. [CrossRef] Boriskin HS, Devito BS, Hines JJ, Scarmato VJ, Friedman B. CT en- terography vs. capsule endoscopy. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: 149-55. [CrossRef] Saperas E, Dot J, Videla S, et al. Capsule endoscopy versus com- puted tomographic or standard angiography for the diagnosis of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 731-7. [CrossRef] Hara AK, Leighton JA, Sharma VK, Fleischer DE. Small bowel: Pre- liminary comparison of capsule endoscopy with barium study and CT. Radiology 2004; 230: 260-5. [CrossRef] Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, Fidler JL, et al. Prospective blinded com- parison of wireless capsule endoscopy and multiphase CT en- terography in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Radiology 2011; 260: 744-51. [CrossRef] Pasha SF, Hara AK, Leighton JA. Diagnostic evaluation and man- agement of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: A changing para- digm. Gastroenterol Hepatolo 2009; 5: 839-50.
  3. Jeon SR, Kim JO, Kim HG, et al. Changes over time in indications, diagnostic yield, and clinical effects of double-balloon e