Use of a Transparent Cap Increases the Diagnostic Yield in Antegrade Single-Balloon Enteroscopy for Obscure GI Bleed

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Iron Deficiency Anemia: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we will Best Practice Advice (BPA) guidance on the appropriate management of iron deficiency anemia.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Since systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: No single formulation of oral iron has any advantages over any other. Ferrous sulfate is preferred as the least expensive iron formulation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Give oral iron once a day at most. Every-other-day iron dosing may be better tolerated for some patients with similar or equal rates of iron absorption as daily dosing. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Add vitamin C to oral iron supplementation to improve absorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Intravenous iron should be used if the patient does not tolerate oral iron, ferritin levels do not improve with a trial of oral iron, or the patient has a condition in which oral iron is not likely to be absorbed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Intravenous iron formulations that can replace iron deficits with 1 or 2 infusions are preferred over those that require more than 2 infusions. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: All intravenous iron formulations have similar risks; true anaphylaxis is very rare. The vast majority of reactions to intravenous iron are complement activation-related pseudo-allergy (infusion reactions) and should be treated as such. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Intravenous iron therapy should be used in individuals who have undergone bariatric procedures, particularly those that are likely to disrupt normal duodenal iron absorption, and have iron-deficiency anemia with no identifiable source of chronic gastrointestinal blood loss. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and iron-deficiency anemia, clinicians first should determine whether iron-deficiency anemia is owing to inadequate intake or absorption, or loss of iron, typically from gastrointestinal bleeding. Active inflammation should be treated effectively to enhance iron absorption or reduce iron depletion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Intravenous iron therapy should be given in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease, iron-deficiency anemia, and active inflammation with compromised absorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: In individuals with portal hypertensive gastropathy and iron-deficiency anemia, oral iron supplements initially should be used to replenish iron stores. Intravenous iron therapy should be used in patients with ongoing bleeding who do not respond to oral iron therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: In individuals with portal hypertensive gastropathy and iron-deficiency anemia without another identified source of chronic blood loss, treatment of portal hypertension with nonselective β-blockers can be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In individuals with iron-deficiency anemia secondary to gastric antral vascular ectasia who have an inadequate response to iron replacement, consider endoscopic therapy with endoscopic band ligation or thermal methods such as argon plasma coagulation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with iron-deficiency anemia and celiac disease, ensure adherence to a gluten-free diet to improve iron absorption. Consider oral iron supplementation based on the severity of iron deficiency and patient tolerance, followed by intravenous iron therapy if iron stores do not improve. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Deep enteroscopy performed in patients with iron-deficiency anemia suspected to have small-bowel bleeding angioectasias should be performed with a distal attachment to improve detection and facilitate treatment. Small-bowel angioectasias may be treated with ablative thermal therapies such as argon plasma coagulation or with mechanical methods such as hemostatic clips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: Endoscopic treatment of angioectasias should be accompanied with iron replacement. Medical therapy for small-bowel angioectasias should be reserved for compassionate treatment in refractory cases when iron replacement and endoscopic therapy are ineffective.

Multicenter propensity score-matched analysis comparing short versus long cap-assisted colonoscopy for acute hematochezia

Background and Aim

While short and long attachment caps are available for colonoscopy, it is unclear which type is more appropriate for stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) identification in acute hematochezia. This study aimed to compare the performance of short versus long caps in acute hematochezia diagnoses and outcomes.

Methods

We selected 6460 patients who underwent colonoscopy with attachment caps from 10 342 acute hematochezia cases in the CODE BLUE-J study. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline characteristics between short and long cap users. Then, the proportion of definitive or presumptive bleeding etiologies found on the initial colonoscopy and SRH identification rates were compared. We also evaluated rates of blood transfusions, interventional radiology, or surgery, as well as the rate of rebleeding and mortality within 30 days after the initial colonoscopy.

Results

A total of 3098 patients with acute hematochezia (1549 short cap and 1549 long cap users) were selected for PSM. The rate of colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) diagnosis was significantly higher in long cap users (P = 0.006). While the two groups had similar rates of the other bleeding etiologies, the frequency of unknown etiologies was significantly lower in long cap users (P < 0.001). The rate of SRH with active bleeding was significantly higher in long cap users (P < 0.001). Other clinical outcomes did not differ significantly.

Conclusion

Compared to that with short caps, long cap-assisted colonoscopy is superior for the diagnosis of acute hematochezia, especially CDB, and the identification of active bleeding.

Distal Endoscopic Attachments

Endoscopy is an evolving science and the last two decades has seen it expand exponentially at a pace unapparelled in the past. With the advancement in new procedures like image-enhanced endoscopy, magnifying endoscopy, third space endoscopy, and highly advanced endoscopic ultrasound procedures, endoscopic accessories are also evolving to cater the unmet needs. Endoscopic cap or distal attachment cap is a simple but very important accessory in the endoscopists' armamentarium which has changed the path of endoscopic procedures. It has so far been used commonly mostly for variceal ligation and endoscopic mucosal resections for colorectal polyps. But the horizon of its use has expanded in the recent years for difficult clinical scenarios like providing stability to the endoscope, overcoming blind spots during screening colonoscopies, maintaining clear field of vision during endotherapy of gastrointestinal bleeding, and during magnification endoscopy for lesion characterizations and so on. These caps are of different shapes, sizes, colors, and material depending on manufacturers and their implications while performing varied endoscopies. This review summarizes the clinical utilities of the cap in diagnostic as well as therapeutic endoscopy and its expanding indications of use.

Endocuff-assisted push enteroscopy increases the detection of proximal small-bowel gastrointestinal angiodysplasias

Gastrointestinal angiodysplasias (GIADs) are the most common causes for suspected small bowel bleeding. Fifty percent of GIADs do not need treatment due to bleeding cessation, while 45% have high re-bleeding rates, that significantly impact patient outcome and health resource utilization. We suspected that this high re-bleeding rate occurs because not all lesions are detected with present standard of care. This study evaluates whether device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) utilizing the Endocuff (EC) device could improve GIAD detection. A retrospective chart review of a prospective data collection was performed from January 2006 to December 2018 at VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS) on both inpatients and outpatients referred for active and chronic suspected small bowel bleeding. The patients were initially monitored for bleeding lesions via video capsule endoscopy (VCE) after negative upper and lower endoscopy. GIADs observed between 0% to 40% small bowel transit time (SBTT) were referred for push enteroscopy (PE) with and without (±) the EC device. Twenty-five consecutive patients underwent PE ± EC. No patient had VCE done after PE ± EC. Using PE-EC, GIADs were detected in 9 of 25 (36%) of patients. Importantly, PE+EC detected GIADs in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The sum of GIADs detected without EC was 26 ± 0.06 vs. 112 ± 0.2 using EC. The average detection rate for PE without EC was significantly lower (1.04 ± 0.06, mean ± SE) as compared to PE with EC (4.48 ± 0.23, mean ± SE, p<0.0005). Additionally, a positive correlation (r=0.51) between capsule enteroscopy (CE) location of GIADs and SBTT was found. The EC device increases the detection of GIADs in the proximal small bowel. We also reconfirm that the location of bleeding GIADs are within the reach of the push enteroscope (PE). Finally, PE + EC may also reduce GIAD miss rates, which may play a role in the reduction of re-bleeding episodes.

Water exchange-assisted versus carbon dioxide-insufflated single-balloon enteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is a valuable but difficult modality for the diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disease. The water exchange method has the advantage of facilitating intubation during colonoscopy. Here, we evaluated the effects of water exchange on procedure-related variables related to SBE.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary-care referral center in China. Patients due for attempted total enteroscopy were randomly allocated to undergo water exchange-assisted (water exchange group) or carbon dioxide-insufflated enteroscopy (CO₂ group). All patients were planned to undergo both anterograde and retrograde procedures. The primary outcome was the total enteroscopy rate. Secondary outcomes included the maximal insertion depth, positive findings, procedural time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients were enrolled, with 55 in each group. Baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Total enteroscopy was achieved in 58.2 % (32/55) of the water exchange group and 36.4 % (20/55) of the control group (P = 0.02). The mean (standard deviation) estimated intubation depth was 521.2 (101.4) cm in the water exchange group and 481.6 (95.2) cm in the CO₂ group (P = 0.04). The insertion time was prolonged in the water exchange group compared with the CO₂ group (178.9 [45.1] minutes vs. 154.2 [27.6] minutes; P < 0.001). Endoscopic findings and adverse events were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The water exchange method improved the total enteroscopy rate and increased the intubation depth during SBE. The use of water exchange did not increase the complications of enteroscopy.