The role of double-balloon enteroscopy following capsule endoscopy in diagnosis of obscure Small intestinal diseases

Video capsule endoscopy versus computed tomography enterography in assessing suspected small bowel bleeding: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

Both computed tomography enterography (CTE) and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) are used in identifying small intestinal pathology in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB) following normal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy. Evidence of the comparative accuracy of these two modalities is crucial for clinical and healthcare decision-making. Comprehensive electronic searches were performed for studies on CTE and/or VCE with reference standard(s). Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two authors independently. The QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools were used to assess risk of bias, and applicability. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios. Twenty-five studies involving 1986 patients with SSBB were included. Four of these were head-to-head comparison of CTE and VCE. Overall, VCE provided significantly higher sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.61-0.83) versus 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) for CTE, while CTE showed significantly higher specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.64-0.99) versus 0.53 (95% CI: .36-0.69) for VCE. The positive likelihood ratio of CTE was 7.36 (95% CI: 0.97-56.01) versus 1.58 (95% CI: 1.15-2.15) for VCE and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.33-0.72) for VCE versus 0.56 (0.40-0.79) for CTE. A secondary analysis of only head-to-head comparative studies gave results that were similar to the main analysis. Certainty of evidence was moderate. Neither VCE nor CTE is a perfect test for identifying etiology of SSBB in small intestine. VCE was more sensitive while CTE was more specific. Clinicians should choose the appropriate modality depending on whether better sensitivity or specificity is required in each clinical scenario.

Diagnostic agreement between video capsule endoscopy and single and double balloon enteroscopy for small bowel bleeding at a tertiary care hospital in Bogota, Colombia

INTRODUCTION

Video capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy are complementary diagnostic methods in the study of small bowel bleeding, and different factors can affect their diagnostic yield.

AIMS

To define the level of agreement between video capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy in small bowel bleeding, according to the type of lesion, in a cohort of patients at a tertiary care referral center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted that included 428 capsule endoscopies performed within the time frame of 2011 and 2019 at our healthcare institution. Seventy-four video capsule endoscopies, followed by enteroscopy, in 71 patients suspected of presenting with small bowel bleeding, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 63.9 ± 13.5 years and 42 patients were women. The two diagnostic procedures were performed. Overall diagnostic yield of positive findings between video capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy was 86.5% vs. 58.1%, respectively (p = 0.0527). Agreement between video capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy for positive pathologic findings was weak (Ik = 0.17, 95% CI: -0.0097-0.3543), but according to lesion type, it was good for inflammatory lesions (Ik = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.5182-0.9119) and moderate for angiectasias (Ik = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.2469-0.6538) and tumors (Ik = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.1217-0.6794). The results between the two methods differed in 38 patients (51.3%). There was complete intestinal capsule retention in one patient (1.4%) and active bleeding in 13 (17.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that the two techniques had a similar overall detection rate for small bowel lesions, but the type of lesion was the main factor that could modify diagnostic agreement.