Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Clinical impact of capsule endoscopy compared to push enteroscopy: 1-year follow-up study.
Endoscopy. 2005 Apr; 37(4):318-23.E

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The long-term outcome for patients with obscure bleeding after capsule endoscopy (CE) is still unclear. In this study, the clinical outcome was used as the gold standard to determine the sensitivity and specificity of CE and push enteroscopy (PE) in the diagnosis of small-bowel lesions in patients with obscure bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight patients from a previous prospective study (comparing PE and CE) were included; the patients were contacted after 1 year. The final diagnosis, bleeding status, new gastrointestinal examinations, and treatments performed were recorded. On the basis of these data, each case was classified into true/false positive or true/false negative findings at PE and CE. The results were compared with the initial classification of lesions observed at CE: highly relevant (P2) and less relevant (P0, P1) lesions.

RESULTS

Follow-up data were available for 56 patients. According to the defined true/false positive and negative cases, the sensitivity and specificity values for CE and PE were 92 % and 48 %, and 80 % and 69 %, respectively (P < 0.01 for the difference between CE and PE). Highly relevant (P2) lesions observed at CE were more frequently classified into true-positive cases (15 of 18 versus seven of 22; P < 0.01) and led more frequently to therapeutic decisions (11 of 18 versus five of 22; P = 0.02) in comparison with less relevant lesions (P0, P1).

CONCLUSIONS

CE is a highly sensitive examination for the detection of small-bowel lesions in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, with a specificity lower than that of PE when the clinical outcome is used as the gold standard.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Dept. of Gastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre Bénite, France. saurin@lyon.inserm.frNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15824940

Citation

Saurin, J C., et al. "Clinical Impact of Capsule Endoscopy Compared to Push Enteroscopy: 1-year Follow-up Study." Endoscopy, vol. 37, no. 4, 2005, pp. 318-23.
Saurin JC, Delvaux M, Vahedi K, et al. Clinical impact of capsule endoscopy compared to push enteroscopy: 1-year follow-up study. Endoscopy. 2005;37(4):318-23.
Saurin, J. C., Delvaux, M., Vahedi, K., Gaudin, J. L., Villarejo, J., Florent, C., Gay, G., & Ponchon, T. (2005). Clinical impact of capsule endoscopy compared to push enteroscopy: 1-year follow-up study. Endoscopy, 37(4), 318-23.
Saurin JC, et al. Clinical Impact of Capsule Endoscopy Compared to Push Enteroscopy: 1-year Follow-up Study. Endoscopy. 2005;37(4):318-23. PubMed PMID: 15824940.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Clinical impact of capsule endoscopy compared to push enteroscopy: 1-year follow-up study. AU - Saurin,J C, AU - Delvaux,M, AU - Vahedi,K, AU - Gaudin,J L, AU - Villarejo,J, AU - Florent,C, AU - Gay,G, AU - Ponchon,T, PY - 2005/4/13/pubmed PY - 2005/8/3/medline PY - 2005/4/13/entrez SP - 318 EP - 23 JF - Endoscopy JO - Endoscopy VL - 37 IS - 4 N2 - BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The long-term outcome for patients with obscure bleeding after capsule endoscopy (CE) is still unclear. In this study, the clinical outcome was used as the gold standard to determine the sensitivity and specificity of CE and push enteroscopy (PE) in the diagnosis of small-bowel lesions in patients with obscure bleeding. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight patients from a previous prospective study (comparing PE and CE) were included; the patients were contacted after 1 year. The final diagnosis, bleeding status, new gastrointestinal examinations, and treatments performed were recorded. On the basis of these data, each case was classified into true/false positive or true/false negative findings at PE and CE. The results were compared with the initial classification of lesions observed at CE: highly relevant (P2) and less relevant (P0, P1) lesions. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 56 patients. According to the defined true/false positive and negative cases, the sensitivity and specificity values for CE and PE were 92 % and 48 %, and 80 % and 69 %, respectively (P < 0.01 for the difference between CE and PE). Highly relevant (P2) lesions observed at CE were more frequently classified into true-positive cases (15 of 18 versus seven of 22; P < 0.01) and led more frequently to therapeutic decisions (11 of 18 versus five of 22; P = 0.02) in comparison with less relevant lesions (P0, P1). CONCLUSIONS: CE is a highly sensitive examination for the detection of small-bowel lesions in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, with a specificity lower than that of PE when the clinical outcome is used as the gold standard. SN - 0013-726X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15824940/Clinical_impact_of_capsule_endoscopy_compared_to_push_enteroscopy:_1_year_follow_up_study_ L2 - https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2005-861114 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -