ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a valuable tool in the diagnostic evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, but limited information is available on the reproducibility of CE findings. OBJECTIVE: To compare two successive CE studies with push enteroscopy (PE) in patients presenting with chronic obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted. Ten patients (seven men and three women) with chronic obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and no contraindications for CE were eligible and completed the trial. For each patient, the first capsule was administered on day 1, the second capsule was administered on day 2 and PE was performed on day 3. Endoscopists were blinded to the capsule findings. Capsule findings were assessed independently by two investigators blinded to PE findings. RESULTS: A potential small intestinal bleeding source was found in 60% of the patients when all the studies were combined. A bleeding source was found in four patients in both CE studies. The second CE also identified a bleeding source in a fifth patient. Interobserver agreement by kappa analysis was 0.642 to 1.000 (P < or 05) for the CE studies. PE identified a potential small bowel bleeding site in four patients, including one patient who had negative CE studies. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the reproducibility of CE findings on successive studies. Some patients did not have a source of bleeding in the small intestine, and all studies found this.
Subject(s)
Capsule Endoscopy/standards , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/standards , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Chronic Disease , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Female , Humans , Intestine, Small/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of Results , Single-Blind MethodABSTRACT
Although SRES-associated hemorrhage previously constituted a significant cause of bleeding in the ICU, improvements in ICU management and the institution of prophylactic measures in high-risk patients have significantly reduced SRES-associated hemorrhage since the 1980s. Antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, and sucralfate have been shown to be effective in preventing clinically significant bleeding resulting from SRES, particularly when the intragastric pH is maintained at greater than 4. A selective approach should be adopted in SRES prophylaxis: Patients on mechanical ventilation, with coagulopathy, or with two of the other known risk factors should receive prophylaxis. Although the drug of choice depends to some extent on local preferences, an H2-receptor antagonist by continuous intravenous infusion may represent the best option. No pharmacologic therapy is of proven value once hemorrhage begins, but the current interventional techniques are effective in controlling hemorrhage. Gastrointestinal bleeding from NOMV has become less common with improvements in the hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients, but this disease must always be considered when lower gastrointestinal bleeding occurs in the context of relative hypoperfusion. For SRES and NOMV, treatment of the underlying disease or diseases is the optimal route to prevention.