A retrospective review of enteroclysis in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and chronic abdominal pain of undetermined etiology.

Our purpose was to determine the diagnostic utility of enteroclysis in the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and abdominal pain of unknown etiology. This is a retrospective review of 97 consecutive patients (mean age, 54.1+/-17.5 [SD] years; 49 male and 48 female) who underwent enteroclysis at Temple University Hospital from January 1994 to October 2001 for the evaluation of obscure GI bleeding or chronic abdominal pain of undetermined etiology. Prior to enteroclysis all patients had an EGD and colonoscopy, which were nondiagnostic for their symptoms. Sixty-three patients (64.9%) had enteroscopy performed prior to enteroclysis that was also negative. Enteroclysis results were defined as positive based on anatomical or functional abnormalities. Analysis of the data included the percentage yield of positive exams, the percentage of positive results per symptom category, and the percentage of patients with a change in clinical management based on positive enteroclysis results. Ninety-seven patients underwent enteroclysis. The indications for enteroclysis were obscure GI bleeding in 67 patients (69.1%) and chronic abdominal pain in 30 patients (30.9%). The number of positive exams was 19 (19.6%). Fourteen of the 67 patients with the indication of GI bleeding had a positive exam (21%), while 5 of the 30 patients with chronic abdominal pain had a positive result (16.7%). There was a change in clinical management due to the enteroclysis results in 10 patients: 7 patients with GI bleeding (10%) and 3 patients with chronic abdominal pain (10%). Positive enteroclysis findings included adhesions (7), filling defects and masses (5), strictures (2), small bowel diverticulosis (1), mucosal abnormalities (3), and a motility disorder (1). The overall positive yield for enteroclysis was 19.6%, with a yield of 16.7% for chronic abdominal pain and 21% for gastrointestinal bleeding. Enteroclysis results changed the clinical management in approximately 10% of the patients.

Risk of esophageal variceal bleeding based on endoscopic ultrasound evaluation of the sum of esophageal variceal cross-sectional surface area.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of future variceal bleeding, based on the endoscopic ultrasound measurement of the sum of the cross-sectional surface area (CSA) of all of the esophageal varices in the distal esophagus. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with portal hypertension and esophageal varices, but no prior history of variceal bleeding, were evaluated using endoscopic ultrasound (20-MHz ultrasound probe, Microvasive, Boston, MA; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). The entire esophagus was imaged, and an image was selected at a point where the varices appeared the largest. This image was digitized, and the sum of the CSA of all of the varices was measured (Image Pro Plus, Silver Springs, MD) by an investigator blinded to the patients' clinical status. The follow-up time for each patient was calculated (time to first bleed, time to liver transplantation, time to death, or time to the end of study). The Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to determine if there was a significant difference between the sums of the CSA in the patients who bled compared with those who did not bleed. An OR was calculated to determine the risk of future variceal bleeding based on the sum of the CSA as measured in cm(2)/month. Positive and negative predictive values were calculated for future variceal bleeding. RESULTS: Six of 28 patients (21%) experienced esophageal variceal bleeding on follow-up. The mean CSA +/- SEM of the sum of the esophageal varices in these patients was 0.77 cm(2) +/- 0.31 cm(2) (range 0.07-2.09 cm(2)). The mean time to bleeding was 15.5 months +/- 4.95 months (range 1-29 months). Twenty-two of 28 patients (79%) did not experience variceal bleeding. The mean CSA +/- SEM of the sum of the varices in these patients was 0.36 cm(2) +/- 0.08 cm(2) (range 0.02-1.19 cm(2)). The mean time to follow-up was 35.7 months +/- 6.69 months (range 1.2-103.2 months). The sum of the CSA between the patients who bleed and those who did not bleed was significantly different at the p < 0.018 level. The OR for the risk of variceal bleeding for each one cm(2) difference in the sum of the CSA per month was 6.34. Using a cutoff of 0.45 cm(2), the sensitivity and specificity for future variceal bleeding was 83% and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference (p < 0.018) in the sum of the esophageal variceal CSA between those patients who will experience future variceal bleeding and those who will not. There is a 76-fold increase per year in the risk of future variceal bleeding for each one cm(2) increase in variceal CSA. Using a cutoff value for the CSA of 0.45 cm(2), the sensitivity and specificity for future variceal bleeding above and below this point is 83% and 75%, respectively.