Achieving Total Enteroscopy by Consecutive Bidirectional Double-balloon Enteroscopy Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and safety of achieving total enteroscopy by consecutive bidirectional double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) procedures. METHODS: The demographic data, indication, initial insertion route, examination time for each insertion and the entire procedure, total enteroscopy rate, diagnostic yield and adverse events of patients who attempted to achieve total enteroscopy by consecutive bidirectional DBE procedures from January 2014 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were included, and the total enteroscopy rate was 87.3%. Initiating the DBE procedure via the retrograde approach as the initial insertion route achieved a higher total enterosocpy rate (90.9% vs. 78.9%, P=0.023), with shorter overall examination time (134.2±36.2 vs. 156.9±47.6 min, P=0.017) and shorter examination time for the opposite insertion route (23.8±19.9 vs. 53.1±27.6 min, P=0.000) compared with anteograde approach as the initial insertion route. The overall diagnostic yield was 37.6%. The diagnostic yield for successfully achieving total enteroscopy was higher, when compared to the yield for not successfully achieving total enteroscopy (39.4% vs. 25%, P=0.029). The overall rate of adverse events was 2.1% (4/189). There was no significant difference in adverse event rate between the overall examination time ≥2 h group and <2 h group (2.1% vs. 2.0%, P=0.593). CONCLUSION: Consecutive bidirectional DBE procedure is an effective and safe strategy for achieving total enteroscopy with a considerable success rate. This may be a promising option and alternative to traditional methods, and helpful to more promptly establish a definite diagnosis. The retrograde approach, as the initial insertion route, is preferred in clinical practice.

Clinical impact of videocapsule and double balloon enteroscopy on small bowel bleeding: Results from a large monocentric cohort in the last 19 years.

BACKGROUND: Suspected small bowel bleeding (SSBB) is the main indication for videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). We assessed the impact of both modalities in a large cohort of SSBB patients in a European tertiary center. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with SSBB undergoing VCE and/or DBE from March 2001 to July 2020. Demographic/clinical parameters, anticoagulant therapies, technical characteristics and adverse events were collected, as well as diagnostic yield (DY), VCE-DBE concordance, hemoglobin (Hb) values before and after DBE, and complications. RESULTS: 807 VCEs and 407 DBEs were performed in 751 patients. The DY was significantly higher in DBE compared with VCE (68.8% vs 57.7%), with the highest (75%) yield for overt active SB bleeding. The agreement between VCE and DBE was generally suboptimal (k = 0.059). This improved in cases where both procedures were done within 1-5 days of the other (k = 0.323). Post-procedural Hb values were significantly higher. In patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), there were no differences in DY, complications or Hb values compared with non-DOAC patients. CONCLUSION: VCE and DBE play a pivotal role in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to SSBB, having a high clinical impact even in patients treated with DOACs.

Clinical characteristics of small bowel tumors diagnosed by double-balloon endoscopy: Experience from a Chinese tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To determine the characteristics of small bowel tumors (SBTs) in patients underwent double balloon endoscopy (DBE) and to compare the clinical value of DBE with other diagnostic tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in patients underwent DBE procedures from March 2008 to April 2017.The demographic, clinical and pathological characteristics of patients with SBTs were recorded, while the diagnosis of SBTs was achieved either by DBE biopsy or surgical specimens. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and two patients (761 males, range 3-85 years) were enrolled in this study, with 1140 procedures completed in total. 99/1102 patients (9.0%) had SBTs, including benign polyps (20, 20.2%), gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (24, 24.2%), lymphomas (13, 13.1%), adenocarcinoma (39, 39.4%), and neuroendocrine tumors (3, 3.0%). The most common clinical symptom for benign polyps was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) (75.0%). But among patients with malignant SBTs, the main indication for DBE was chronic abdominal pain (43.8%), followed by OGIB (36.3%), vomit (10.0%), abnormal images (6.3%) and diarrhea (3.8%) (P<0.001). Moreover, SBTs were primarily located in the jejunum alone (40/99, 40.4%). DBE had better sensitivity (89.2%), specificity (95.2%), positive predictive value (PPV) (90.0%), and negative predictive value (NPV) (94.8%) than other tools for suspected SBTs. CONCLUSION: Small bowel tumor is mainly located in jejunum and with OGIB and abdominal pain as major complaints. DBE is a reliable method for the diagnosis of SBTs compared with other diagnostic tools.

The role of double-balloon enteroscopy in reducing the maximum size of polyps in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: 12-year experience.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the role of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in treating intestinal polyps in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS). METHODS: All patients diagnosed with PJS who underwent a polypectomy under DBE from October 2006 to December 2018 were enrolled. Their clinical records, including surgical history, the method of DBE insertion, the number of DBE procedures, and the maximum size and number of the resected polyps, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Altogether 97 patients were enrolled. For both antegrade and retrograde DBE the maximum size of the resected polyps during the second hospitalization was significantly smaller than that during the first hospitalization (antegrade DBE: [2.13 ± 1.51] cm vs [3.63 ± 0.92] cm, P = 0.012; retrograde DBE: [1.20 ± 1.10] cm vs [2.95 ± 1.95] cm, P = 0.03), but was significantly larger than that during the third hospitalization (antegrade DBE: [2.13 ± 1.51] cm vs [0.88 ± 0.70] cm, P = 0.012; retrograde DBE: [1.20 ± 1.10] cm vs [0.46 ± 0.40] cm, P = 0.048). The interval between the second and third hospitalizations was significantly longer than that between the first and second hospitalizations ([899.00 ± 382.12] days vs [537.27 ± 326.28] days, P = 0.027). The success rate of total enteroscopy was 58.3% (28/48), which was not affected by a history of laparotomy (61.5% vs 52.4%, P = 0.528). The complication rate was 4.4%. CONCLUSION: DBE is clinically safe and effective for the diagnosis and treatment of intestinal polyps in patients with PJS.

Efficacy and Safety of Single-Balloon Versus Double-Balloon Enteroscopy: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND Single-balloon endoscopy (SBE) has been introduced as a simplified endoscopy technique after the promotion of double-balloon endoscopy (DBE). The difference in clinical performance between DBE and SBE is still not very clear. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between these 2 endoscopic procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 173 patients with suspected small bowel disease were enrolled into this study from January 2007 to December 2011. All cases were divided into DBE or SBE groups according to the endoscopic procedures they underwent. We then compared the diagnostic yield, the influence of DBE and SBE on the diagnostic/therapeutic course, the examination time, and post-procedure discomfort between DBE and SBE groups. RESULTS We observed no notable adverse events during or after the examinations. Additionally, SBE displays a significantly higher diagnostic rate (62.0%) than DBE (35.6%) via the anal approach (P=0.0137), while there was no difference in positive diagnostic rate between DBE and SBE via the oral route. Remarkably, it takes significantly less time to perform SBE examinations (38.86±5.64 minutes) than DBE procedures (41.80±6.50 minutes) via the oral route (P=0.048), although the average examination time for DBE is close to that for SBE via the anal route (P=0.952). However, DBE and SBE are similar in terms of their impact on the diagnostic/therapeutic course and complication rate. CONCLUSIONS Both SBE and DBE are very safe procedures to perform and SBE is a preferred choice for the evaluation of small bowel diseases in terms of diagnostic rate via the anal route compared with DBE.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Single- versus Double-Balloon Enteroscopy Performed by Endoscopist Experts in Single-Balloon Enteroscopy: A Single-Center Experience and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Studies concerning the efficacy and safety of single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) compared with that of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) often appear to be conflicting. However, previous studies were performed by endoscopists who were less experienced in SBE compared with DBE. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of SBE and DBE data performed by a single enteroscopist, with expertise in SBE, using a prospective balloon-assisted enteroscopy registry from 2013 to 2015. Furthermore, we performed a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of available studies, including the current study, to clarify the efficacy and safety of SBE versus DBE. RESULTS: A total of 65 procedures in 44 patients with SBE and 74 procedures in 69 patients with DBE were analyzed. There were no significant differences in diagnostic yield (61.1% vs 77.3%, respectively, p=0.397), therapeutic yield (39.1% vs 31.8%, respectively, p=0.548), and complication rate (4.4% vs 2.3%, p=1.000). In the meta-analysis, which included four randomized controlled trials and three observational studies, there were no significant differences in the pooled relative risk and odds ratio for diagnostic and therapeutic yield and complications of SBE compared with those of DBE. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of SBE appears to be similar to that of DBE in terms of diagnostic and therapeutic yield and complications.

Video capsule endoscopy as the initial examination for overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding can efficiently identify patients who require double-balloon enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Both double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) have similar diagnostic yields for patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). However, the choice of initial modality is still controversial. The aim of this study was to show the clinical outcome of the strategy of initial VCE, followed by DBE. METHODS: Eighty-nine consecutive overt OGIB patients who had undergone VCE as the initial examination were analyzed. The interpreters of VCE evaluated the necessity of performing DBE, and the antegrade or retrograde route was chosen, depending on the transit time of the capsule. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (42 %) underwent DBE depending on the findings of VCE. Of these, bleeding sites in the small bowel were identified in 29 patients with the initially selected route (21 antegrade and 8 retrograde). The remaining 8 later underwent DBE by the other route, but 7 had no bleeding lesion, which was confirmed by second-look VCE. One remaining patient had a jejunal varix found by VCE, but DBE from either side could not reach the lesion. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of VCE were 100 %, both for the presence of small bowel lesions and the requirement of hemostasis in the small bowel; this indicated that VCE never misses relevant findings in the small bowel, and that negative VCE findings correspond to the lack of necessity for further examination. CONCLUSIONS: VCE as the initial examination can efficiently identify overt OGIB patients who require DBE. The strategy of initial VCE for overt OGIB appears to be reasonable.

Randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes of video capsule endoscopy with push enteroscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diagnostic yields and downstream clinical outcomes comparing video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with push enteroscopy (PE). METHODS: Patients with OGIB and negative esophagogastroduodenoscopies and colonoscopies were randomly assigned to VCE or PE and followed for 12 months. End points included diagnostic yield, acute or chronic bleeding, health resource utilization and crossovers. RESULTS: Data from 79 patients were analyzed (VCE n=40; PE n=39; 82.3% overt OGIB). VCE had greater diagnostic yield (72.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05), especially in the distal small bowel (58% versus 13%; P<0.01). More VCE-identified lesions were rated possible or certain causes of bleeding (79.3% versus 35.0%; P<0.05). During follow-up, there were no differences in the rates of ongoing bleeding (acute [40.0% versus 38.5%; P not significant], chronic [32.5% versus 45.6%; P not significant]), nor in health resource utilization. Fewer VCE-first patients crossed over due to ongoing bleeding (22.5% versus 48.7%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A VCE-first approach had a significant diagnostic advantage over PE-first in patients with OGIB, especially with regard to detecting small bowel lesions, affecting clinical certainty and subsequent further small bowel investigations, with no subsequent differences in bleeding or resource utilization outcomes in follow-up. These findings question the clinical relevance of many of the discovered endoscopic lesions or the ability to treat most of these effectively over time. Improved prognostication of both patient characteristics and endoscopic lesion appearance with regard to bleeding behaviour, coupled with the impact of therapeutic deep enteroscopy, is now required using adapted, high-quality study methodologies.

Double-balloon enteroscopy and outcomes in patients older than 80.

BACKGROUND: double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) is becoming more commonly used for investigation of small bowel pathology. Currently, there are limited data to describe its safety and efficacy in the population over age 65. AIM: to investigate the indications, findings and outcomes of DBE performed in patients older than 80, as well as the correlation between DBE and prior capsule endoscopy (CE) findings. METHODS: we retrospectively reviewed our large DBE database, including procedures from January 2006 to September 2012. Patients aged 80 or older at the time of DBE were included in the study. The indications, findings, outcomes and diagnostic yield of DBE were calculated by frequency analysis. RESULTS: two hundred and fifteen DBEs were performed in 130 patients aged 80 or older. The mean age was 83.6 ± 3.03 years (range: 80-94). Twelve patients (9.2%) were assigned an American Society of Anaesthesiologists score of II prior to procedure, 102 patients (78.4%) were assigned a score of III and 16 patients (12.3%) were given a score of IV. The most common indication for DBE was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (N = 204, 94.9%). One hundred and fourteen patients (87.7%) underwent CE prior to DBE, and correlation between findings of CE and DBE occurred in 74.6% of these patients. The overall diagnostic yield of DBE was 77.2% (N = 166). There were no immediate post-procedural complications or failed procedures. CONCLUSION: DBE is a safe and effective technique for investigation of the small bowel in patients aged 80 and older. Age alone should not be a contraindication to performing DBE when clinically indicated.

Is Endoscopic Therapy Effective for Angioectasia in Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding?: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

GOAL: We aimed to summarize pooled rebleeding rates of angioectasia after therapeutic endoscopy, and compare these to historical control (no intervention) rates. BACKGROUND: Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding continues to be challenging to diagnose and treat; in America, small bowel angioectasias are the most common cause. Technology advances led to higher diagnostic yield for these lesions; however, therapeutic impact of endoscopy remains unclear. STUDY: A PubMed search (June 1, 2006 to September 19, 2013) with 2 independent reviews sought articles reporting rebleeding rates of symptomatic angioectasia without therapy (natural history) and after endoscopic treatment. This study list was added to studies in the 2007 American Gastroenterological Association systematic review. Data on number of patients who underwent endoscopic therapy, type of therapy used, number of patients who experienced rebleeding, and follow-up time were extracted. Rebleeding data were pooled and weighted averages were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Twenty-four articles (n=490 patients) with data on endoscopic therapy for angioectasia and 6 natural history cohorts (n=130) receiving no therapy for angioectasia were eligible. Of the endoscopic therapy patients, 121 at push enteroscopy and 427 at balloon-assisted enteroscopy; 209/490 (42.7%; 95% CI, 38%-47%) rebled. Of the control (no therapy) patients, 64/130 (49.2%; 95% CI, 40%-58%) rebled. Number needed to treat is estimated at 15 to 16. CONCLUSIONS: Rebleeding rate after endoscopic therapy for symptomatic small bowel angioectasia may be comparable to that expected without therapy. Endoscopic therapy may be ineffective; if effective, the needed to treat is estimated to be high. Controlled studies, with intervention-stratified and etiology-stratified outcomes are needed.

Diagnostic and therapeutic efficacy of double-balloon endoscopy in patients with small intestinal diseases: single-center experience in 513 procedures.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) is a technique that enables the evaluation and treatment of small intestinal diseases. The aim of the study was to evaluate the indications, therapeutic interventions, complications, and safety and to describe the experience with DBE in Turkish patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred twenty consecutive patients undergoing DBE were included in our study. Demographic features, indications, diagnostic findings, therapeutic interventions, complications, and technical aspects of the procedure were recorded. A total of 513 DBEs were carried out. RESULTS: In all, 420 patients underwent a total of 513 DBE procedures (369 (72%) oral and 144 (28%) anal). The most common clinical indications were obscure bleeding (26%), abdominal pain (25.2%), anemia (20%), chronic diarrhea (10.5%), and inflammatory bowel diseases (5.2%). A proper diagnosis was obtained or confirmed in 222 of 420 patients (52.3%). Ulcers/erosions (23.6%), vascular lesions (8.1%), and polyps/tumors (7.4%) represented the most common endoscopic findings. Perforation occurred in one patient as a complication after polypectomy. No major complications due to sedation occurred. CONCLUSION: Double-balloon endoscopy is effective for the diagnosis and treatment of small intestinal diseases. Therapeutic interventions carried out by DBE seem to be useful and safe.

Factors associated with reduced insertion depth at double balloon enteroscopy: a retrospective, multivariate analysis.

BACKGROUND: Deep small bowel insertion during double balloon enteroscopy can be difficult to achieve. AIMS: To determine the factors influencing depth of insertion during double balloon enteroscopy. METHODS: History of abdomino-pelvic surgery, route of insertion, type of enteroscope, age, sedation or general anaesthesia used and gender were considered as potential influencing factors; procedures were categorised accordingly and maximal depth of insertion calculated. RESULTS: At multivariate analysis, maximal depth of insertion was significantly associated with history of abdominal-pelvic surgery (P<0.001), rectal approach (P=0.011), gender (P=0.02) and use of the therapeutic enteroscope (P=0.047). Mean maximal depth of insertion was 266±12cm, 255±9cm (P=0.50), 197±10cm (P<0.0001), 160±12cm (P<0.01) and 103±33cm (P<0.15) when 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 influencing factors were present, respectively. CONCLUSION: Maximal depth of insertion was significantly influenced by history of abdomino-pelvic surgery, insertion route, gender and type of enteroscope used.

Changes over time in indications, diagnostic yield, and clinical effects of double-balloon enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We performed a retrospective study to investigate changes between different time periods in the indications, diagnostic yield, and clinical impact of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). METHODS: We analyzed records from the database at Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine from all patients undergoing DBE between September 2004 and May 2011 (181 DBEs, 133 patients). We compared DBE-related factors between the first stage (September 2004-August 2006; 117 DBEs, 79 patients) and second stage (September 2006-May 2011; 64 DBEs, 54 patients) of the study period. RESULTS: The number of DBEs performed decreased between stages. Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common indication for DBE during each stage (65.8% vs 50%; P = .06). Abnormalities in other modalities as the second indication increased significantly in the second stage compared with the first (11.4% vs 29.6%; P = .008). Between stages, use of computed tomography increased (53.8% vs 81.5%; P = .001), along with capsule endoscopy (29.1% vs 44.4%; P = .06). Mucosal lesions were the most common finding in each stage (56% and 53.1%; P = .686). The diagnostic yield of DBE was 89.3% in the first stage and 93.9% in the second (P = .384). In the first stage, DBE identified 86.4% of cases that had negative results from other modalities; in the second, it identified all cases (P = .3). Therapeutic plans were determined in 89.7% of patients only on the basis of results from DBE. CONCLUSIONS: Between the time periods of 2004-2006 and 2006-2011, the clinical indications for DBEs and outcomes did not change. However, the selectivity of the number of patients decreased between stages.

Comparison of magnetic resonance enteroclysis and capsule endoscopy with balloon-assisted enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: New modalities are available for visualization of the small bowel in patients with possible obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), but their performance requires further comparison. This study compared the diagnostic yield of magnetic resonance enteroclysis (MRE) and capsule endoscopy in patients with OGIB, using balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive consenting patients who were referred for evaluation of OGIB were prospectively included. Patients underwent MRE followed by capsule endoscopy and BAE. Patients with high grade stenosis at MRE did not undergo capsule endoscopy. The reference standard was BAE findings in visualized small-bowel segments and expert panel consensus for segments not visualized during BAE. RESULTS: Over a period of 26 months, 38 patients were included (20 female [53 %]; mean age 58 years, range 28 - 75 years). Four patients (11 %) did not undergo capsule endoscopy due to high grade small-bowel stenosis at MRE (n = 3; 8 %) or timing issues (n = 1; 3 %). Capsule endoscopy was non-diagnostic in one patient. The reference standard identified abnormal findings in 20 patients (53 %). MRE had sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 21 %, 100 %, infinity, and 0.79, respectively. The corresponding values for capsule endoscopy were 61 %, 85 %, 4.1, and 0.46. The reference standard and capsule endoscopy did not differ in percent positive findings (P = 0.34), but MRE differed significantly from the reference BAE (P < 0.001). Capsule endoscopy was superior to MRE for detecting abnormalities (P = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: Capsule endoscopy performed better than MRE in the detection of small-bowel abnormality in patients with OGIB. MRE may be considered as an alternative for the initial examination in patients with clinical suspicion of small-bowel stenosis.

Evaluating the role of small-bowel endoscopy in clinical practice: the largest single-centre experience.

OBJECTIVE: There are few centres that offer all forms of small-bowel endoscopic modalities [capsule endoscopy (CE), push enteroscopy (PE), double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) or single-balloon enteroscopy and intraoperative enteroscopy (IOE)]. Previous investigators have suggested that DBE may be more cost-effective as the first-line investigation. We evaluated the relationship among four modalities of small-bowel endoscopy in terms of demand, diagnostic yield, patient management and tolerability. METHODS: Data were collected on patients who underwent PE and IOE since January 2002, CE since June 2002 and DBE since July 2006. These included age, sex, indication of referral, comorbidity, previous investigations and diagnosis obtained, including subsequent management change. RESULTS: Demand for CE and DBE increased every year. A total of 1431 CEs, 247 PEs, 102 DBEs and 17 IOEs were performed over 93 months. The diagnostic yield was 88% for IOE compared with 34.6% for CE, 34.5% for PE and 43% for DBE (P<0.001). Management was altered by CE in 25%, by PE in 19% and by DBE in 33% of patients. However, 44% of patients who underwent DBE found the procedure difficult to tolerate. In 2009, for every 17 CEs performed, one patient underwent DBE locally. CONCLUSION: This is the first series to report the clinical experience of four modalities of small-bowel endoscopy from a single centre. The use of CE as first-line investigation, followed by PE/DBE or IOE, is potentially both less invasive and tolerable.