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.

Endoscopic stabilization device evaluation using IDEAL framework: A quality improvement study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinical evaluation reporting using the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term study) framework improves a novel double-balloon endoscopic stabilization technology. DESIGN: Observational registry 6 month study with no follow-up. Using the Prospective Development Study (PDS) format recommended by the IDEAL collaboration, we report on continued refinement and optimization of an endoscopic stabilization platform during a clinical study conducted by two clinicians from the first case onwards. Key outcomes (ability to reach cecum, inflation of balloons in the sigmoid and ascending colon, and complications) were prospectively reported for each patient sequentially. All changes to technique were highlighted, showing when they occurred and an explanation for the change. RESULTS: 30 colonoscopies were undertaken using the device from April to September 2017. Two patients were excluded from the analysis for protocol deviations. Cecum was reached in 89% of the per protocol population of patients in an average time of 13.5 ±â€¯11 min. Therapeutic zone creation was successful in 89% of patients on the right side of the intestine and 100% in those that reached the sigmoid. There were five deliberate changes in technique that occurred during the study that enabled improved device technical performance. There were no serious complications and one polyp was removed successfully using the device. Clinicians reported endoscope stability and increased visibility of the intestinal mucosa increased when using the device. CONCLUSION: The IDEAL framework provided a structured reporting of the changes made to technique. Those changes facilitated a device that is safe, has achieved stability with improved performance.

Diagnosis and treatment of obscure small bowel bleedings - analysis of double balloon enteroscopy role in diagnosing and treatment algorythm on basis of own material.

Introduction Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) is defined as a reccurent bleeding to gastrointestinal tract without evaluated origin, despite detiled endoscopic and image diagnostics. Mots common reason of OGIB i small bowel bleeding (SBB). Methodology Retrospective analysis of patients hospitalised in Gastroenterology Department of 7 Szpital Marynarki Wojennej w Gdansku with suspicion of OIGB. Results Double balloon enteroscopy was performed in 31 cases. Origin of bleeding was founded in small bowel in 87% of cases and in 64 % successfull,simultaneous therapeutic procedure was performed. No clinically relevant complications were noticed. Conclusion According to actual diagnostic algorythms of OGIB, double balloon enteroscopy is highly effective also in polish medical care system. This tehnique is a safe and effective tool in diagnostics and treatment of SBB, but its availability is still limited in Poland. Abstrakt.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.

SMALL-BOWEL CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY (SBCE): 1: ESGE recommends that prior to SBCE patients ingest a purgative (2 L of polyethylene glycol [PEG]) for better visualization.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.However, the optimal timing for taking purgatives is yet to be established. 2: ESGE recommends that SBCE should be performed as an outpatient procedure if possible, since completion rates are higher in outpatients than in inpatients.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that patients with pacemakers can safely undergo SBCE without special precautions.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that SBCE can also be safely performed in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends the acceptance of qualified nurses and trained technicians as prereaders of capsule endoscopy studies as their competency in identifying pathology is similar to that of medically qualified readers. The responsibility of establishing a diagnosis must however remain with the attending physician.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends observation in cases of asymptomatic capsule retention.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In cases where capsule retrieval is indicated, ESGE recommends the use of device-assisted enteroscopy as the method of choice.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. DEVICE-ASSISTED ENTEROSCOPY (DAE): 1: ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.Strong recommendation, low quality evidenceThe choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE] and double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Double-Balloon Colonoscopy Has a Higher Cecal Intubation Rate Than Conventional Colonoscopy Using a Colon Simulator.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Cecal intubation using conventional colonoscopy (CC) requires substantial training. We hypothesized that double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) facilitates cecal intubation by endoscopy naïve operators. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cecal intubation rate and learning curve of DBC compared with CC. METHODS: Eighteen endoscopy naïve medical students were allocated to two groups and attempted cecal intubation within 20 min using a colon simulator. In group A, CC was performed ten times and then DBC ten times. In group B, the reverse was carried out. We evaluated the cecal intubation rate and learning curve. RESULTS: The overall success rate for cecal intubation using DBC was significantly superior to CC [132/180 (73%) vs. 12/180 (7%), p < 0.001]. To evaluate the success rate overtime, we divided the ten repetitions of the procedure into three time periods: first (1-3), second (4-6), and third (7-10). The success rate using CC is <20%, even during the third time period, in both groups, and one perforation occurred. The success rate using DBC is over 30% in the first period and increased to nearly 80% in the third period in both groups. Finally, we evaluated the time needed for cecal intubation using DBC. The mean cecal intubation time in the first period is 14 min and decreased to 11 min in the third period. CONCLUSIONS: DBC has a higher cecal intubation rate than CC performed by endoscopy naïve medical students using a colon simulator in this randomized-controlled, cross-over study.

Effect of a quality program with adverse events identification on airway management during overtube-assisted enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Adverse events associated with overtube-assisted enteroscopy are similar to those with routine endoscopy. Our endoscopy quality program identified a number of respiratory adverse events resulting in emergency resuscitation efforts. The aim is to report all adverse events identified by quality monitoring and outcomes of adverse events associated with overtube-assisted enteroscopy. METHODS: A retrospective study used data prospectively obtained from consecutive patients undergoing overtube-assisted enteroscopy between December 2008 and July 2012. Patient characteristics, medical history, procedure indication, and procedure outcomes, including diagnosis, endoscopic therapy, and complications, were obtained. RESULTS: In 432 overtube-assisted enteroscopies, 15 adverse events (most frequently hypoxemia, 9 /15, 60 %) occurred in 14 patients (3.2 % of total cohort; 12 were outpatients) mostly during antegrade enteroscopy. Four patients required endotracheal intubation and 4 /12 outpatients required intensive care. The procedure was aborted in 13 /14 patients, and only 1 of 10 patients scheduled for repeat antegrade enteroscopy returned. There was no mortality. Based on the frequency of adverse events, and in consultation with anesthesia providers, from August 2012 all antegrade overtube-assisted enteroscopies at our institution were done with general anesthesia. From then till September 2013, 145 antegrade and 52 retrograde overtube-assisted enteroscopies have been done, with no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of endoscopy practice identified adverse events associated with overtube-assisted enteroscopy. The peer-review prompted a change in practice: all patients undergoing antegrade overtube-assisted enteroscopy at our institution now have endotracheal intubation which has dramatically decreased the rate of respiratory adverse events. The impact of endoscopic quality measurements on practices, procedures, and outcomes will be of further interest.

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.

The role of endoscopic imaging of the small bowel in clinical practice.

Enteroscopy, defined as direct visualization of the small bowel (SB) with the use of a fiberoptic or wireless endoscope, has progressed considerably over the past several years. Technological advancements in the field have facilitated endoscopic evaluation of the SB. This comprehensive clinical review summarizes the latest modalities available to aid gastroenterologists in exploring the SB for evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, tumors, inflammatory bowel disease, and celiac disease. Previous physical limitations in equipment that made a complete evaluation of the SB difficult have all but disappeared with the advent of capsule endoscopy, balloon-assisted enteroscopy, and spiral enteroscopy.

The role of endoscopy in the management of obscure GI bleeding.

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, we performed a search of the medical literature by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines were drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).(1) The strength of individual recommendations is based both upon the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "we suggest," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as "we recommend." This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.