Diagnostic agreement between video capsule endoscopy and single and double balloon enteroscopy for small bowel bleeding at a tertiary care hospital in Bogota, Colombia

R Cañadas Garrido; R A Rincón Sánchez; V A Costa Barney; P A Roa Ballestas; C A Espinosa Martínez; D F Pinzón Arenas; R Ramirez Barranco

doi:10.1016/j.rgmx.2020.03.004

Diagnostic agreement between video capsule endoscopy and single and double balloon enteroscopy for small bowel bleeding at a tertiary care hospital in Bogota, Colombia

Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed). 2021 Jan-Mar;86(1):51-58. doi: 10.1016/j.rgmx.2020.03.004. Epub 2020 Jun 1.

[Article in English, Spanish]

Authors

R Cañadas Garrido¹, R A Rincón Sánchez², V A Costa Barney², P A Roa Ballestas², C A Espinosa Martínez², D F Pinzón Arenas², R Ramirez Barranco²

Affiliations

¹ Unidad de Gastroenterología y Endoscopia Digestiva, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia. Electronic address: raulcanadas@gmail.com.
² Unidad de Gastroenterología y Endoscopia Digestiva, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.

PMID: 32499179
DOI: 10.1016/j.rgmx.2020.03.004

Abstract

Introduction: Video capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy are complementary diagnostic methods in the study of small bowel bleeding, and different factors can affect their diagnostic yield.

Aims: To define the level of agreement between video capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy in small bowel bleeding, according to the type of lesion, in a cohort of patients at a tertiary care referral center.

Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted that included 428 capsule endoscopies performed within the time frame of 2011 and 2019 at our healthcare institution. Seventy-four video capsule endoscopies, followed by enteroscopy, in 71 patients suspected of presenting with small bowel bleeding, were analyzed.

Results: Mean patient age was 63.9 ± 13.5 years and 42 patients were women. The two diagnostic procedures were performed. Overall diagnostic yield of positive findings between video capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy was 86.5% vs. 58.1%, respectively (p = 0.0527). Agreement between video capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy for positive pathologic findings was weak (Ik = 0.17, 95% CI: -0.0097-0.3543), but according to lesion type, it was good for inflammatory lesions (Ik = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.5182-0.9119) and moderate for angiectasias (Ik = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.2469-0.6538) and tumors (Ik = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.1217-0.6794). The results between the two methods differed in 38 patients (51.3%). There was complete intestinal capsule retention in one patient (1.4%) and active bleeding in 13 (17.6%).

Conclusions: The present study showed that the two techniques had a similar overall detection rate for small bowel lesions, but the type of lesion was the main factor that could modify diagnostic agreement.

Keywords: Angiectasias; Enteroscopia; Enteroscopy; Lesiones intestino delgado; Small bowel lesions; Video capsule endoscopy; Videocápsula endoscópica.