Gastroenterology
Volume 138, Issue 5 , Pages 1673-1680.e1, May 2010

Does Capsule Endoscopy Improve Outcomes in Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding? Randomized Trial Versus Dedicated Small Bowel Radiography

  • Loren Laine

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests Address requests for reprints to: Loren Laine, GI Division, Keck School of Medicine, 2025 Zonal Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033. fax: (323) 441-8352
  • ,
  • Amandeep Sahota
  • ,
  • Abbid Shah

Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Received 11 November 2009; accepted 25 January 2010. published online 04 February 2010.

Background & Aims

Capsule endoscopy improves the diagnostic yield in patients with obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, but whether it improves outcomes is uncertain.

Methods

Patients with obscure GI bleeding and negative upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, and push enteroscopy were randomly assigned to capsule endoscopy or dedicated small bowel contrast radiography. Patients returned at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months for follow-up visits and to check hemoglobin level. The primary endpoint was further bleeding.

Results

The predefined sample size of 136 patients (54 overt bleeding, 82 occult bleeding) was enrolled. Diagnostic yield was 20 (30%) with capsule vs 5 (7%) with radiography (difference = 23%; 95% CI: 11%–36%). Further bleeding with capsule versus radiography occurred in 20 (30%) versus 17 (24%) (difference, 6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −9% to 21%), subsequent diagnostic or therapeutic interventions for bleeding were performed in 17 (26%) versus 15 (21%) (difference, 4%; 95% CI, −10% to 19%), subsequent hospitalizations for bleeding were required in 8 (12%) versus 4 (6%) (difference, 6%; 95% CI, −3% to 16%), and subsequent blood transfusions were given in 5 (8%) versus 4 (6%) (difference, 2%; 95% CI, −7% to 10%). Further bleeding was more common in patients presenting with overt bleeding than in those with occult bleeding (21/54 [39%] vs 16/82 [20%]; difference, 19%; 95% CI, 4% to 35%).

Conclusions

The significant improvement in diagnostic yield with capsule endoscopy may not translate into improved outcomes in a population with obscure GI bleeding. Most patients do well whether or not abnormalities are identified, and additional diagnostic or therapeutic interventions may be required whether or not capsule endoscopy identifies a source of bleeding.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage, Capsule Endoscopy, Small Bowel Radiography

Abbreviations used in this paper: CI, confidence interval, GI, gastrointestinal

 

 This article has an accompanying continuing medical education activity on page e11. Learning Objective: Upon completion of reading this article, successful learners will be able to discuss the diagnostic evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

 Conflicts of interest The authors disclose no conflicts.

 Funding This work was supported by a grant from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Wireless Video Capsule Endoscopy Clinical Research Award (Project no. 16; 2004).

PII: S0016-5085(10)00156-3

doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.01.047

Refers to article:

  • Continuing Medical Education Exam 1, May 2010 , 22 March 2010

    Gastroenterology May 2010 (Vol. 138, Issue 5, Pages e11-e12)

Gastroenterology
Volume 138, Issue 5 , Pages 1673-1680.e1, May 2010