Is there a difference between capsule endoscopy and computed tomography as a first-line study in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding?

Jeon, Seong Ran; Jin-Oh, Kim; Gun, Kim Hyun; Hee, Lee Tae; Jun-Hyung, Cho; Ju, Park Eui; Seop, Lim Dae; Jung, Kim Wan; Min, Ko Bong; Young, Cho Joo; Seong, Lee Joon; Sung, Lee Moon
The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology
2014Jun ; 25 ( 3 ) :257-63.
ÀúÀÚ »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Jeon, Seong Ran -
Jin-Oh, Kim -
Gun, Kim Hyun -
Hee, Lee Tae -
Jun-Hyung, Cho -
Ju, Park Eui -
Seop, Lim Dae -
Jung, Kim Wan -
Min, Ko Bong -
Young, Cho Joo -
Seong, Lee Joon -
Sung, Lee Moon -
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is currently recommended as the first-line study in the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), while computed tomography (CT) is often thought of as complementary to CE. This study evaluated CT as a first-line study in OGIB and compared it with CE. MATERIALS AND

METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with OGIB who received both CE and CT were included. CT included conventional CT and CT enterography (CTE). Patients were divided into two groups: the CT before CE group (CT first group n=75) and the CE before CT group (CE first group n=24). The two groups were compared retrospectively.

RESULTS: Overt OGIB was present in 92% of patients. Mucosal lesions (46%) were the most common diagnoses, while tumors accounted for 7%. The diagnostic yield of CE was significantly higher than that of CT for both groups (CT first group, p<0.001; CE first group, p=0.013). In the CT first group, the diagnostic yield using both CT and CE (48/75; 64%) was significantly higher than that for CT alone (12/75; 16%, p=0.005). In the CE first group, the diagnostic yield with both CT and CE versus CE alone was 70.9% versus 62.5%, respectively, with a significant difference (p=0.045). CONCLUSION: There was no significant clinical difference associated with the order in which the tests were performed. However, CE and CT, when used together, had a significantly greater diagnostic yield than did CE or CT when used alone.
na
MESH
Adult, Aged, Angiodysplasia/complications/*diagnosis, *Capsule Endoscopy, Female, Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/*etiology, Gastrointestinal Neoplasms/complications/*diagnosis, Humans, Logistic Models, Male, Middle Aged, Multivariate Analysis, Peptic Ulcer/complications/*diagnosis, Retrospective Studies, *Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
¸µÅ©

ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
The diagnostic yield of CE was significantly higher than that of CT for both groups (CT first group, p<0.001; CE first group, p=0.013).
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
DOI
10.5152/tjg.2014.5498.
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå