Hansel, Stephanie L

Background Due to their easy accessibility, CT scans have been increasingly used for investigation of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Purpose To estimate the performance of a dual-phase, dual-energy (DE) GI bleed CT protocol in patients with overt GI bleeding in clinical practice and examine the added value of portal phase and DE images. Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with GI bleeding underwent a two-phase DE GI bleed CT protocol. Two gastroenterologists established the reference standard. Performance was estimated using clinical CT reports. Three GI radiologists rated confidence in GI bleeding in a subset of 62 examinations, evaluating first mixed kV arterial images, then after examining additional portal venous phase images, and finally after additional DE images (virtual non-contrast and virtual monoenergetic 50 keV images). Results 52 of 176 patients (29.5%) had GI bleeding by the reference standard. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the CT GI bleed protocol for detecting GI bleeding were 65.4%, 89.5%, 72.3%, and 86.0%, respectively. In patients with GI bleeding, diagnostic confidence of readers increased after adding portal phase images to arterial phase images ( p = 0.002), without additional benefit from dual energy images. In patients without GI bleeding, confidence in luminal extravasation appropriately decreased after adding portal phase, and subsequently DE images ( p = 0.006, p = 0.018). Conclusion A two-phase DE GI bleed CT protocol had high specificity and negative predictive value in clinical practice. Portal venous phase images improved diagnostic confidence in comparison to arterial phase images alone. Dual-energy images further improved radiologist confidence in the absence of bleeding.

Background and Study Aims. The presence of an implantable electromechanical cardiac device (IED) has long been considered a relative contraindication to the performance of video capsule endoscopy (CE). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of CE in patients with IEDs. A secondary purpose was to determine whether IEDs have any impact on images captured by CE.Patients and Methods.A retrospective chart review of all patients who had a capsule endoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, AZ, USA, or Rochester, MN, USA, (January 2002 to June 2010) was performed to identify CE studies done on patients with IEDs. One hundred and eighteen capsule studies performed in 108 patients with IEDs were identified and reviewed for demographic data, method of preparation, and study data.Results.The most common indications for CE were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (77%), anemia (14%), abdominal pain (5%), celiac disease (2%), diarrhea (1%), and Crohn’s disease (1%). Postprocedure assessments did not reveal any detectable alteration on the function of the IED. One patient with an ICD had a 25-minute loss of capsule imaging due to recorder defect. Two patients with LVADs had interference with capsule image acquisition.Conclusions.CE did not interfere with IED function, including PM, ICD, and/or LVAD and thus appears safe. Additionally, PM and ICD do not appear to interfere with image acquisition but LVAD may interfere with capsule images and require that capsule leads be positioned as far away as possible from the IED to assure reliable image acquisition.