Enns, Robert

Abstract Aims Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) are increasingly utilized to evaluate the small bowel (SB) in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary aims were to compare the ability of WCE and MRE to detect SB inflammation in children with newly diagnosed CD, and in the terminal ileum (TI) to compare them to ileo-colonoscopy. Secondary aims were to compare diagnostic accuracy of WCE and MRE and changes in Paris classification after each study. Methods Patients (10 to 17 years of age) requiring ileo-colonoscopy for suspected CD were invited to participate. Only patients with endoscopic/histologic evidence of CD underwent MRE and WCE. SB inflammation and extent were documented and comparative analyses performed. Results Of 38 initially recruited subjects, 20 completed the study. WCE and MRE were similarly sensitive in identifying active TI inflammation (16 [80%] versus 12 [60%]) and any SB inflammation (17 [85%] versus 16 [80%]). However, WCE detected more extensive SB disease than MRE with active inflammation throughout the SB in 15 [75%] versus 1 [5%] patient (P < 0.001). Moreover, WCE was more likely to detect proximal SB disease (jejunum and ileum) compared to MRE (85% versus 50%, P = 0.04). Overall, the Paris classification changed in 65% and 85% of patients following MRE and WCE, respectively. Conclusions WCE is as sensitive as MRE for identifying active TI inflammation, but appears more sensitive in identifying more proximal SB inflammation. In the absence of concern regarding stricturing or extra-luminal disease WCE can be considered for the evaluation of suspected SB CD.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear if starting intravenous proton pump inhibitors (IV PPI) before endoscopic therapy provides additional benefit over starting it afterward in patients with high-risk ulcer stigmata of peptic ulcer disease.METHODS: All patients who received IV pantoprazole bolus and infusion and underwent endoscopy in six Canadian hospitals over 20 months were reviewed. Only patients with high-risk ulcer stigmata (arterial bleeding, oozing, nonbleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) were included. Patients receiving IV PPI before endoscopy (before group) were compared with those who received it after endoscopy (after group) with respect to endoscopic findings and, secondarily, to patient demographics and clinical outcomes.RESULTS: The demographics and baseline characteristics of the before group (n=57) and the after group (n=109) were similar. The before group was more likely to have had IV PPI started outside of daytime hours, and median time to endoscopy in patients admitted with upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 24 h (interquartile range 9.5 to 35) in the before group and 11.3 h (interquartile range 3.7 to 17.2) in the after group ( P<0.0001). At the time of endoscopy, 33% of patients in the before group had actively bleeding lesions (Forrest 1a or 1b) compared with 54% in the after group (P=0.01), but there were no significant differences in rebleeding, surgical rates, intensive care unit admission or death between the groups.CONCLUSION: IV PPI infusions before endoscopy may lower the proportion of actively bleeding peptic ulcer lesions at endoscopy, but this finding does not appear to affect rates of rebleeding, surgery or death.