233 Capsule Endoscopy (CE) in Persons Presenting with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage (UGIH) - A Prospective Cohort Study
Ian M. Gralnek,Jessica Ching,Itay Maza,Justin C. Wu,Shlomi C. Israelit,Amir Klein,Francis K.L. Chan,Hagit Ephrath,Timothy H. Rainer,Rami Eliakim,Ravit Peled,Joseph J. Sung
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.032
IF: 10.396
2011-01-01
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Abstract:Acute UGIH is the most common GI emergency with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. EGD is the accepted community standard for diagnosis and management of acute UGIH. CE may have a role in the initial evaluation of acute UGIH patients, yet there is only a single published study evaluating the feasibility of CE in this patient population. We performed a two-center (Rambam Medical Center, Israel & Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong) prospective feasibility study to evaluate CE in persons presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute UGIH. The primary endpoint was to compare nasogastric (NG) aspiration and CE in determining presence of gross blood in the UGI tract. Secondary endpoints included comparing EGD and CE in discriminating variceal vs non-variceal bleeding source, identifying peptic disease/inflammatory lesions, and evaluating safety of CE in this clinical setting. Persons (≥ 18 years) presenting to the ED with acute, overt UGIH defined as hematemesis (fresh blood or coffee grounds) and/or melena were included. Intravenous erythromycin was administered, followed by ingestion of an extended viewing time PillCam® ESO-2 capsule. Once CE was confirmed to be in the duodenum by the REAL-time viewer, NG tube aspiration was performed, followed by standard EGD. All tests were done in succession within 24 hours of patient presentation. CE readers (IMG, JYS) were blinded to other test results. Forty-nine subjects were enrolled, 8 subjects were intolerant of the NG & 3 subjects failed to ingest the capsule, thus n=41 are analyzed for the primary endpoint & n=46 for secondary endpoints. Overall, there were 32M & 17F, mean age 58.3 ± 19 years. Reason for referral: melena alone n=32 (65.3%), hematemesis alone n=10 (20.4%), melena + hematemesis n=7 (14.3%). CE detected blood in the UGI tract significantly more often than NG aspiration, 15/18 (83.3%) vs 6/18 (33.3%), p=0.035. There was no significant difference between CE and EGD in identifying peptic disease/inflammatory lesions, 27/40 (67.5%) vs 35/40 (87.5%), p=0.10 respectively. Four subjects had non-bleeding varices, 3 (75%) were detected by both CE and EGD, one by EGD alone. CE reached the duodenum in 45/46 (98%) cases. One subject 1/46 (2.2%) had self-limited shortness of breath and 1/46 (2.2%) had coughing at CE ingestion. In an ED setting, CE appears feasible and safe in persons presenting with acute UGIH. CE identifies gross blood in the UGI tract (including the duodenum) significantly more often than NG aspirate and equally identifies peptic disease / inflammatory lesions as compared with EGD. CE may be able to facilitate patient triage and earlier endoscopic intervention. These feasibility data are promising, yet further prospective comparative studies are warranted.