64-section multiphase CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

The Role of Imaging for GI Bleeding: ACG and SAR Consensus Recommendations

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high health care utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including CT angiography, catheter angiography, CT enterography, MR enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist, which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided. © Radiological Society of North America and the American College of Gastroenterology, 2024. Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is being published concurrently in American Journal of Gastroenterology and Radiology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Citations from either journal can be used when citing this article. See also the editorial by Lockhart in this issue.

The Role of Imaging for Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Consensus Recommendations From the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high healthcare utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including computed tomography angiography, catheter angiography, computed tomography enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided.

History of malignancy and relevant symptoms may predict a positive computed tomography enterography in obscure gastrointestinal bleeds

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aimed to assess the clinical utility of computed tomography enterography (CTE) and identify factors associated with a diagnostic CTE for patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB).

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed at a Canadian tertiary care center from 2005 to 2015. A total of 138 patients underwent a CTE for OGIB. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to determine factors associated with a diagnostic CTE. A highly sensitive clinical rule was then developed to help identify OGIB patients for whom a CTE may be beneficial in their clinical work-up.

RESULTS

A possible bleeding source was identified in 30 (22%) cases. The presence of abdominal or constitutional symptoms as well as history of colorectal cancer was significantly associated with a positive CTE in univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.05). A positive CTE could be predicted based on the presence of abdominal or constitutional symptoms and history of colorectal cancer with 90% sensitivity (95% CI 74-98%) in our population.

CONCLUSION

CTE identified a possible source of OGIB in one in five cases. In patients with the presence of abdominal or constitutional symptoms and a personal history of colorectal cancer, CTE may contribute to their diagnostic work-up.

Small intestinal diverticulum with bleeding: Case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Small intestinal diverticulum with bleeding is an important reason for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGB) , in addition to tumor and vascular diseases. Small intestinal diverticulum with bleeding is difficult to detect by barium meal and angiographic methods and has been regarded as an important cause of obscure gastrointestinal tract bleeding in adolescents. Because of its complicated etiology and non-specific clinical manifestations, it is relatively difficult to detect small intestinal diverticulum with bleeding, especially in patients with a large amount of bleeding and hemodynamic instability.

PATIENT CONCERNS

This retrospective study collects clinical statistics of 19 patients admitted to our hospital from January 2010 to December 2016. Patients who had small intestinal diverticulum patients with bleeding were included in this study. Patients who were taking anticoagulants were excluded DIAGNOSES:: Small intestinal diverticulum patients with bleeding.

INTERVENTIONS

This retrospective study describes the clinical features of patients with small intestinal diverticulum whose main symptom was gastrointestinal bleeding and analyze the literature on this topic, with particular reference to the clinical characteristics, pathological features, and choice of examination methods.

LESSONS

Small intestinal diverticulum with bleeding is a common cause of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, but it is difficult to detect using normal examination methods. For patients with repeated gastrointestinal bleeding and no positive results found on gastroscopy and colonoscopy, endoscopy of the small intestine and CTE with contrast can be considered as a diagnostic modality.

A Prospective Blinded Comparison of Video Capsule Endoscopy Versus Computed Tomography Enterography in Potential Small Bowel Bleeding: Clinical Utility of Computed Tomography Enterography

GOALS

To compare the efficacy of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with computed tomography enterography (CTE) in potential small bowel (SB) bleeding, and to identify factors predictive of a high diagnostic yield for CTE.

BACKGROUND

In potential SB bleeding, CTE potentially detects some lesions missed by VCE, but few data have determined its clinical utility.

STUDY

Consecutive patients with potential SB bleeding were prospectively enrolled. All underwent VCE and CTE within a 1-week interval. Definitive diagnoses were made by surgery or enteroscopy, except when a strategy of VCE and conservative management was suitable. The diagnostic yields and sensitivities of each investigation were measured.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were recruited (41 with overt and 11 with occult bleeding); 36 received a definitive diagnosis. The diagnostic yields and sensitivities of VCE and CTE were 59.6% and 30.8% (P=0.004), and 72.2% and 44.4% (P=0.052), respectively. The combined sensitivity of VCE and CTE (88.9%) was significantly greater than VCE (P=0.03) or CTE (P<0.01) alone. VCE was better for ulcers, enteritis, and angiodysplasia, whereas CTE was better for tumors and Meckel diverticula. Age below 40 years and severe bleeding were associated with a higher diagnostic yield for CTE [odds ratios (95% confidence interval)=7.3 (1.04-51.4), P=0.046 and 6.1 (1.4-25.5), P=0.014, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Both investigations complement each other in the diagnosis of potential SB bleeding. CTE should be considered when VCE is negative. Age below 40 years and severe bleeding were independent predictors of a higher diagnostic yield for CTE.

Assessment of multi-modality evaluations of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM

To determine the frequency of bleeding source detection in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) who underwent double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) after pre-procedure imaging [multiphase computed tomography enterography (MPCTE), video capsule endoscopy (VCE), or both] and assess the impact of imaging on DBE diagnostic yield.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using a prospectively maintained database of all adult patients presenting with OGIB who underwent DBE from September 1st, 2002 to June 30th, 2013 at a single tertiary center.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety five patients (52% females; median age 68 years) underwent DBE for OGIB. AVCE and/or MPCTE performed within 1 year prior to DBE (in 441 patients) increased the diagnostic yield of DBE (67.1% with preceding imaging vs 59.5% without). Using DBE as the gold standard, VCE and MPCTE had a diagnostic yield of 72.7% and 32.5% respectively. There were no increased odds of finding a bleeding site at DBE compared to VCE (OR = 1.3, P = 0.150). There were increased odds of finding a bleeding site at DBE compared to MPCTE (OR = 5.9, P < 0.001). In inpatients with overt OGIB, diagnostic yield of DBE was not affected by preceding imaging.

CONCLUSION

DBE is a safe and well-tolerated procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of OGIB, with a diagnostic yield that may be increased after obtaining a preceding VCE or MPCTE. However, inpatients with active ongoing bleeding may benefit from proceeding directly to antegrade DBE.

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage: evaluation with MDCT

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common medical problem, with high associated morbidity and mortality. The clinical presentation of gastrointestinal hemorrhage varies with the location of the bleeding source, the intensity of the bleed, and the presence of comorbidities that affect the ability to tolerate blood loss. Conventional endoscopic examinations are usually the initial diagnostic tests in patients presenting with overt gastrointestinal hemorrhage. However, implementation of upper tract endoscopy and colonoscopy in the emergency setting can be challenging due to inconsistent availability of the service and difficulties in achieving adequate colonic cleansing in emergent situations. Thus, imaging tests are often relied upon to establish the location and the cause of bleeding, either for initial diagnosis or after non-revealing upper and lower tract endoscopies ("obscure" bleeding). This article discusses the imaging evaluation of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding and reviews the imaging appearance of the most common causes, taking into account the two most relevant clinical presentations: overt bleeding and obscure bleeding.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Bleeding

Bleeding from the small intestine remains a relatively uncommon event, accounting for ~5-10% of all patients presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Given advances in small bowel imaging with video capsule endoscopy (VCE), deep enteroscopy, and radiographic imaging, the cause of bleeding in the small bowel can now be identified in most patients. The term small bowel bleeding is therefore proposed as a replacement for the previous classification of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB). We recommend that the term OGIB should be reserved for patients in whom a source of bleeding cannot be identified anywhere in the GI tract. A source of small bowel bleeding should be considered in patients with GI bleeding after performance of a normal upper and lower endoscopic examination. Second-look examinations using upper endoscopy, push enteroscopy, and/or colonoscopy can be performed if indicated before small bowel evaluation. VCE should be considered a first-line procedure for small bowel investigation. Any method of deep enteroscopy can be used when endoscopic evaluation and therapy are required. VCE should be performed before deep enteroscopy if there is no contraindication. Computed tomographic enterography should be performed in patients with suspected obstruction before VCE or after negative VCE examinations. When there is acute overt hemorrhage in the unstable patient, angiography should be performed emergently. In patients with occult hemorrhage or stable patients with active overt bleeding, multiphasic computed tomography should be performed after VCE or CTE to identify the source of bleeding and to guide further management. If a source of bleeding is identified in the small bowel that is associated with significant ongoing anemia and/or active bleeding, the patient should be managed with endoscopic therapy. Conservative management is recommended for patients without a source found after small bowel investigation, whereas repeat diagnostic investigations are recommended for patients with initial negative small bowel evaluations and ongoing overt or occult bleeding.

Evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding: Update of current radiologic strategies

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common presentation with significant associated morbidity and mortality, the prevalence of which continues to rise with the ever-increasing aging population. Initial evaluation includes an esophagoduodeonscopy and/or colonoscopy, which may fail to reveal a source. Such cases prove to be a dilemma and require collaboration between gastroenterology and radiology in deciding the most appropriate approach. Recently, there have been a number of radiologic advances in the approach to GIB. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence-based update on the most current radiologic modalities available and an algorithmic approach to GIB.

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: diagnostic performance of 64-section multiphase CT enterography and CT angiography compared with capsule endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic capabilities between capsule endoscopy (CE) and multislice CT (MSCT) enterography in combination with MSCT angiography for assessment of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB).

METHODS

A total of 127 patients with OGIB were looked at in this study. 82 patients (aged 42.7 ± 19.1 years; 34 males) were assigned to receive MSCT diagnosis and 67 patients to (aged 53.9 ± 16.2 years; 28 males) receive CE diagnosis. Among them, 22 patients (aged 54.1 ± 19.1 years; 12 males) received both examinations. Oral isotonic mannitol and intramuscular injection of anisodamine were performed; non-ionic contrast (iopromide, 370 mg I ml(-1)) was intravenously administered; and then multiphase scanning was conducted at arterial, small intestinal and portal venous phases in MSCT. The results were compared with findings of reference standards including double balloon enteroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, intraoperative pathological examination and/or clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Administration of anisodamine markedly increased the satisfaction rate of bowel filling (94.67% vs 28.57%; p < 0.001) but not the diagnostic yield (p = 0.293) of MSCT. Compared with MSCT, CE showed an improved overall diagnostic yield (68.66% vs 47.56%; p = 0.010), which was also observed in overt bleeding patients (i.e. patients with continued passage of visible blood) (76.19% vs 51.02%; p = 0.013) and in patients aged younger than 40 years of age (85% vs 51.28%; p = 0.024). However, CE had similar positive rates to MSCT (p > 0.05). Among the 22 cases in whom both examinations were conducted, CE showed no significantly different diagnostic capability compared with MSCT (p = 0.4597).

CONCLUSION

Both CE and MSCT are safe and effective diagnostic methods for OGIB.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

CE is preferred for overt bleeding or patients aged younger than 40 years. The combined use of CE and MSCT is recommended in OGIB diagnosis.