Provocative mesenteric angiography for gastrointestinal hemorrhage

The Role of Provocative Testing and Localization of the Video Capsule Endoscope in the Management of Small Intestinal Bleeding

The cause of small intestinal bleeding (SIB) may be elusive despite exhaustive testing. This article describes the current understanding of SIB regarding evaluation, with emphasis on the use of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) as a diagnostic procedure. This article addresses the utility of provocative testing in challenging cases and the performance of endoscopic procedures on active antithrombotic therapy. Specific recommendations accompany this article, including use of antithrombotic agents to stimulate bleeding when clearly indicated; performance of endoscopic procedures on active antithrombotic therapy; and progressive adoption of VCE and device-assisted enteroscopy in the inpatient setting.

Pharmacologic provocation combined with endoscopy in refractory cases of GI bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The source of GI bleeding may elude us despite exhaustive testing in some cases. Bleeding in these cases is often related to a vascular lesion that is discernible only when actively bleeding. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of endoscopy combined with the administration of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents to stimulate bleeding in order to define a source.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a database of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) procedures was completed to identify cases in which provocation with antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents was used as part of a GI bleeding evaluation. Procedures were divided into 3 groups based on the method of provocation: patients with a history of bleeding associated with an antiplatelet/anticoagulant (provocation-experienced); patients naïve to these medications (provocation-naïve); and cases of recurrent, overt GI bleeding in which a combination of clopidogrel and intravenous heparin was administered for provocation (Lousiana State University [LSU] protocol).

RESULTS

A review of 824 DAE procedures was completed to identify a total of 38 instances in which provocation was attempted in 27 patients. These cases were subdivided into 13 provocation-experienced procedures, 18 provocation-naïve procedures, and 7 LSU protocol procedures. The diagnostic yield of provocative testing per procedure was 53% in the provocation-experienced group, 27% in the provocation-naïve group, and 71% in the full protocol group. Provocative testing was revealing in 15 of 27 patients; angioectasias and Dieulafoy lesions were the most common pathologies. Provocative testing was not beneficial in 4 patients who were eventually diagnosed with bleeding caused by intestinal angioectasias (3) and an aorto-enteric fistula (1). There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Provocative testing combined with endoscopy can be justified as an option in the diagnostic algorithm of complex cases of GI bleeding when intermittent bleeding related to a vascular lesion, such as an angioectasia or Dieulafoy, is suspected. However, this novel technique should be considered only after standard management has failed to define a bleeding source, and bleeding continues to recur. This is the first reported case series of provocative testing combined with endoscopy.