Capsule enteroscopy vs. other diagnostic procedures in diagnosing obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

Capsule enteroscopy is considered the gold standard for evaluating patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. The costs of capsule enteroscopy examination, however, make it uncertain whether the clinically relevant diagnostic gain is also associated with cost savings.

AIM

To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of capsule enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

Retrospective study was carried out in nine Italian gastroenterology units from 2003 to 2005. Data on 369 consecutive patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding were collected. The diagnostic yield of capsule enteroscopy vs. other imaging procedures was evaluated as a measure of efficacy. The values of Diagnosis Related Group 175 (euro 1884.00 for obscure-occult bleeding and euro 2141.00 for obscure-overt bleeding) were calculated as measures of economic outcomes in the cost analysis.

RESULTS

Obscure and occult gastrointestinal bleeding was recorded in 177 patients (48%) with a mean duration of anemia history of 17.6+/-20.7 months. Among patients, 60.9% had had at least one hospital admission, 21.2% at least two, and 1.2% of obscure bleeders up to nine admissions. Overall, 58.4% of patients had positive findings with capsule enteroscopy compared with 28.0% with other imaging procedures (P<0.001). The mean cost of a positive diagnosis with capsule enteroscopy was euro 2090.76 and that of other procedures was euro 3828.83 with a mean cost saving of euro 1738.07 (P<0.001) for one positive diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Capsule enteroscopy is a cost-saving approach in the evaluation of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

Dual therapy versus monotherapy in the endoscopic treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers: a meta-analysis of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is no definite recommendation on the use of dual endoscopic therapy in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether the use of two endoscopic hemostatic procedures improved patient outcomes compared with monotherapy.

METHODS

A search for randomized trials comparing dual therapy (i.e., epinephrine injection plus other injection or thermal or mechanical method) versus monotherapy (injection, thermal, or mechanical alone) was performed between 1990 and 2006. Heterogeneity between studies was tested with chi(2) and explained by metaregression analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (2,472 patients) met inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, dual endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding (OR [odds ratio] 0.59 [0.44-0.80], P= 0.0001) and the risk of emergency surgery (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89], P= 0.03) and showed a trend toward a reduction in the risk of death (OR 0.68 [0.46-1.02], P= 0.06). Subcategory analysis showed that dual therapy was significantly superior to injection therapy alone for all the outcomes considered, but failed to demonstrate that any combination of treatments is better than either mechanical therapy alone (OR 1.04 [0.45-2.45] for rebleeding, 0.49 [0.50-4.87] for surgery, and 1.28 [0.34-4.86] for death) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.67 [0.40-1.20] for rebleeding, 0.89 [0.45-1.76] for surgery, and 0.51 [0.24-1.10] for death).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual endoscopic therapy proved significantly superior to epinephrine injection alone, but had no advantage over thermal or mechanical monotherapy in improving the outcome of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.