Background and study aims: Many lesions found during push enteroscopy to evaluate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding are within the reach of standard endoscopes. The aim of this study was to determine whether the rate ...Background and study aims: Many lesions found during push enteroscopy to evaluate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding are within the reach of standard endoscopes. The aim of this study was to determine whether the rate of proximal lesions varies in relation to the type of obscure bleeding that is present. Patients and methods: A retrospective review of consecutive push enteroscopies carried out for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding between July 1996 and July 2000 was conducted. The patients were categorized into three groups: those with recurrent obscure/overt gastrointestinal bleeding; those with persistent obscure/overt gastrointestinal bleeding; and those with obscure/ occult gastrointestinal bleeding. Results: A total of 63 patients (24 men, 39 women; mean age 69.8) were included. Push enteroscopy examinations were conducted for recurrent obscure/overt bleeding in 32 patients; for persistent obscure/overt bleeding in 12 patients; and for obscure/occult bleeding in 19 patients. The overall diagnostic yield of push enteroscopy was 47% (15 of 32) in the group with recurrent obscure/overt bleeding; 66% (eight of 12) in the group with persistent obscure/overt bleeding; and 63% (12 of 19) in the group with obscure/occult bleeding. However, when lesions within the reach of standard esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)were excluded, the yield of push enteroscopy was slightly higher in the group with recurrent obscure/overt bleeding (41% ) than in the groups with persistent obscure/overt bleeding (33% ) and obscure/ occult bleeding (26% ). There were fewer lesions within the reach of EGD in the group with recurrent obscure/overt bleeding than in the groups with persistent obscure/overt bleeding (6% vs. 33% ; P < 0.05) or obscure/occult bleeding (6% vs. 37% ; P < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients undergoing push enteroscopy for recurrent obscure/overt bleeding were significantly less likely to have lesions within the reach of EGD than patients with persistent obscure/overt bleeding or obscure/occult bleed-ing. Patients in the latter two groups would be able to undergo a repeat EGD examination before more intense evaluation with push enteroscopy or capsule endoscopy.展开更多
文摘Background and study aims: Many lesions found during push enteroscopy to evaluate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding are within the reach of standard endoscopes. The aim of this study was to determine whether the rate of proximal lesions varies in relation to the type of obscure bleeding that is present. Patients and methods: A retrospective review of consecutive push enteroscopies carried out for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding between July 1996 and July 2000 was conducted. The patients were categorized into three groups: those with recurrent obscure/overt gastrointestinal bleeding; those with persistent obscure/overt gastrointestinal bleeding; and those with obscure/ occult gastrointestinal bleeding. Results: A total of 63 patients (24 men, 39 women; mean age 69.8) were included. Push enteroscopy examinations were conducted for recurrent obscure/overt bleeding in 32 patients; for persistent obscure/overt bleeding in 12 patients; and for obscure/occult bleeding in 19 patients. The overall diagnostic yield of push enteroscopy was 47% (15 of 32) in the group with recurrent obscure/overt bleeding; 66% (eight of 12) in the group with persistent obscure/overt bleeding; and 63% (12 of 19) in the group with obscure/occult bleeding. However, when lesions within the reach of standard esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)were excluded, the yield of push enteroscopy was slightly higher in the group with recurrent obscure/overt bleeding (41% ) than in the groups with persistent obscure/overt bleeding (33% ) and obscure/ occult bleeding (26% ). There were fewer lesions within the reach of EGD in the group with recurrent obscure/overt bleeding than in the groups with persistent obscure/overt bleeding (6% vs. 33% ; P < 0.05) or obscure/occult bleeding (6% vs. 37% ; P < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients undergoing push enteroscopy for recurrent obscure/overt bleeding were significantly less likely to have lesions within the reach of EGD than patients with persistent obscure/overt bleeding or obscure/occult bleed-ing. Patients in the latter two groups would be able to undergo a repeat EGD examination before more intense evaluation with push enteroscopy or capsule endoscopy.
