Comparison of Capsule Endoscopy and Magnetic Resonance Enterography for the Assessment of Small Bowel Lesions in Crohn's Disease. Issue 4 (1st March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: González-Suárez, Begoña; Rodriguez, Sonia; Ricart, Elena; Ordás, Ingrid; Rimola, Jordi; Díaz-González, Álvaro; Romero, Cristina; de Miguel, Cristina Rodríguez; Jáuregui, Arantxa; Araujo, Isis K; Ramirez, Anna; Gallego, Marta; Fernández-Esparrach, Gloria; Ginés, Ángels; Sendino, Oriol; Llach, Josep; Panés, Julian
• Is Part Of: Inflammatory bowel diseases. Volume 24:Issue 4(2018)
• Page Start: 775
• Page End: 780
• Publication Date: 2018-03-01
• Subjects: small bowel capsule endoscopy -- colon capsule endoscopy -- magnetic resonance enterography; Inflammatory bowel diseases -- Periodicals; Colitis, Ulcerative -- Periodicals; Crohn Disease -- Periodicals; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.344
• DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izx107
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-0998

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Aims: Diagnostic yield of Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy (SBCE) for the assessment of small bowel (SB) lesions is higher than radiologic imaging techniques. However, magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) data are scarce and inconclusive. Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) is a new capsule modality. The primary aim of our study was to compare MRE and capsule endoscopy (CE) for the assessment of Crohn's disease (CD). The secondary objectives were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of both CE modalities and changes in Montreal classification after each examination. Methods: We included 47 patients with established (n = 32) or suspected CD (n = 15). MRE was performed first to rule out strictures. In patients with a suspected stricture by MRE, an Agile Patency Capsule was performed. SB disease activity was measured by MaRIA score (MRE) and Lewis Index (CE). Results: SB lesions were found in 36 of47 patients with CE and in 21 of47 patients with MRE (76.6% vs 44.7%, P = 0.001). Jejunal inflammation was detected by CE in 31.9% of patients and by MRE in 6.4% of patients (15/47 vs 3/47; P = 0.03); lesions in ileum were detected in 57.4% of patients by CE, and in 21.3% of patients by MRE (27/ 47 vs 10/ 47; P = 0.04). Finally, in terminal ileum, CE showed lesions in 68.1% (32/47) of patients, whereas MRE detected lesions in 38.3% (18/ 47 patients), ( P = 0.001). The original Montreal classification was changed in 53.1% of patients (25/ 47) based on CE findings and in 12.7% of patients (6/47) based on MRE findings ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: In our cohort CE was significantly superior to MRE for detecting SB lesions, mainly superficial and proximal lesions. CE is useful for a appropriate patients' classification according to Montreal classification.