4.5 Article

Endoscopic Evaluation of Crohn's Disease Activity: Comparison of the CDEIS and the SES-CD

Journal

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages 2131-2136

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1002/ibd.21300

Keywords

CDEIS; Crohn's disease; endoscopic activity; endoscopic monitoring; SES-CD

Funding

  1. Special governmental subsidy for health sciences research
  2. University of Helsinki
  3. Orion-Pharmos Research Foundation
  4. Mary and George C. Ehrnrooth Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Few data exist of prospective parallel scoring of the validated endoscopic scores in Crohn's disease (CD), Crohn's Disease Index of Severity (CDEIS), and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD). Methods: Both the CDEIS and the SES-D were scored immediately after each endoscopy of 86 CD patients referred for ileocolonoscopy in a cross-sectional study. Furthermore, after CD therapy, 32 CD patients underwent a follow-up endoscopy with scoring of the CDEIS and SES-CD. Endoscopic scorings were graded as inactive, mild, moderate, or severe. Clinical activity was assessed with the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) was measured. Results: The SES-CD correlated with the CDEIS significantly (Spearman's r = 0.938, P < 0.0001). Weaker correlations were detected between the SES-CD and the CDAI (r = 0.473) or CRP (r = 0.525, both P < 0.0001). Grading of SES-CD from inactive to severe correlated significantly with grading of the CDEIS (r = 0.859, P < 0.0001). Changes between baseline and follow-up endoscopy scores correlated significantly (r = 0.828 between delta-CDEIS and delta-SES-CD, P < 0.001), but failed to correlate with delta-CDAI or delta-CRP (all P > 0.05). Conclusions: Both validated endoscopic scores, the CDEIS and SES-CD, and their changes during CD therapy demonstrated a close correlation. For scoring of endoscopic activity in clinical routine, the SES-CD could replace the CDEIS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available