4.4 Article

Duodenal Endoscopic Findings and Histopathologic Confirmation of Intestinal Lymphangiectasia in Dogs

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 1087-1092

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2012.00970.x

关键词

Inflammatory bowel disease; Protein-losing enteropathy; Predictive value; Sensitivity; Specificity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The diagnosis of intestinal lymphangiectasia (IL) has been associated with characteristic duodenal mucosal changes. However, the sensitivity and specificity of the endoscopic duodenal mucosal appearance for the diagnosis of IL are not reported. Hypothesis/Objectives To evaluate the utility of endoscopic images of the duodenum for diagnosis of IL. Endoscopic appearance of the duodenal mucosal might predict histopathologic diagnosis of IL with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity. Animals 51 dogs that underwent upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and endoscopic biopsies. Methods Retrospective review of images acquired during endoscopy. Dogs were included if adequate biopsies were obtained during upper GI endoscopy and digital images were saved during the procedure. Images were assessed for the presence and severity of IL. Using histopathology as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy for diagnosing IL were calculated. Results Intestinal lymphangiectasia (IL) was diagnosed in 25/51 dogs. Gross endoscopic appearance of the duodenal mucosa had a sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) of 68% (46%, 84%) and 42% (24%, 63%), respectively for diagnosis of IL. Endoscopic images in cases with lymphopenia, hypocholesterolemia, and hypoalbuminemia had a sensitivity of 80%. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Endoscopic duodenal mucosa appearance alone lacks specificity and has only a moderate sensitivity for diagnosis of IL. Evaluation of biomarkers associated with PLE improved the sensitivity; however, poor specificity for diagnosis of IL supports the need for histopathologic confirmation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据