3.8 Article

Small bowel capsule endoscopy in refractory celiac disease: a luxury or a necessity?

期刊

ANNALS OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 188-+

出版社

HELLENIC SOC GASTROENTEROLOGY
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2021.0586

关键词

Celiac disease; refractory celiac disease; small bowel capsule endoscopy; extent of disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that 49.1% of patients showed improvement in the affected small bowel mucosa extent after a second SBCE. Patients with RCD type II had more extensive disease compared to those with RCD type I, and patients with RCD type I tended to show greater improvement in percentage of abnormal small bowel involvement on repeat SBCE.
Background Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has an established role in the management of refractory celiac disease (RCD) for the detection of complications. The aim of this study was to define the role of SBCE in the management of patients with RCD. Method Patients with histologically confirmed RCD who underwent successive SBCEs were recruited retrospectively from 2 tertiary centers. Results Sixty patients with RCD were included. The percentage extent of the affected small bowel (SB) mucosa improved on repeating a second SBCE in 26 patients (49.1%) (median 27.6% vs. 18.1%, P=0.007). Patients with RCD type II had more extensive disease than those with RCD type I on first (41.4% vs. 19.2%, P=0.004) and second (29.8% vs. 12.0%, P=0.016) SBCE. Patients with RCD type I tended to show a greater improvement in percentage of abnormal SB involved on repeat SBCE compared to those with RCD type II (P=0.049). Nine patients (15%) had RCD-related complications. Five patients developed ulcerative jejunoileitis, 3 patients developed enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, and 1 patient developed cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Conclusions SBCE can be a useful tool for monitoring the effects of treatment, primarily following its initiation. Patients with RCD type II have more extensive SB disease, equating to a more aggressive disease pattern.

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

3.8
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