Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 28, 2019; 25(28): 3808-3822
Published online Jul 28, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i28.3808
Published online Jul 28, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i28.3808
Table 1 Summery of studies comparing imaging modalities to capsule endoscopy
Author /year / type | Country | Age group/ total No. | Patient population | Modalities compared to CE | Results |
Albert 2005[14] | Germany | Adults/52 | Established and suspected CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is superior to MRE ( +ve MRE 32/52 vs +ve WCE 25/27) |
Golder 2006 prospective[15] | Germany | Adults/16 | Established CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 9/15 vs +ve WCE 11/15), but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease |
Tillack 2008 prospective[16] | Germany | Adults/19 | Established CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE (+ve MRE 18/19 vs +ve WCE 18/19) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease |
Dionisio 2010 prospective | Europe, Canada, Israel and United States | All ages/ 428 | Established and suspected CD | CTE and SBFT and MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is superior to that of CTE and SBR in suspected CD but it is similar to MRE in suspected and established CD |
Metanalysis[17] | |||||
Crook 2009 prospective[18] | Switzerland | Adults/5 | Suspected CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE and complementary to each other |
Bocker 2010 prospective[19] | Germany | Adults/21 | Established and suspected CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 6/21 vs +ve WCE 9/21) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease |
Jensen 2011 prospective[20] | Denmark | Adults/93 | Established and suspected CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE( +ve MRE 24/80 vs +ve WCE 22/80) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease |
Wiarda 2011 prospective[21] | The Netherlands | Adults/38 | Established and suspected CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar that of MRE ( +ve MRE 16/38 vs +ve WCE 6/25) |
Kopylov 2015 prospective[22] | Israel | Adults/77 | Established CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 40/52 vs +ve WCE 42/52) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease |
Gonzalez Suarez 2017 retrospective[23] | Spain | Adults/47 | Established and suspected CD | MRE | WCE is superior to MRE in detection of small bowel lesions mainly proximal(+ve WCE 36/47 vs +ve MRE 21/47) |
Di Nardo 2010 prospective[24] | Italy | Peds/117 | Established and suspected CD | MRI and SICUS | reclassifying indeterminate colitis (IC) into CD (60%), detection of CD lesions in known CD (41%) and establishing new diagnosis in suspected CD (50%) |
Casciani 2011 prospective[13] | Italy | Peds/60 | suspected CD | MRE | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE ( +ve MRE 19/37 vs +ve WCE 10/60) |
Gralnek 2012 prospective[25] | Israel | Peds /18 | Established and suspected CD | No studies compared | |
Kovanlikaya 2013[11] retrospective | United States | Peds/23 | Established and suspected CD | MRE | Sensitivity of MRE 75% was similar to WCE 77.8% |
Aloi 2015 prospective[9] | Italy | Peds/25 | Established and suspected CD | MRE and SICUS | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE and SICUS ( +ve MRE 15/25 vs +ve SICUS 16/25 vs +ve WCE 16/25) but the WCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease |
Oliva 2016 prospective[12] | Italy | Peds/38 | Established CD | MRE and SICUS | Diagnostic yield of WCE is similar to that of MRE and SICUS ( +ve MRE 19/38 vs +ve WCE 19/38 vs +ve SICUS 21/38) but the CCE is superior in detecting proximal SB disease |
Table 2 Highlights baseline characteristics of patient’s demographics and clinical and endoscopic descriptions
All patients CD and IC n = 27 | CD n = 20 | |
Age at diagnosis year | 13.46 (2.40) | 13.48 (2.02) |
Male % | 74% | 75% |
Medications ratio (%) | ||
Biological alone or combination therapy | 12/27 (44.4%) | 11/20 (55%) |
Immune modulators with no biologic combination | 8/27 (30%) | 5/20 (25%) |
5 ASA +- steroids | 4/27 (15%) | 3/20 (15%) |
Steroids alone | 2/27 (7%) | 0/20 (0%) |
Antibiotic alone | 1/27 (4%) | 1/20 (5%) |
Phenotype% | ||
Inflammatory | 93% | 93% |
Stricturing | 7% | 7% |
Duration of disease year | 1.7 (2.32) | 2.1 (2.57) |
BMI percentile | 57 (32.9) | 58.18 (35.83) |
PCDAI | 10.2 (12.5) | 9.8 (11.6) |
SB transit time min | 233 (115.4) | 241(184.99) |
Days between MRE and WCE days | 4.19 (1.88) | 4 (1.90) |
Table 3 Magnetic resonance imaging and wireless capsule endoscopy positivity predictive of small bowel involvement in reference pediatric Crohn’s disease activity index > 10 and to histology
Reference standard is PCDAI > 10 indicate active CD | Reference standard is histology in ileum and duodenum | |||||||
CD only patients (n = 20) | Histology available samples only (n = 14) | |||||||
MRE | WCE | MRE | WCE | |||||
Value | 95%CI | Value | 95%CI | Value | 95%CI | Value | 95%CI | |
SEN | 100% | 54.07% to 100% | 83.3% | 35.88% to 99.58% | 62.50% | 24.49% to 91.48% | 50.00% | 15.70% to 84.30% |
SP | 57.14% | 28.86% to 82.34% | 78.6% | 49.20% to 95.34% | 50.00 % | 11.81% to 88.19% | 83.33 % | 35.88% to 99.58% |
PPV | 50% | 35.32% to 64.68% | 62.5% | 36.49% to 82.86% | 62.50% | 38.87% to 81.37% | 80.00% | 36.99% to 96.46% |
NNP | 100% | 91.7% | 64.29% to 98.53% | 50.00 % | 23.14% to 76.86% | 55.56 % | 36.43% to 73.17% | |
Accuracy | 70% | 45.72 to 88.11% | 80.0% | 56.34% to 94.27% | 57.14% | 28.86-82.34% | 64.29% | 35.14% to 87.24% |
Table 4 Fischer exact performance of each diagnostic test compared to other modality or pediatric Crohn’s disease activity index
Studies compared | All patients (n = 26) | CD only (n = 20) |
MRE and WCE | P = 0.428 | P = 0.373 |
MRE and PCDAI | P = 0.395 | P = 0.325 |
WCE and PCDAI | P =0.1892 | P = 0.0181 |
- Citation: Hijaz NM, Attard TM, Colombo JM, Mardis NJ, Friesen CA. Comparison of the use of wireless capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance enterography in children with inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(28): 3808-3822
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v25/i28/3808.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i28.3808