Literature review
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 18

Literature Review PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 61 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Literature Review. Peter R. McNally, DO, FACP, FACG University of Colorado School of Medicine, Center for Human Simulation Aurora, Colorado 80045. Video Capsule Enteroscopy in the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease: A multicenter Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102;1624-163.

Download Presentation

Literature Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Literature review

Literature Review

Peter R. McNally, DO, FACP, FACG

University of Colorado School of Medicine,

Center for Human Simulation

Aurora, Colorado 80045


Literature review

Video Capsule Enteroscopy in the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease: A multicenter Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102;1624-163.

Rondonotti E, Spada C, Cave D, Pennazio M, Riccioni M, De Vitis I, Schneider D, Sprujevnik T, Villa F, Langeleir J, Arrigoni A, Costamagna G, de Franchis R.


Introduction

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Introduction

  • Celiac Disease (CD) is one of the most common genetic disorders seen in North America. Estimates of prevalence range from 1 in 100-120 persons.1

  • The clinical manifestations of CD are many, when CD is full blow is it manifest by diarrhea weight loss, anemia, & malabsorption.2

1. Statement NIH Consensus Development Conference on Celiac Disease http://www.consensus.nih.gov/cons/118/118cdc_intro.htm

2. AGA Institute medical position statement on the diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Gastroenterology. 2006;131;1977-1980.


Literature review

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

  • Serologic tests have become the preferred method of screening patients for CD and include: AGA, AmEA, & TTG.3

  • “Gold Standard” for the diagnosis of Celiac Disease is identification of Marsh Criteria by small bowel biopsy.2

  • Video Capsule Endoscopy (VCE) is a new technology opening a window for “non-invasive” examination of the small intestine. Common VCE findings of Celiac Disease include: scalloping, nodular mucosa, reduced mucosal folds, &/or erosions.5

3. Rostom A, et al. Gastroenterol. 2005;128:S38-S46

5. Korman LY, et al. Endoscopy 2005;37:951-9.


Literature review

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Aim

Test the performance of VCE in patients with both signs/symptoms of and (+) CD serology compared to conventional endoscopy and duodenal biopsy.

Determine the longitudinal extent of mucosal involvement of CD beyond the duodenum and its correlation with clinical & serologic markers.


Literature review

Signs & Symptoms

Chronic diarrhea

Weight Loss

Dermatitis Herpetiformis

History of Multiple spontaneous abortions

Iron Deficiency

Osteoporosis

Autoimmune Thyroid Disease

Diabetes Mellitus Type I

Serologic Tests

IgA-AGA67% (+)

IgG-AGA 67% (+)

IgA-AmEA67% (+)

IgA-TTG77% (+)

AGA: Antigliadin Antibody

AmEA: Endomysial Antibody

TTG: TissueTransglutaminase

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Study Design:Design: Prospective multi-center enrollment of 43 consecutive subjects with clinical signs and symptoms and at least one positive serologic test (+) for CD.Center Enrollment: 10 Milan, 10 Truin, 15 Rome, 8 Boston

Inclusion Criteria: >1 Sign and Symptom (+) >1 serologic Test


Literature review

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Exclusion Criteria:

History Small Bowel Obstruction

History Dysphagia

Cardiac Pacemaker

Electrical Implants

Prior gastric/small bowel surgery

IgA deficiency

Chronic NSAID use or occasional use previous month

Study Design:Design: Prospective multi-center enrollment of 43 consecutive subjects with clinical signs and symptoms for and at least one positive serologic test (+) for CD. Center Enrollment: 10 Milan, 10 Truin, 15 Rome, 8 Boston


Study design diagnostic procedures

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Study Design: Diagnostic Procedures

  • VCE (Given Imaging, Yoqneam, Isreal).

    • Pill cam swallowed after 12 hr overnight fast

    • Image analysis using Given Imaging software

    • Small bowel transit time divided in thirds

      • Prox 1/3rd

      • Mid 1/3rd

      • Distal 1/3rd

  • EGD’s > 4 biopsies of 2nd portion duodenum: Marsh Criteria on histologic examination


Study design diagnostic criteria

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Study Design: Diagnostic Criteria

Biopsy: Marsh Histologic Criteria for CD

  • Type 0 : normal histology

  • Type I :  Intraepithelial lymphocytes (IEL)

  • Type II : crypt hyperplasia + normal villi

  • Type III : villous atrophy

    Video Capsule Endoscopy Criteria for CD

  • Scalloping

  • Nodular mucosa

  • Reduced mucosal folds

  • Erosions


Vce showing scalloping and nodular mucosa

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

VCE showing scalloping and nodular mucosa


Vce showing ulceration a and decreased mucosal folds b

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

VCE showing ulceration (a) and decreased mucosal folds (b)

a

b


Demographics

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Demographics


Results vce changes observed

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Results: VCE Changes observed

VCE Mucosal ChangesN (%)

Scalloping25 (89%)

Nodularity – mosaic pattern12 (43%)

Reduction of mucosal folds10 (35%)

Erosions – ulcers 2 (7%)


Histologic grading vs vce findings

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Histologic Grading vs. VCE findings


Serology vce vs histology

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Serology & VCE vs. Histology


Result summary

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Result Summary

  • One of 43 pts with dermatitis herpetiformis & (+) AmEM was Marsh 0 on biopsy, but positive for patchy mucosal changes on VCE.

  • Four pts with (+) CD serology and Marsh Criteria [(Gr I (1) & Gr III (3)] were negative on VCE (12.5%).

  • No patients had distal CD changes without coincident proximal VCE mucosal changes.

  • VCE mucosal changes in distal 1/3rd were only seen with advanced Marsh III changes.


Conclusion

Rondonotti E, et al. Am J Gastro. 2007;1902:1642-31.

Conclusion

  • This study showed that the miss rate for VCE to detect CD among symptomatic, serology and biopsy proven subjects is 4/32 (12%).

  • VCE identified CD mucosal changes in one subject with Dermatitis Herpetiformis and (+) EMA with biopsy negative CD. Suggesting endoscopic sampling error in 1/43 (2%).

  • Mucosal changes of CD seen with VCE, always start proximally and tend to predict more advanced Marsh Criteria II & III when the 2nd and 3rd portions of the small bowel exhibit VCE mucosal changes.


Reviewer comments

Reviewer Comments

  • Endoscopy and mucosal biopsy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of CD. However, when biopsies are (-) and clinical suspicion is still high, i.e., (+) EMA & TTG, then VCE may be helpful in identifying subtle, patchy mucosal abnormalities that may support directed mucosal biopsies.

  • Although VCE changes are common among CD pts (87.5%), the finding in this study that 4 of 32 (12%) CD pts with (+) serologies and Marsh histology have ‘normal’ VCE should emphasize the need for CAUTION as the negative predictive value is 71.4%.


  • Login