Pharmacologic provocation combined with endoscopy in refractory cases of GI bleeding

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Daniel L. Raines ; MD¹ ; ; Kellen T. Jex ; MD¹ ; Mark J. Nicaud ; MD¹ ; Douglas G. Adler ; MD²
• 关键词：DAE ; device-assisted enteroscopy ; DBE ; double-balloon enteroscopy ; FOBT ; fecal occult blood test ; GIB ; GI bleeding ; PRBC ; packed red blood cells ; PTT ; partial thromboplastin time ; SBE ; single-balloon enteroscopy ; VCE ; video capsule endoscopy
• 刊名：Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
• 出版年：2017
• 出版时间：January 2017
• 年：2017
• 卷：85
• 期：1
• 页码：112-120
• 全文大小：1185 K
• 卷排序：85

文摘

The source of GI bleeding may elude us despite exhaustive testing in some cases. Bleeding in these cases is often related to a vascular lesion that is discernible only when actively bleeding. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of endoscopy combined with the administration of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents to stimulate bleeding in order to define a source.MethodsA retrospective review of a database of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) procedures was completed to identify cases in which provocation with antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents was used as part of a GI bleeding evaluation. Procedures were divided into 3 groups based on the method of provocation: patients with a history of bleeding associated with an antiplatelet/anticoagulant (provocation-experienced); patients naïve to these medications (provocation-naïve); and cases of recurrent, overt GI bleeding in which a combination of clopidogrel and intravenous heparin was administered for provocation (Lousiana State University [LSU] protocol).ResultsA review of 824 DAE procedures was completed to identify a total of 38 instances in which provocation was attempted in 27 patients. These cases were subdivided into 13 provocation-experienced procedures, 18 provocation-naïve procedures, and 7 LSU protocol procedures. The diagnostic yield of provocative testing per procedure was 53% in the provocation-experienced group, 27% in the provocation-naïve group, and 71% in the full protocol group. Provocative testing was revealing in 15 of 27 patients; angioectasias and Dieulafoy lesions were the most common pathologies. Provocative testing was not beneficial in 4 patients who were eventually diagnosed with bleeding caused by intestinal angioectasias (3) and an aorto-enteric fistula (1). There were no adverse events.ConclusionsProvocative testing combined with endoscopy can be justified as an option in the diagnostic algorithm of complex cases of GI bleeding when intermittent bleeding related to a vascular lesion, such as an angioectasia or Dieulafoy, is suspected. However, this novel technique should be considered only after standard management has failed to define a bleeding source, and bleeding continues to recur. This is the first reported case series of provocative testing combined with endoscopy.