Double balloon enteroscopy versus single balloon enteroscopy: A comparative study.

Device assisted enteroscopy (DAE) like the double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) are postulated to ease small bowel examination and performance of therapy. However, studies comparing the effectiveness of these 2 modalities have yielded varying results. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of SBE and DBE. We retrospectively reviewed records of patients who underwent DBE (n = 82) or SBE (n = 45) for small bowel exam in our unit from January 2014 to January 2022. Our primary outcomes were to compare the technical success and diagnostic success rates between DBE and SBE. Our secondary outcomes were to compare the therapeutic success, and complication rates. The main indications were suspected GI bleeding (DBE 41.5% vs SBE 48.9%), iron deficiency anemia (DBE 9.8% vs SBE 4.4%) and small bowel lesions (DBE 28.0% vs SBE 44.4%) detected either from prior capsule endoscopy or radiological imaging. Majority of the enteroscopy exam was by antegrade approach (DBE 67.1% vs SBE 77.8%). We found no significant difference in the technical success (DBE 95.1% vs SBE 97.8%, P = .46), diagnostic success (DBE 69.5% vs SBE 77.8%, P = .36) and the therapeutic success rate (DBE 63.2% vs SBE 54.3%, P = .09) between the groups. Complications occurred in 1 case from each group (mucosal tear). None of the complications were major. In patients who underwent enteroscopy, the diagnostic and therapeutic performance of SBE is similar to DBE. Both procedures were safe with low complication rates.

Use of over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) improves outcomes of high-risk adverse outcome (HR-AO) non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) with high-risk adverse outcome (HR-AO) features has a high risk of failure. We studied the safety and efficacy of over-the-scope clips (OTSC) to treat these lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients who were treated using OTSC for NVUGIB from January 2015 to October 2017. We studied rebleeding and mortality rates and used the Rockall data and our institution's prior data for comparison. We used descriptive and chi-square statistics. RESULTS: We studied 18 patients with 19 bleeding lesions: 9 (47 %) duodenal ulcers, 4 (21 %) Dieulafoy's lesion, 3 (16 %) gastric ulcer, and 3 (16 %) bleeding after gastric biopsy, gastric polypectomy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of peri-gastric mass. We applied OTSC as the first-line treatment in 10 (53 %) and as the second-line treatment in 9 (47 %) bleeding lesions. Continued bleeding after OTSC occurred in six patients, but we treated it successfully and achieved complete hemostasis in all patients. We found OTSC use significantly decreased (0 % vs. 53 %, P  < 0.01) and reduced (0 % vs. 24 %, P  = 0.08) the rebleeding rate in our high-risk (RS ≥ 8) and intermediate-risk (RS = 4 - 7) Rockall score patients as compared to the rates reported by the Rockall study, respectively. When compared to our institution's prior study, we found a decrease in the rebleeding rate with OTSC (0 % vs. 21 %, P  = 0.06) in our intermediate-to-high risk Rockall score patients (RS ≥ 4). There was no difference in mortality rates as compared to both control studies. CONCLUSION: Use of OTSC is safe, efficacious and appears superior to standard treatment for HR-AO NVUGIB. OTSC should be considered as first-line treatment for HR-AO bleeding.