title: A Prospective Blinded Comparison of Video Capsule Endoscopy Versus Computed Tomography Enterography in Potential Small Bowel Bleeding: Clinical Utility of Computed Tomography Enterography.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the efficacy of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with computed tomography enterography (CTE) in potential small bowel (SB) bleeding, and to identify factors predictive of a high diagnostic yield for CTE.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  In potential SB bleeding, CTE potentially detects some lesions missed by VCE, but few data have determined its clinical utility.
  
  
  METHODS
  Consecutive patients with potential SB bleeding were prospectively enrolled. All underwent VCE and CTE within a 1-week interval. Definitive diagnoses were made by surgery or enteroscopy, except when a strategy of VCE and conservative management was suitable. The diagnostic yields and sensitivities of each investigation were measured.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Fifty-two patients were recruited (41 with overt and 11 with occult bleeding); 36 received a definitive diagnosis. The diagnostic yields and sensitivities of VCE and CTE were 59.6% and 30.8% (P=0.004), and 72.2% and 44.4% (P=0.052), respectively. The combined sensitivity of VCE and CTE (88.9%) was significantly greater than VCE (P=0.03) or CTE (P<0.01) alone. VCE was better for ulcers, enteritis, and angiodysplasia, whereas CTE was better for tumors and Meckel diverticula. Age below 40 years and severe bleeding were associated with a higher diagnostic yield for CTE [odds ratios (95% confidence interval)=7.3 (1.04-51.4), P=0.046 and 6.1 (1.4-25.5), P=0.014, respectively].
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both investigations complement each other in the diagnosis of potential SB bleeding. CTE should be considered when VCE is negative. Age below 40 years and severe bleeding were independent predictors of a higher diagnostic yield for CTE.
authors.affiliation: *Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology †Department of Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
authors.forename: Julajak
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Limsrivilai
authors.forename: Sitthipong
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Srisajjakul
authors.forename: Supot
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Pongprasobchai
authors.forename: Somchai
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Leelakusolvong
authors.forename: Tawesak
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Tanwandee
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D053704:Capsule Endoscopy; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006471:Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000209:etiology; D006801:Humans; D007421:Intestine, Small / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D061330:Multidetector Computed Tomography; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012008:Recurrence; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D055815:Young Adult