Intest Res.  2014 Oct;12(4):313-319. 10.5217/ir.2014.12.4.313.

Double-Balloon Enteroscopy in Elderly Patients: Is It Safe and Useful?

• Choi DH
• Jeon SR
• Kim JO
• Kim HG
• Lee TH
• Lee WC
• Kang BS
• Cho JH
• Jung Y
• Kim WJ
• Ko BM
• Cho JY
• Lee JS
• Lee MS

• KMID: 2174409
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2014.12.4.313

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS
Providers may be hesitant to perform double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in the elderly because the increased number of co-morbidities in this population poses a greater risk of complications resulting from sedation. There are limited data on the use of DBE in the elderly. Here, we assessed the safety and efficacy of DBE in the elderly compared to those in younger patients.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 158 patients who underwent 218 DBEs. Patients were divided into an elderly group (age > or =65 years; mean 71.4+/-5.4; n=34; 41 DBEs) and a younger group (age <65 years; mean 39.5+/-13.5; n=124; 177 DBEs).
RESULTS
In both groups, the most common indication for DBE was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Mucosal lesions (33.3% vs. 60.9%; P=0.002) were the most common finding in both groups, followed by tumors (30.8% vs. 14.1%; P=0.036). The elderly were more likely to receive interventional therapy (51.3% vs. 23.5%; P=0.001). The diagnostic yield of DBE was slightly higher in the elderly group (92.3% vs. 86.5%; P=0.422), but was not statistically significant. The therapeutic success rate of DBE was 100% in the elderly group compared to 87.5% in the younger group (P=0.536). The overall DBE complication rate was 1.8% overall, and this rate did not differ significantly between the groups (2.6% vs. 1.7%; P=0.548).
CONCLUSIONS
DBE is safe and effective in the elderly, and has a high diagnostic yield and high therapeutic success rate.

Keyword

Double-balloon enteroscopy; Elderly; Safety; Efficacy

MeSH Terms

Aged*
Double-Balloon Enteroscopy*
Hemorrhage
Humans
Medical Records
Retrospective Studies

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Final diagnoses of study patients. In both groups, mucosal lesions were the most common finding, followed by tumorous lesions and vascular lesions. *Others represent Meckel's diverticulum and mucosal injury due to foreign body.

Reference

1. Yamamoto H, Sekine Y, Sato Y, et al. Total enteroscopy with a nonsurgical steerable double-balloon method. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 53:216–220. PMID: 11174299.

2. Liao Z, Gao R, Xu C, Li ZS. Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71:280–286. PMID: 20152309.

3. Xin L, Liao Z, Jiang YP, Li ZS. Indications, detectability, positive findings, total enteroscopy, and complications of diagnostic double-balloon endoscopy: a systematic review of data over the first decade of use. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74:563–570. PMID: 21620401.

4. Raju GS, Gerson L, Das A, Lewis B. American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute technical review on obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterology. 2007; 133:1697–1717. PMID: 17983812.

5. Jeon SR, Kim JO, Kim HG, et al. Changes over time in indications, diagnostic yield, and clinical effects of double-balloon enteroscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 10:1152–1156. PMID: 22801056.

6. Heine GD, Hadithi M, Groenen MJ, Kuipers EJ, Jacobs MA, Mulder CJ. Double-balloon enteroscopy: indications, diagnostic yield, and complications in a series of 275 patients with suspected small-bowel disease. Endoscopy. 2006; 38:42–48. PMID: 16429354.

7. Choi H, Choi KY, Eun CS, et al. Korean experience with double balloon endoscopy: Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases multi-center study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 66:S22–S25. PMID: 17709024.

8. Zhong J, Ma T, Zhang C, et al. A retrospective study of the application on double-balloon enteroscopy in 378 patients with suspected small-bowel diseases. Endoscopy. 2007; 39:208–215. PMID: 17385105.

9. Byeon JS, Mann NK, Jamil LH, Lo SK. Double balloon enteroscopy can be safely done in elderly patients with significant co-morbidities. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 27:1831–1836. PMID: 23034065.

10. Hegde SR, Iffrig K, Li T, et al. Double-balloon enteroscopy in the elderly: safety, findings, and diagnostic and therapeutic success. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71:983–989. PMID: 20189563.

11. May A, Farber M, Aschmoneit I, et al. Prospective multicenter trial comparing push-and-pull enteroscopy with the single- and double-balloon techniques in patients with small-bowel disorders. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010; 105:575–581. PMID: 20051942.

12. Messer I, May A, Manner H, Ell C. Prospective, randomized, single-center trial comparing double-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel disorders. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013; 77:241–249. PMID: 23043851.

13. He Q, Zhang Q, Li JD, et al. Double balloon enteroscopy in the old: experience from China. World J Gastroenterol. 2012; 18:2859–2866. PMID: 22719197.

14. Seinela L, Ahvenainen J, Ronneikko J, Haavisto M. Reasons for and outcome of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients aged 85 years or more: retrospective study. BMJ. 1998; 317:575–580. PMID: 9721114.

15. Clarke GA, Jacobson BC, Hammett RJ, Carr-Locke DL. The indications, utilization and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy in an extremely elderly patient cohort. Endoscopy. 2001; 33:580–584. PMID: 11473328.

16. Katsinelos P, Paroutoglou G, Kountouras J, Zavos C, Beltsis A, Tzovaras G. Efficacy and safety of therapeutic ERCP in patients 90 years of age and older. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63:417–423. PMID: 16500389.

17. Asahq.org [homepage on the Internet]. IL: American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.;c1995-2014. cited 2011 Apr 5. Available from: http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm.

18. Kostat.go.kr [homepage on the Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea, Inc.;c1996. cited 2013 Sep 30. Available from: http://sgis.kostat.go.kr/publicsmodel/#.

19. Seven G, Kozarek RA, Ross A, et al. Double balloon enteroscopy in a North American setting: a large single center 5-year experience. Intest Res. 2013; 11:34–40.

20. Nakamura M, Niwa Y, Ohmiya N, et al. Preliminary comparison of capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding. Endoscopy. 2006; 38:59–66. PMID: 16429356.

21. Tanaka S, Mitsui K, Yamada Y, et al. Diagnostic yield of double-balloon endoscopy in patients with obscure GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 68:683–691. PMID: 18561920.

22. Sun B, Rajan E, Cheng S, et al. Diagnostic yield and therapeutic impact of double-balloon enteroscopy in a large cohort of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101:2011–2015. PMID: 16848814.

23. Teshima CW, Kuipers EJ, van Zanten SV, Mensink PB. Double balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 26:796–801. PMID: 21155884.

24. Moschler O, May A, Muller MK, Ell C. German DBE Study Group. Complications in and performance of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE): results from a large prospective DBE database in Germany. Endoscopy. 2011; 43:484–489. PMID: 21370220.

25. Qureshi WA, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG, et al. ASGE guideline: modifications in endoscopic practice for the elderly. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63:566–569. PMID: 16564853.