Is there still a role for intraoperative enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding?

BACKGROUND: in 21st century, endoscopic study of the small intestine has undergone a revolution with capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. The difficulties and morbidity associated with intraoperative enteroscopy, the gold-standard in the 20th century, made this technique to be relegated to a second level. AIMS: evaluate the actual role and assess the diagnostic and therapeutic value of intraoperative enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. PATIENTS AND METHODS: we conducted a retrospective study of 19 patients (11 males; mean age: 66.5 ± 15.3 years) submitted to 21 IOE procedures for obscure GI bleeding. Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy had been performed in 10 and 5 patients, respectively. RESULTS: with intraoperative enteroscopy a small bowel bleeding lesion was identified in 79% of patients and a gastrointestinal bleeding lesion in 94%. Small bowel findings included: angiodysplasia (n = 6), ulcers (n = 4), small bowel Dieulafoy´s lesion (n = 2), bleeding from anastomotic vessels (n = 1), multiple cavernous hemangiomas (n = 1) and bleeding ectopic jejunal varices (n = 1). Agreement between capsule endoscopy and intraoperative enteroscopy was 70%. Endoscopic and/or surgical treatment was used in 77.8% of the patients with a positive finding on intraoperative enteroscopy, with a rebleeding rate of 21.4% in a mean 21-month follow-up period. Procedure-related mortality and postoperative complications have been 5 and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: intraoperative enteroscopy remains a valuable tool in selected patients with obscure GI bleeding, achieving a high diagnostic yield and allowing an endoscopic and/or surgical treatment in most of them. However, as an invasive procedure with relevant mortality and morbidity, a precise indication for its use is indispensable.

Urgent capsule endoscopy is useful in severe obscure-overt gastrointestinal bleeding

AIM: With capsule endoscopy (CE) it is possible to examine the entire small bowel. The present study assessed the diagnostic yield of CE in severe obscure-overt gastrointestinal bleeding (OOGIB). METHODS: During a 3-year period, 15 capsule examinations (4.5% of all CE in a single institution) were carried out in 15 patients (11 men; mean age 69.9 +/- 20.1 years) with severe ongoing bleeding, defined as persistent melena and/or hematochezia, with hemodynamic instability and the need for significant red blood cell transfusion. CE was carried out after non-diagnostic standard upper and lower endoscopy. The mean time from admission until CE was 4.1 +/- 4.4 days (0-15 days). RESULTS: CE revealed active bleeding in seven patients and signs of recent bleeding in four. Etiology of bleeding was correctly diagnosed in 11 patients (73.3%) (portal hypertension enteropathy, three patients; subepithelial ulcerated lesion, two patients; angiodysplasia, two patients; jejunal ulcer with visible vessel, one patient; multiple small bowel ulcers, one patient; jejunal tumor, one patient; jejunal mucosa irregularity with adherent clot, one patient). One patient (6.7%) had active bleeding but no visible lesion. As a consequence of the capsule findings, specific therapeutic measures were undertaken in 11 patients (73.3%) with five managed conservatively, four endoscopically and two surgically. Two patients experienced bleeding recurrence. One of them, with a probable small bowel tumor, refused any other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: CE is useful in patients with severe OOGIB by providing positive findings in the majority of patients, with subsequent impact on therapeutic procedures.

Heart Transplantation in Patients Older than 65 Years: Worthwhile or Wastage of Organs?

BACKGROUND: Patients older than 65 years have traditionally not been considered candidates for heart transplantation. However, recent studies have shown similar survival. We evaluated immediate and medium-term results in patients older than 65 years compared with younger patients. METHODS: From November 2003 to December 2013, 258 patients underwent transplantation. Children and patients with other organ transplantations were excluded from this study. Recipients were divided into two groups: 45 patients (18%) aged 65 years and older (Group A) and 203 patients (81%) younger than 65 years (Group B). RESULTS: Patients differed in age (67.0 ± 2.2 vs. 51.5 ± 9.7 years), but gender (male 77.8 vs. 77.3%; p = 0.949) was similar. Patients in Group A had more cardiovascular risk factors and ischemic cardiomyopathy (60 vs. 33.5%; p < 0.001). Donors to Group A were older (38.5 ± 11.3 vs. 34.0 ± 11.0 years; p = 0.014). Hospital mortality was 0 vs. 5.9% (p = 0.095) and 1- and 5-year survival were 88.8 ± 4.7 versus 86.8 ± 2.4% and 81.5 ± 5.9 versus 77.2 ± 3.2%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 2.7 versus 4.5 ± 3.1 years. Incidence of cellular/humoral rejection was similar, but incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy was higher (15.6 vs. 7.4%; p = 0.081). Incidence of diabetes de novo was similar (p = 0.632), but older patients had more serious infections in the 1st year (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Heart transplantation in selected older patients can be performed with survival similar to younger patients, hence should not be restricted arbitrarily. Incidence of infections, graft vascular disease, and malignancies can be reduced with a more personalized approach to immunosuppression. Allocation of donors to these patients does not appear to reduce the possibility of transplanting younger patients.