Complications of single-balloon enteroscopy: A prospective evaluation of 166 procedures
Background and study aim: Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) has proven to be a relatively safe method for small-bowel evaluation, with a complication rate of 1%. The main concern after diagnostic DBE is acute pancreatitis. Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) has emerged as a viable alternative to DBE. Until now, no incidence of pancreatitis has been reported for SBE. The aims were to evaluate complication rate and occurrence of hyperamylasemia and to identify the risk factors for hyperamylasemia after SBE. Patients and methods: Prospectively, consecutive patients undergoing peroral (proximal) or combined approach SBE were included. Complications were assessed at 1 and 30 days afterwards. Serum amylase and C-reactive protein (CRP) were assessed immediately before and 23 hours after SBE. Results: 166 SBE procedures were performed in 105 patients (53-male; mean age 51 years, range 987). The indications for SBE were: anemia (n=55), Crohns disease (n=31) and abdominal complaints suspicious for inflammatory bowel disease (n=5), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (n=1) and other (n=13). Therapeutic interventions were performed during 21 procedures (13%). One perforation (1/21 therapeutic interventions, 4.8%) occurred after dilation of a benign stricture. While 13 patients (16%) had post-SBE hyperamylasemia, none had complaints suggesting acute pancreatitis. Factors such as sex, indication, procedure duration, number of passes, route of SBE, findings, and/or treatment showed no significant correlation with presence of hyperamylasemia. Conclusions: SBE appears to be a safe diagnostic endoscopic procedure. The incidence of hyperamylasemia and pancreatitis after peroral SBE seems comparable to that after DBE.
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1243931, hdl.handle.net/1765/19695|
Aktas, H, de Ridder, L, Haringsma, J, Kuipers, E.J, & Mensink, P.B.F. (2010). Complications of single-balloon enteroscopy: A prospective evaluation of 166 procedures. Endoscopy, 42(5), 365–368. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1243931