Portal Hypertensive Enteropathy Diagnosed by Capsule Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients: A Nationwide Multicenter Study
- 370 Downloads
Background and Aim
Due to the limited data on portal hypertensive enteropathy (PHE), the prevalence of and clinical factors related to PHE remain unclear. This study determined the prevalence of PHE using capsule endoscopy (CE) and PHE-related clinical factors.
This was a retrospective multicenter study using the Capsule Endoscopy Nationwide Database Registry. From 2,879 cases that underwent CE, 45 cirrhosis patients with portal hypertension (PH) were enrolled and divided into PHE (n = 18) and non-PHE (n = 27) groups. From computed tomography (CT) images, six secondary changes due to PH were scored to give a total CT score of 0–6. The main outcome variable was the prevalence of PHE and PHE-related clinical factors.
The prevalence of PHE was 40 %. Comparing the PHE and non-PHE groups, the most common findings were angiodysplasias in 55.7 % (vs. 7.4 %, p = 0.001) and varices in 38.9 % (vs. 0 %, p = 0.001). Active bleeding was observed in 16.6 and 3.7 %, respectively, but this difference was not significant. In the univariate analysis, Child–Turcotte–Pugh class C (p = 0.002) and a high CT score (≥3 vs. <3, p = 0.004) were significantly associated with PHE. However, only a high CT score was significant in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio 11.19; 95 % confidence interval, 1.59-infinity; p = 0.040).
The prevalence of PHE was 40 %, and it might be more prevalent in cirrhosis patients with PH who have a high CT score. CE is a useful diagnostic tool for evaluating PHE in cirrhosis patients with PH.
KeywordsCapsule endoscopy Enteropathy Portal hypertension Liver cirrhosis
We gratefully and sincerely thank Ji Sung Lee, PhD, Biostatistical Consulting Unit, Soonchunhyang University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, who helped with the statistical analysis.
Conflict of interest
- 11.Chung JM, Seol SY, Jeong SJ, Choi SR, Choe HC. A study on endoscopic classification of esophageal varices. Korean J Gastroenterol. 1985;17:51–58.Google Scholar