Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2016
Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy and Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Colonoscopy for the Management of Crohn's Disease.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
García-Bosch O, Ordás I, Aceituno M, Rodríguez S, Ramírez A M, Gallego M, Ricart E, Rimola J, Panes J
Аннотация
AIMS: The objective of the current study was to compare two patient assessment strategies using colonoscopy and MRI alternatively as first- and second-line examinations.
METHODS: Clinical data, endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of 100 patients diagnosed with ileocolonic Crohn's disease (CD) performed within 1 week were blindly reviewed by 4 clinical investigators. Two investigators evaluated MRI followed by colonoscopy for 50 cases and the same examinations in reverse order for another 50 cases; the other 2 investigators evaluated the same cases switching the order of examinations. The assessments included the likelihood of the presence of inflammation, stenosis, fistula and abscess, and therapeutic recommendations.
RESULTS: Information from the first examination was considered sufficient for management in 80% of cases for MRI and only 34% of cases for colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Adding MRI to the information from colonoscopy changed the clinicians' confidence grade in a higher proportion of patients than adding colonoscopy to information from MRI for the diagnosis of disease activity (10 vs 4%, p = 0.03), stenosis (25 vs 9%, p < 0.001), fistula (31 vs 0%, p < 0.001) and internal abscess (27 vs 0%, p < 0.001). Indications for anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy (51 vs 37%, F = 0.006), and surgery (12 vs 5%, F = 0.019) were more frequent after MRI than after colonoscopy as first examination. As a second examination, MRI led to change in therapy in a higher proportion of patients than colonoscopy (28 vs 8%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In CD, information provided by MRI has a higher impact on patient management than colonoscopy and may be considered as a first-line examination for CD assessment.
METHODS: Clinical data, endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of 100 patients diagnosed with ileocolonic Crohn's disease (CD) performed within 1 week were blindly reviewed by 4 clinical investigators. Two investigators evaluated MRI followed by colonoscopy for 50 cases and the same examinations in reverse order for another 50 cases; the other 2 investigators evaluated the same cases switching the order of examinations. The assessments included the likelihood of the presence of inflammation, stenosis, fistula and abscess, and therapeutic recommendations.
RESULTS: Information from the first examination was considered sufficient for management in 80% of cases for MRI and only 34% of cases for colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Adding MRI to the information from colonoscopy changed the clinicians' confidence grade in a higher proportion of patients than adding colonoscopy to information from MRI for the diagnosis of disease activity (10 vs 4%, p = 0.03), stenosis (25 vs 9%, p < 0.001), fistula (31 vs 0%, p < 0.001) and internal abscess (27 vs 0%, p < 0.001). Indications for anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy (51 vs 37%, F = 0.006), and surgery (12 vs 5%, F = 0.019) were more frequent after MRI than after colonoscopy as first examination. As a second examination, MRI led to change in therapy in a higher proportion of patients than colonoscopy (28 vs 8%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In CD, information provided by MRI has a higher impact on patient management than colonoscopy and may be considered as a first-line examination for CD assessment.