P032 Clinical Usefulness of Double Balloon Enteroscopy in Patients With Established or Suspected Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of isolated small bowel Crohn’s disease (CD) can be challenging. Symptoms are non-specific and both imaging and capsule endoscopy (CE) may be misleading as several diseases may mimic CD. Double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) allows a more extensive endoscopic and histologic evaluation of the small bowel. Our aim was to describe the diagnostic utility and impact of DBE on management of patients with known CD and in patients with suspected/rule-out CD. METHODS: Retrospective review of our institution’s DBE database from February 2009 to May 2013. Adult patients referred for DBE for further evaluation of known or suspected CD (due to symptoms, abnormal imaging and/or CE) were included. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, imaging and CE results, prior DBE, indication for DBE, DBE findings, DBE adverse events, pathology findings, final diagnosis, treatment prior and post DBE and follow-up DBE were abstracted from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were included, 61 (56%) females, mean age 52 years (range 20-83). Indications for DBE included: disease activity assessment/therapeutic in 10 patients with established diagnosis of CD and for diagnostic purposes in 98 patients with suspected CD (31 patients due to abnormal imaging, 29 due to abnormal CE and 26 due to both abnormal imaging and CE). Upper, lower, bidirectional upper and lower, and stomal DBE were performed in 21, 24, 62 and 1 patients, respectively. DBE revealed active disease in 8/10 patients with known CD with one patient undergoing dilation of a stricture. Changes in management were recommended for all patients with active disease – start thiopurine (2), optimize thiopurine dose (1), start biologics (3) change biologics (1), systemic steroids (1) and budesonide (1). The patient who underwent stricture dilation ultimately required surgery. A definitive diagnosis of CD (both endoscopic and histologic) was reached in only 39/98 (40%) patients who were referred for suspected CD. Changes in management were recommended in 32/39 (82%) patients. Interestingly, 24/98 patients had been diagnosed with CD at outside institutions and were recommended to initiate therapy for CD. Of these, CD was confirmed in only 15/24 (63%) patients. Adverse events included perforation in 1 patient (1%) who required surgical management and mouth swelling/abrasion in 3 patients (3%). Follow-up DBE to re-assess disease activity was performed in 10/49 (20%) patients with definitive diagnosis of CD, average time between procedures 4.5 years (range 0.7-11.6). One patient with CD was diagnosed with lymphoma 2.4 years after initial DBE. Changes in management were recommended in 6 patients: de-escalation of therapy (3, two underwent surgery), start thiopurine and/or biologic (2) and switch biologics (1). No complications were seen at follow-up DBE. CONCLUSION: DBE is a useful technique to confirm a diagnosis in patients who have suspected CD and can help establish a diagnosis of several diseases that may mimic CD on CT scan or CE. Additionally, DBE in patients with established diagnosis of small bowel CD is an effective tool to assess disease activity and guide therapy. Serious complications are infrequent.