Search

P418 Does capsule endoscopy impact clinical management in established Crohn’s Disease?

Elosua Gonzalez, A.(1);Rullan Iriarte, M.(1);Rubio Iturria, S.(2);Oquiñena Legaz, S.(2);Rodríguez Gutiérrez, C.(2);Macías Mendizábal, E.(2);Borda Martín, A.(2);Fernández-Urién Sainz, I.(2);Nantes Castillejo, Ó.(2);

(1)Hospital García Orcoyen, Gastroenterology, Estella, Spain;(2)Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Gastroenterology, Pamplona, Spain

Background

Capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has developed a relevant role in different indications in patients with established Crohn’s Disease (CD). However, evaluation of its impact in clinical management in CD specific modification strategies has been scarce. The purpose of our study was to question therapeutic impact of SBCE in an 11-year real-life cohort of established CD patients.

Methods

Retrospective single center study including all consecutive patients with CD submitted to SBCE from January 2008 to December 2019. Small bowel patency was evaluated with patency capsule in selected patients. A conclusive procedure was defined as the one that allowed clinical decision-making. Mucosal inflammation was graded as mild (few aphtoid ulcers), moderate (multiple aphtoid ulcers/isolated deep ulcers) or severe (multiple deep ulcers/stenosis). Therapeutic impact was defined as a change in CD related treatment including escalation, de-escalation, dose adjustment or referral to surgery recommended based on SBCE results within the next 3 months after the SBCE. Patients were assigned to four groups regarding CE indication: staging, flare, post-op and remission (fig 1).


.

Results

From the 432 CE performed, 378 (87.5%) were conclusive and allowed clinical decision-making. SBCE results guided changes in 51.3% of patients: 199 (46.1%) with escalation and 23 (5.3%) with de-escalation of treatment. Active disease was present in 310 (71.8%) patients; 131 (30.3%) presented mild, 126 (29.2%) moderate and 53 (12.3%) severe activity. Disease activity demonstrated by SBCE correlated with therapeutic changes. With mild activity 24.1% increased therapy, whereas 77.8% and 84.9% increased therapy with moderate or severe disease, respectively (p<0.001). De-escalation was conducted in 12.8% patients with mucosal healing and 6.1% with mild disease but not in moderate or severe activity (p<0.001). Treatment before and after SBCE is shown in the table.


Conclusion

SBCE is a safe and useful tool when approaching established CD patients guiding therapeutic management in a real-life setting. Its positive impact does not limit to treatment escalation but also helps to de-escalate in patients who can benefit from it.

Portal