Gastroenterology division, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
Bangkok, 10700, Thailand
NCT Number: NCT06574542
Melena is often caused by upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding; therefore, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the first preferred diagnostic tool. However, EGD fails to identify the bleeding source in about 25% of cases. Guidelines recommend colonoscopy for the subsequent investigation. However, the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy is reportedly low, varying from 4.76% to 35%. Even when EGD and colonoscopy have been performed, 4% to 15% of bleeding cases remain unexplained, suggesting small bowel origins. While video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is recommended due to its high diagnostic yield and noninvasive nature, its limitations include missing proximal small bowel lesions due to rapid transit and the inability to perform therapeutic interventions. Push enteroscopy (PE) is a straightforward, cost-effective technique with a reported 30% to 50% diagnostic success rate for such obscure GI bleeding. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic yield of PE compared to colonoscopy in patients presenting with melena, no hematemesis, and negative EGD results.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Bangkok, 10700, Thailand
Melena is generally attributed to bleeding from the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) serving as the primary diagnostic tool. However, EGD fails to detect bleeding sources in approximately 25% of cases, necessitating further investigation into potential mid-to-lower GI bleeding. Current guidelines recommend performing a colonoscopy in patients with melena and a negative EGD result before exploring small bowel sources. The effectiveness of colonoscopy in identifying bleeding sources varies significantly, with large-scale studies indicating a low detection rate of around 4.76%, while smaller studies report higher rates, ranging from 23% to 35%.
Despite thorough evaluations using both EGD and colonoscopy, the cause of overt GI bleeding remains unidentified in 4% to 15% of cases, prompting consideration of small bowel bleeding. Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is often recommended in this situation due to its high diagnostic yield and noninvasive nature. However, VCE has limitations, such as missing proximal small bowel lesions and the inability to provide therapeutic interventions.
Push enteroscopy (PE) offers an alternative approach for investigating obscure GI bleeding. This straightforward endoscopic technique, which most gastroenterologists can perform without specialized equipment, is cost-effective and diagnostically efficient, with yields ranging from 30% to 50%. Utilizing PE in patients with melena and a negative EGD may help avoid unnecessary procedures like colonoscopy and VCE, ultimately reducing treatment costs.
This study aims to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of push enteroscopy (PE) and colonoscopy in patients presenting with melena, no hematemesis, and negative EGD results.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
All patients enrolled in this study underwent evaluation using push enteroscopy (PE)
After push enteroscopy (PE), all patients subsequently underwent a colonoscopy on the same day or the next day. However, if a culprit lesion was identified during PE and the patient was considered at risk for undergoing colonoscopy, the colonoscopy was not performed and was presumed to be negative.
Time frame: 30 day
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of push enteroscopy in patients presenting with melena, without hematemesis, and with a negative EGD.
Time frame: 30 day
This study also aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in the same patient population: those presenting with melena, without hematemesis, and with a negative EGD
Mahidol University
Other
The Diagnostic Yield of Push Enteroscopy in Patients With Passing Melena Without Hematemesis, With Nondiagnostic EGD : A Multicenter Study
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06297954
Digestive System Diseases, Gastrointestinal Diseases
Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico
View Trial DetailsNCT03955055
Digestive System Diseases, Gastro Intestinal Bleeding
Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03028064
Digestive System Diseases, Gastrointestinal Diseases
Hong Kong, HONG KONG, China
View Trial DetailsNCT02442830
Digestive System Diseases, Gastrointestinal Diseases
Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
View Trial Details