Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Double balloon enteroscopy is a new technique that enables deep intubation of the endoscope into the small bowel lumen. Through a channel in the endoscope, invasive procedures such as biopsy, polypectomy and hemostasis can be performed, avoiding the need for surgery.

Objectives: To prospectively analyze our results of the first 124 DBEs[1] performed since February 2007.

Methods: The study group comprised all patients who underwent DBE at the Sheba Medical Center between February 2007 and February 2009. Recorded were the patients' demographic data, comorbidities, indications for the examination, results of previous non-invasive small bowel imaging (computed tomography enterography, capsule endoscopy, etc), investigation time, and results of the procedure including findings, endoscopic interventions, complications and pathological report.

Results: A total of 124 procedures were performed in 109 patients. Of the 124 examinations, 57 (46%) were normal and 67 (54%) showed pathology. The main pathologies detected on DBE were polyps (14%), vascular lesions (17.6%) and inflammation (12%). Endoscopic biopsies and therapeutic interventions were required in 58 examinations (46%). A new diagnosis was established in 15% of patients, diagnosis was confirmed in 29% and excluded or corrected in 12%. One complication was observed: a post-polypectomy syndrome that was treated conservatively.

Conclusions: DBE is a safe procedure and has a high diagnostic and therapeutic yield. Most of the examinations were performed under conscious sedation, and only a minority of patients required deeper sedation. 

Background: Current treatment for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in patients with peptic disease is based on the combination of antibiotic and anti-acid regimens. Multiple combinations have been investigated, however no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal duration and medica­tions.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy of two treatment regimens in patients with peptic ulcer disease and non-ulcer dyspepsia, and to determine the need for gastric mucosal culture in patients failing previous treatment.

Methods: Ninety patients with established peptic ulcer and NUD (with previously proven ulcer) were randomly assigned to receive either bismuth-subcitrate, amoxycillin and metrnida­zole (8AM) or lansoprasole, clarithromycine and metronida­zole (LCM) for 7 days. Patients with active peptic disease were treated with ranitidine 300 mg/day for an additional month.

Results: Eradication failed in 8 of the 42 patients in the 8AM group and in 2 of the 43 patients in the LCM group, as determined by the ¹³C urea breath test or rapid urease test (19% vs. 5%, respectively, P=0.05). Five of these 10 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with lansoprazole, amoxycillin and clarithromycin (LAC) regardless of the culture obtained, and the other 5 patients were assigned to treatment with lansoprazole and two antibacterial agents chosen according to a susceptibility test. Eradication of H. pylon was confirmed by the ‘³C urea breath test. The same protocol (LAC) was used in all patients in the first group and in four of the five patients in the second group. The culture results did not influence the treatment protocol employed.

Conclusions: Combination therapy based on proton pump inhibitor and two antibiotics is superior to bismuth-based therapy for one week. Gastric-mucosal culture testing for sensitivity of H. pylon to antibiotics is probably unnecessary before the initiation of therapy for patients with eradication failure.