Objective Evaluate the safety of propofol-assisted double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in elderly patients against a younger cohort.
Design Prospective cohort study
Setting All patients undergoing DBE over a 30-month period were recruited at our tertiary centre.
Patients 215 procedures in 161 patients were performed. An age cut-off of 65 years and above was used to define those who were elderly.
Interventions Patients were subcategorised into four groups: elderly or young undergoing DBE with propofol or conventional sedation (with midazolam±fentanyl).
Main outcome measures Patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural data, complications, diagnostic and therapeutic yield were compared.
Results Cardiovascular disease and a higher American Society of Anaethesiologists (ASA) status were more prevalent in elderly patients undergoing DBE with propofol (p<0.05). Common indications for DBE were occult and overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and suspected Crohn’s disease (elderly vs young: 50.7% vs 42.3%, 17.8% vs 12% and 19.2% vs 26.1%, respectively). Diagnostic yield was higher in elderly compared with young patients (75.3% vs 58.5%, p=0.016). The most common findings in elderly and young patients were angioectasia (30.1% and. 18.3%, respectively) and ulcers (17.8% and 9.2%, respectively), while therapeutic intervention rates were comparable (42.5% vs 32.4%, p=0.18). ASA status did not affect propofol dose (p=0.55) or procedure duration (p=0.31). Tolerance scores were favourable in those receiving propofol compared with conventional sedation (p<0.05). There was no difference in complications between the four groups (p=0.17).
Conclusion Compared with young patients, propofol-assisted DBE in the elderly is safe and has a high diagnostic yield.
- double balloon enteroscopy
- device assisted enteroscopy
- advanced endoscopy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors RS designed the study, assisted with interpretation of results and critically appraised the manuscript. H-LC performed data collection, led the analysis of data and drafted the manuscript. FB, DSS and DT performed data collection and critically appraised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript. H-LC is guarantor.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The study was registered and approved as service evaluation with the Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (registration number 7073).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.